A generally amusing Freddy adventure. My favorite line: "Mr. Bleech was a pretty mean man. Anyway, nobody in his senses would expect a kind action from a man who would steal from a rhinoceros."
Brooks had such a gift for gentle and humorous characterization that I wish he had had a stronger editor. I would enjoy the books about twice as much if somebody had red pencilled his compulsive and relentless use of "pretty" as an intensifier (see above quote)! I drop them when reading the books to my six year old son.
My favorites: "Freddy the Politician" (unfortunately, this volume has lost its original title, "Wiggins for President," the best title Brooks ever came up with!), "Freddy the Detective," "Freddy and the Ignormus." "Freddy goes to Florida," the first and perhaps easiest, is a good start for younger children.

I have read these books, the entire series, all 18 or so of them, once every 3-4 years for the last 2 decades, and I love them all! Having them republished is a great boon to the world! This one in particular is just vintage Freddy, it doesn't strand out for any particular reason, just excellent like the rest.

Romping good fun and sharply satirical. Fielding has none of the puritanical prejudices of his contemporary and rival Samuel Richardson.Rather he gives a graphic, humourous and insightful glimpse of eighteenth century rural shannanigans. Both stories are to some extent a response to Richardson's goodie goodie novel Pamela or Virtue Rewarded, Shamela in fact so much so- mimicking then epistulatory narrative and burlesquing the characters and style of the original novel- that you'll miss most of the jokes unless you've read Richardson first. Jospeh Andrews is far more substantial and rewarding containing the full range both of Fielding's humour and social concerns. Vividly presenting the self-serving cynicism of English society his particular speciality lies in puncturing pomposity by comically abrupt opposistions between what his characters preach and practise. Detached, sarcastic and well-read Fielding somehow manages to mix slapstick with Homer, blend eupheimism with innuendo and mangle anyone that he has a grudge against. A novel of the road- if you liked this, you'll love Tom Jones.

I loved this book. The adventures of Joseph Andrews are colourful and riotous. Highly recommended! Shamela, however, is a lesser work. It is a bawdy caricature of Samuel Richardson's "Pamela". Amusing, but slight.

This is a fine but not in any sense grounbreaking book on consicousness and its neural basis. Neither the proposed mechanisms (although we must consider some of the ideas have been there since 1994) nor the philosophical position are new. Brooks, in short, solves the mind body problem by means of identity claims. That is, neuronal activity just is consicousness.Brooks then mantains that current imput combined with memory hierarchies, through a competition among neural imputs, is consicousness because of the identity claim, and that consicousness contents are formed by elemental "consciousness cores", the single smaller units that are consicousness.

Now, the thing is, that identity between neuurons and consciousness must hold at some level, just as Brooks says, for materialism to hold. (I do not exclude some kinds of emergentisms, or consciousness field theories, wholly materialistic.) Consicousness and neurons are different ways of knowing the same phenomenon, one in the first and the other in the third person perspective, just as the heads and tails of a coin are different ways (depending on position and viewpoint, inferior and superior surfaces) of knowing the same phenomenon. But the explanatory Gap cannot rest that easily. This seems obvious from the fact that even materialists aknowledge a problem of consicousness. This is so because identity does not explain by virtue of what the phenomenon has the consicous properties it has (although arguably identity thesis require no explanation, see Papineau's work). A coin is the way it is because the way it is designed, but the neurons are consicousness because of what? This seems a nonsense question, but in fact, since some neuurons are consicous and others are not
(those that without them someone is unconsicous), and a neuron in a dish is probably not consicous, and in deep sleep neurons are there but not consicousness, some group of sufficient and necessary neural conditions must hold for there to be consicousness. What these may be, Brooks does not tell us.

The closest he comes is in saying that memory must be involved. He even claims consicousness and memory might be in the same neurons. However, neuropsychology says otherwise. Totally amnesic patients can be nevertheless quite consicous. Philosophically, Brooks also shows his ignorance of the modern consicousness debate. Although not in principle bad, it seems strange to use as philosophical support Locke and Kant, dead for hundreds of years now. Brooks critique of representationalism as holding that some kind of picture must be in the head is badly mistaken. Modern representationalism avoids every problem BRooks points out it has.(see Tye's work) Some of his concepts seem strange (what is the evidence for consciousness cores?these just seem to be there to take on the explanatory burden), and for example, his taking of perception, sensation, meaning and consicousness to be the same thing, or that consicousness may be in nerve cells in the body, seems more problematic than helpful (not to mention very hard to argue in favour of).

Not everything is bad news for Brooks, however. His solution of the binding problem by means of "synechdoches", (binding is an illusion that the brain creates after perceiving closely tied and temporally and spatially associated units in a scene or object) is quite interesting, and his all-the-way identity theorist postition is remarkably common sensical. There is no homonuculus, free will is an illusion, and the self is a certain content of consicousness. However, Brooks also explains why it seems there is free will, a self and a homonuculus, and this is also a nontrivial thing.

The truth is that this book is a good example of a theorist that takes indentity between neurons and consicousness seriously, but also that ignores a wide body of neurobiological, neuropsychological, cognitive, and philosophical evidence that could help him making his point clearer, and help him find flaws in his reasoning. That neurons at some level are consicousness cannot be genuinely doubted, but this in itself makes little progress towards understanding consiousness.

This book fills an important need for an easily understood discussion of consciousnes that is not overly technical or spooky. Dr. Brooks helps the reader understand the mind as the operation of entirely natural processes. This is important because there is a wide gap between the ideas about consciousness held by specialists and the general public. Neuroscientists and philosophers tend to regard the mind and consciousness as natural brain processes, while American culture is strongly and deeply influenced by ancient traditions asserting that the mind is a mysterious entity that exists outside the material world. According to this popular view, the mind may be part of a supernatural soul, or something else that will never be understood by science. This book argues that "consciousness is identical with brain activity."

Besides general readers, who can understand this book without previously studying theories of consciousness, it can also be rewarding to those who have read widely about consciousness. It presents a unique approach to consciousness based on Dr. Brooks's long-term interest in the subject and his extensive studies and experiences as a practicing psychoanalyst. He presents a specific identity theory of consciousness, describing its relationship to what he calls "consciousness cores" and meaning. His idea of consciousness cores as basic elements of consciousness emphasizes the fundamental importance of sensory experiences in forming consciousness. The book is filled with valuable insights on such topics as attention, perception, the unconscious, the self, synecdoche, memory hierarchies, free will and volition, and others.

Besides presenting his own approach to consciousness, Dr. Brooks discusses alternative theories and his reasons for rejecting them. In discussing his theory, he describes phychological phenomena and sometimes gives possible physiological mechanisms by which the functions are carried out. He points out the particular difficulty in describing how consciousness works: There are no entirely satisfactory analogies to be made with consciousness since it is basic to all our experiences, and nothing else occupies a similar position. As is normally the case with identity theories, this book's does not explain the basic reason why the activity of neurons (or some neurons) is identical with consciousness. At present, however, this seems to be the state of the art. No one has given a really convincing explanation of why this is so. Cosequently, we should not be too critical of this book for failing to do so.

Although readers may sometimes disagree with Dr. Brooks, they will benefit by comparing his insights to their own ideas. In conclusion, I believe a broad audience can learn more about their nature as human beings by reading this book. I strongly recommend it.

Kenneth Anger once described Louise Brooks as "one of the loveliest visions ever to grace a screen", and his description should be taken as gospel. Louise was a shimmering beauty, but she was more than that: she was an opinionated, intelligent, thoughtful human being who knew that Hollywood breeds crap and who believed in film as art. . .positions she ultimately couldn't reconcile. Who couldn't love Lulu?

A good companion to the movie Pandora's Box

Mr Brooks has writen a book looking at the supposed short comings of men from a traditional background. It holds strongly to feminist theory and therefore only allows an apology for the stance that, so called, traditional men hold. This book will date quickly in the light of more current masculist theory as Mr Brooks draws heavily from the usual lists of feminist writers. The title does not give a good indication of what may be expected in the book. Three stars because it may actually start a debate on what men need in psychotherapy.

Men who have absorbed traditional male values through the socialization process are both hindered and helped by their value systems. Although much about the traditional male value system is positive and therefore should be preserved, some of the rules many men were taught to live by prevent them from being able to benefit from psychotherapy as it is usually practiced. Dr. Brooks offers a therapeutic model that is sensitive to the effects of traditional male socialization and uses respect and empathy to facilitate psychotherapy with the large segment of the male population who still hold very traditional values. This book is a valuable addition to the library of psychotherapists who work with men from all walks of life.

Brook Thomas is an English professor, not a legal scholar, and, although much of his work deals with intersections between law and literature, he tends to be more discerning as to literature and social issues than regarding the law. While his Plessy v. Ferguson gives a competent overview of the case and its context, this book is not his strongest work by a long shot. I have had success teaching this book in conjunction with Twain's Pudd'n'head Wilson, and its brief documentary history works well to get students up to speed. But it has a distinctly text-bookish quality that would make it something of a drag in any but the classroom setting.

Thomas has done yeoman service in his editing of this volume on the Plessy v Ferguson case. Sure, we all know "separate but euqal," but there was so much more, and Thomas covers it succinctly and completely. As part of the Bedford Series in History and Culture this volume looks at Plessy through a collection of original period documents with thoughtful, but to-the-point analytical introductions. Within a small number of pages is included not only the entire opinion of the Court, but also legal and social backgrounds for the case and race relations in America. Also covered in the volume are reactions to the case from general newspapers, the legal community, and African American intellectuals, and the impact of the case as seen from the first decade of the 20th century. It even has a wonderful timeline of pertinent events to help orient the progress of the case. It will probably not be fascinating to the casual reader of history-if your tastes tend more to the straight narrative, you may find this volume frustrating. But if you want to really understand Plessy's "separate but equal" argument and where it came from, this is the volume for you.

Prince is the Wing's top center. He is also known for his game on the court. When he makes the school basketball team should he stay with the sport he knows and loves or play the sport that everyone thinks he should play?

Prince is the Wolfbay Wings best Center. He makes great passes on the ice and on the basketball court. His school asks him to play on their basketball team, but Prince isn't sure what sport to pick? Read this book and find out what he ends up doing.

This book and the other Wolfbay Wings books are great for young hockey fans or players. I enjoyed them.

One of the most intriguing possibilities one can surrender to is the notion of how history may have differed if consequences were altered. The Reconstruction Presidents examines the lives of the 4 men faced with the challenge of tightening the newly formed knot of the once more Unified States. Beginning with Lincoln, who may have had the vision of the plan before a precise bullet wound dimmed it, Simpson ponders how reconstruction may have begun under Lincoln's reign. With the abrupt arrival of Andrew Johnson and his blatently racist views, reconstruction was lost during these formidable years. The torch passed to Ulysses Grant, who lives in infamy as one of the nation's least effective presidents. He was forced to clean up the damage and mistrust done by Johnson and unify not only blacks and whites, but political and demographic groups alike avoiding the chance of offending any particular group. Simpson poses the question, if Grant had not been in office, who would have and where would the country have gone? I enjoyed the notion of perhaps reanalyzing Grant's presidency. The least known, Rutherford B. Hayes, some would say was the benefactor of a nation willing to surrender and come together. Simpson presents a man who may not be remembered in history by the common citizen, but makes him no less important. An interesting viewpoint on a debated subject.

Simpson makes us wonder what Lincoln's post-war policies would have been, had a carriage accident kept him from his appointment at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865. How would he have resolved the conflict between two of his goals, reconciling the (white) elites of North and South on the one hand, protecting the newly freed men and women on the other? What would "reconstruction" have meant to him? In his second inaugural address, Lincoln spoke of "malice toward none" and "charity for all." But that is an aspiration, not a program. Would it have been possible to act in a way that both the old plantation aristocracy and their former chattels would have regarded as charitable?! Simpson reminds us that by the end of 1865, President Johnson and the Republican Party had gone their separate ways. The leaders of the party, firmly in control of Congress, theorized that the states that had seceded had committed a sort of juridical 'suicide' and could only be restored to life when it, the Congress, thought they had proven their fitness. In the meantime, military occupation and control would continue. That was a difficult policy to pursue, though, if the commander in chief of that military thought reconstruction ought to end, the freedmen left to their fate in the face of the Klan. Congress tried to address this situation by ensuring that it had in the President's cabinet a friendly secretary of war, thus short-circuiting the chain of command. Johnson is in many ways the "heavy" of Simpson's reading of the period. Simpson is, accordingly, sympathetic to the difficulties faced by the leaders of that Congress and to their eventual decision to end those difficulties through the extraordinary process of impeachment and trial. All in all, this is not a perfect, but it is a fascinating, book.

Hi, This book is not a breviary or book of liturgy. It contains commentary on the divine office, instructions on praying the divine office and other essays. It actually does not have the liturgy in it. You can piece together the psalms and canticles from the commentary, but there's no hymns or other parts of the Hour. You need a book of liturgy to use this book. I'm not sure how good the commentaries are, I haven't read them yet. They may be quite good, but you still need another book to pray the Divine Office.

This small volume is a superb book, and I have given several copies to family members and fellow parishioners. The introductory chapters give a thorough explanation of the purpose and meaning of the Liturgy of the Hours, stressing that the Divine Office is intended for ALL Christians, not just the clergy, and not just Catholics. If only more Christians were aware of what a treasure we have in the Liturgy of the Hours!
To those not familiar with the Psalms, the introductory chapters give an excellent summary of this ancient and enduring form of prayer. Coming to the Divine Office as a lay person, I found Part 1 of this book provided an excellent foundation on which to build. At the end of Part 1, there is a helpful glossary and suggestions for further reading. Part 2 is a commentary, based on the structure of the complete Liturgy of the Hours found in the four volume set (Catholic Book Publishing Co. in the U.S.). I find the commentary is very sound and insightful, and helps deepen my appreciation for the Liturgy of the Hours.
Although this book is designed to accompany the full four volume set of the Liturgy of the Hours, it can easily be used by those using shorter breviaries, such as "Christian Prayer" or those who use the periodical "Magnificat". As the author says,"This book is written for all who are learning to pray". In this time of trial for our nation and the world, I believe the Liturgy of the Hours to be an indispensable help; this book serves as an excellent introduction.

Shark is one of the worst players and is part of the infamous Spaz line. When he is needed to fill in for someone. He scores the winning goal with a beautiful play. He thought it was a fluke. Now the rest of his teammates expect him to play better. He isn't improving and they are freezing him out. Can he reagin their respect?

Shark is not a good player he is slow but the Wolfbay Wings need him to fill there roster. One day Shark scores a goal that wins the game. Know the rest of the team expect him to keep getting better, and they're gettin mad when he messes up. What will he do?

The Wolfbay Wings books are great for young hockey fans and players. I enjoyed these books.