A mildly engaging story about a Southern bar band called Anything Goes told from the point of view of Jesse, the bands' 20-something guitar player. We follow the band as they travel from dive to dive, losing members, gaining members and finding their groove.

Since Jesse is the narrator, the focus is mainly on him: his relationship with his formerly abusive, alcoholic father, his crush on Estelle, the band's new lead singer and his attempts to sort out his post-adolescent angst regarding family, women and music. The other band members don't feature too prominently and aren't very well-developed, although the book would have been more interesting if they were. Nor did Bell delve too deeply in Jesse's past relationship with his dad. There's also a little "surprise" relationship involving Estelle and Jesse's dad, but unless you're really thick, it won't come as much of a shock.

It seemed to me that something was missing from this story. Maybe it was the shallowness of the characters, maybe it was the meandering nature of the novel; there was no real plot, just a succession of gigs at roadhouses up and down the East coast. It was, however, a convincing depiction of life with a bar band, and that managed to hold my interest enough until the rather lackluster ending.

"Anything Goes" drifts along, raveling out the thread of its story in a leisurely style that's at once engaging and attractive. Taking place over a year and in many locales, "Anything Goes" introduces us to Jesse, a disaffected and somewhat bitter young man traveling through his life as a member of a band called...you guessed it...Anything Goes. As a band name, the title [is bad].... But as a theme for the novel it works quite well.

Jesse, abandoned as a child by his mother and physically abused by his father, has become a man who doesn't expect good things from the world. As he matures throughout the pages of this book, he discovers himself in ways that are both subtle and poignant. This is a quiet story that stays with you long after you've read it...and I recommend giving it a read!

Filled with themes of identity, family, and maturity, Bell's thirteen book takes place over a year, following a Nashville-based cover band as they travel down the eastern seaboard and up into Vermont, playing roadhouses a few weeks at a time. Jesse is their bassist, and for him, the ritual of being on the road creates a sense of security and family, since his mother abandoned him soon after birth, and his alcoholic father beat him all through childhood. Jesse is happy to follow the warm weather around, playing music, scoring occasional women, and then hanging out at band leader (and surrogate father figure) Perry's farm during the off-season.

This steady existence is skewed somewhat when Jesse's father shows up clean and sober, and looking for reconciliation. Part of this involves introducing him to a neighbor whose singing knocks his socks off. Soon enough, she's in the band, and they have great and greater success, all while Jesse struggles to identify his feelings for her and hers for him. Nothing earth-shattering happens in the book, but the relationships and issues are all captivating and feel true to life. Jesse 's mother was a Melungeon (a dark mysterious Appalachian people whose origins are unknown) and the band's drummer is black, allowing Bell to touch on racial identity issues here and there as the band drifts though white-trash venues all through the South. The towns, bars, and motels all spring from the page as real places, with history and grit to them.

Over the course of the year's cycle, Jesse comes to terms with his past, his heritage, and his future in a very non-soap opera way. This book could have easily drifted into sappiness (think Oprahish) and never quite does. The last portions get a touch heavy-handed, but never so much as to spoil the easygoing tone of the book. Musicians may especially enjoy this book as there is a great deal of language attempting to describe how Jesse feels about hearing and playing music, and how it infects his whole being. One last note, the first chapter originally appeared as a short story in the "It's Only Rock And Roll" anthology.

Madison goes on and on about silly grown men scampering after noxious beasts. Who has legal possesion? Who cares? After the first chapter I started daydreaming about the month I spent in Turkey held captive by a syphillitic transvestite ENT doctor.

Extremely good coverage of real estate transactions, from simple to very complex. Excellent analysis of tax aspects and tax shelters.

Mike Madison scores again in this powerful tome of the seedy underworld of high-stakes real estate finance.

Madison expertly develops the characters into flesh and blood beings, capable of executing the most complex of transactions. I especially enjoyed the scene between Wally and his landlord Lon, when Lon confronts Wally on the courthouse steps, and explains how the conditional limitation clause in his lease has saved the day. I don't want to give away the end, but let's just say that Wally and Lon DO meet again - when Lon successfully brings summary proceedings! Amazing!

There is precious little permissive waste in this book, fortunately. However, reading about Tom Tenant page after page can wear one out.

In short, I would recommend this book to nearly anyone. I would recommend reading it in one hour, twenty minute intervals, with a break of at least 15 minutes somewhere in the middle.

Before reading this work, I looked upon it as very promising. Read, in contrast the vast majority of other historians of the era, proposes to analyze and contrast the political philosophies of four major early Americans by examining their views on the relationship between power and liberty. Thus, the author is also in effect transcending the trite republicanism/liberalism dichotomy that has domincated scholarship for decades by returning to the methodology used by the great Bernard Bailyn. Unfortunately, the author ultimately fails to execute.

Madison is the first thinker that he discusses, and along with the chapter on Wilson, this is the highlight of the book. He effectively argues that Madison was a much more consistent thinker than past scholars have made him out to be. While Madison's transformation from an ally to Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention to a strong opponent several years later has long puzzled historians, Read demonstrates the consistenty that he maintained in both positions as related through his interpretation of the Constitution and the public's understanding and perception of it. In addition to this, he also undertakes the strangely neglected task of comparing Madison with Hamilton. This however, leads the first major downfall of the study, viz. his unsound analysis of Hamilton.

To begin with, even the subtitle of this chapter is enough to arouse one's suspicions. Hamilton is characterized as a "Libertarian and nationalist." The later appelation is certainly undisputable, but the former is clearly absurd to anyone who has any idea what libertarianism actually entails. Throughout the chaper, Hamilton's supposed commitment to liberty and other traditional Whig or republican principles is given far too much emphasis with far too little substantive evidence. Along with this, Hamilton's views on Constitional and economic policy are given a shallow, sympathetic treatment, while other aspects of his life and thought are either ignored or merely glossed over. This of course, largely serves to vitiate the very promising contrast of Hamilton with Madison that he conducts.

Nevertheless, the chapter on James Wilson is quite valuable, especially since he, unlike the other 3 figures dealt with, has been prodominantly ignored by modern scholars. He shows that while Wilson was as committed to the concept of popular sovreignty as Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the proper manner to systemize this was primarily through the Federal government. Hence, Wilson, like Hamilton, was a proponent of "energetic government," because he viewed it as the proper systemization of the "energy" of the sovereign people.

Although the chaper on Hamilton was bad, that dealing with Jefferson is worse. Read, quite correctly, recognizes throughout the work that Jefferson, (unlike Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson) viewed power and liberty as polar opposites, with every increase of power entailing a proportionate decrease in liberty. T Surprisingly , however, his actual analysis of his thought is among the worst that I have ever read. He seems to make a concerted effort to make his political philosophy as nebulous and contradictory as possible. Moreover, while he cites David N. Mayer's invaluable work on Jefferson's Constitutional thought, and even states that fellow scholar Michael Zuckert helped him with the work; he utilizes the flawed and inaccurate work of Lance Banning and Richard Matthews. As a result of this, he takes up the absurd contention that Jefferson was an agrarian who opposed capitalism, and thus Hamilton and his radical vision for a new economic order.

This view, in addition to being completely unfounded, also highlights the paucity of Read's sources. Such important works as Joyce Appleby's "Capitalism & A New Social Order" and Garret Sheldon's "The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson" are completely ignored.

While the analysis of Jefferson's thought is dramatically poor, perhaps the worst aspect of the work is the author's translation of views of each thinker to the politcal landscape of the late 20th century. For the first three thinkers, he manages to claim that their theories may actually be able to fit modern day circumstances. Jefferson, however, is excluded from this, given his radical views on power. In each case, he uses the common statist platitude that convictions formulated two centuries ago cannot apply to issues out of their temporal context. In the case of all of these men, even Hamilton, this argument is patently absurd, as their adherence to the principals of natural rights and liberty certainly make clear. As Jefferson once said, Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Consideration of this, among other Founding principles, has led even as staunch a Hamiltonian as Forrest McDonald to conclude the Founding Fathers would look upon the current government as tyrannical. As should be obvious, I view this work as very deeply flawed. Nevertheless, given the proper author utilizing the same methodology, this could have been a truly fascinating and valuable piece of scholarship.

Recent scholarship has revealed a much more consistent 'Madison' than some historians have granted 'The Father of the Constitution'.Scholars Rosen, Banning, and Rakove have lead the way in this regard. Reads contribution although brief is as Rakove pointed out a deft work.By highlighting the concerns Madison held about the excresent powers of the Continental Congress, amidst the environment where the Congress was frustrated from performing the assigned tasks, revitalizes and reinforces the devotion Madison held for Constituional integrity reconciling the thoughts and actions of Madison in the 1780s, to the 1790s. It is only wished this essay could be expanded, and that the author could apply a more expanded study on Madison's contributions.

Dr. James Read was a recent guest on National Public Radio. His scholarship is evident, but what he has written here is a very "user-friendly" exploration of the early American debate on the role of government, which is as pertinent today as it was in 1776.
Dr. James Read has given us a highly readable, as well as well researched, look at a question which all Americans ponder: "Is big government antagonistic to individual rights and liberties?" The discussion is framed in the context of those early American thinkers who initially set up the American system of government with an especial emphasis on Jefferson and Hamilton.
This is a very readable book that is written in straightforward prose. It presents a nice, concise history of America's early philosophical public policy issues, its greatest thinkers, and the debate in the 18th century about what form the American government would take. It is fascinating to read about the debates taking place in the hammering out of the United States' Constitution.
The book is organized into:
Power and Liberty (James Madison);
Libertarianism and nationalism (Alexander Hamilton);
Popular Sovereighty (James Wilson);
Liberty and States Rights (Thomas Jefferson).

Job 37:18 (NRSV) reads as follows:

"Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?"

Is the sky as hard as a metal mirror? (The NIV translates "molten mirror" as "burnished bronze." So does the KJV.) No. It isn't. Does this mean that the Bible isn't true? No. The Bible is the absolute, revealed truth about man's relationship with God, eternity, morality, etc. But the Bible is not a book about science. There are parts of the Bible that show an amazing pre-modern insight into the scientific realities that we've only discovered in our own time, like the Big Bang (creation ex nilo), the spherical shape of the earth, the thermodynamic decay of the universe, etc. But the Bible isn't primarily concerned about science. Trying to take every statement in the Bible in its absolute literal sense will just get you in trouble, as this verse from Job proves.

Morris has made a career out of advancing a slavishly literal reading of the Bible, and in the process devestated and divided many churches. Recently he has started advancing the KJV-Only doctrine, apparently having decided that he hasn't done enough damage already. The Bible itself doesn't support this kind of ultra-literal reading: Gen. 2:4 says the creation days are "generations" of heaven and earth, indicating that the creation hymn was symbolic! Even my Fundamentalist Sunday School teachers acknowledged that the Bible is to be taken symbolically when it itself calls a passage symbolic!

Leave Henry Morris alone. By your fruits you will know them, and Morris has born bitter fruit indeed!

This book is a very refreshing devotional. Take an exciting new look at the oldest book in the Bible - the ancient book of Job! Learn about how Job lived during the Ice Age and describes dinosours that he has seen (Beheemoth and Leviathon)! Henry Morris is a world famous Christian scientist, and this book is written as well as his many others. I highly recommend this book to any born-again Christian!

This book is a very refreshing devotional on the book of Job. It is written exceptionally well, just like every other work Henry Morris has published. Take a look at the wonderful book of Job from a new perspective. Examine both the scientific and theological aspects of Job. Learn about how Job describes the Ice Age (during which time he lived) and dinosaurs! I highly recommend this book to any born again Christian!

To those who believe that they can perform an exegetical lobotomy on the Bible and discard the first eleven chapters of Genesis this book comes as a disapointment.

Morris takes us through the many passages in the Bible that speak about creation, the curse and the flood, from Genesis to Revelation, including the teachings of Jesus, the disciples and the apostle Paul. One cannot really make sense of any other of the central doctrines of the Bible, such as sin, death as a result of sin, the need for salvation, the physical encarnation of Jesus, His physical ressurection, the promise of a new heaven and earth without curse and death, apart from the doctrine of creation and the fall.

As I read this book I took the opportunity to read and mark all the quoted texts in my Bible and even found more interesting texts. I had never studied the biblical doctrine of creation before, and I must say that the simple reading of the relevant biblical texts is quite conclusive: theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism just cannot be made compatible with the Bible.

If Jesus, the creator Word, can get himself a new ressurected and special body in a matter of seconds, he can create the whole universe in six days. The opposite also makes total sense.

What's more, when Jesus multiplied the fishes and the loaves of bread and ressurected Lazarus, he didn't need trial and error nor randomness. He just did it right there. After all, the Bible makes it clear that he his the creator and sustainer of the universe, just by his Word. I just don't see why I should have more confidence in human scientists then in their creator.

It takes a lot of argumentative acrobatics to even try to harmonize the hipothesis of evolution with the Bible, but in the end it just won't work. The Bible presents a creator that knows exactly what to do and how to do it. Random mutations is just not his way of creating things. Nor mutations nor natural selection are able to generate all the complex specified information present in living organisms.

The reading of this book made it clear to me that there are good and irrefutable theological reasons to support the biblical model. It also made it clear to me that we are dealing with an whole powerful God that is not very impressed with the science of the guys at Harvard, MIT or Oxford. The Bible says, in the book of Eclesiastes, that there are things that God has done that will never be understood by human beings, no matter how hard they study them.

But what about scientific reasons? In my opinion, you have to start by accepting the biblical account by faith, puting aside all materialistic and antimetaphysical assumptions. No doubt about it. But it is not a blind faith. There are good a priori reasons to this faith. I don't advocate just any kind of blind faith.

But once you accept the biblical notions of special creation, fall, curse, flood, Babel, dispersion and speciation, you will find that it makes sense of the origins of matter and life, the fine tuning of the universe, the fossil record, living fossils, good and bad design, DNA, homology, mutations and natural selection, speciation, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, apes and men, cave men, the emergence of languages and races, the ice age, continental drift, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, etc.

Most of all, it makes sense of the rational, moral and spiritual nature of man and of his longing for God and for eternity.

I was surprised to see how low the average customer review for this text was, however on second thought this is a very contraversial exposition with some extreme views. The book espouses an early( about 4'000 years ago ) six day creation in which all things as we see them today were brought into being. As a Christian and a scientist, I grappled with this view for years.
But with my objective study of science and biology and research into the Creation versus Evolution contraversy I finally came to the conclusion, that this notion, far from being nonsensical, is very plausible, and in fact I,m convinced of it's veracity. It's true that many in our modern "enlightened" society would parochially dismiss it as mere fundamentalist propoganda, but these are merely the narrow-minded product of a society inculcated by a sensationalist, unproven, 100 year fad called evolution. My advice is to approach this book with an open mind, and don't let societal prejudice influence your subjective judgement. I would highly reccomend Scott M. Huse's book "The Collapse of Evolution", and Malcolm Bowden's book "Science versus Evolution" as scientific companions to this book.

This is not a science book, it is a Biblical commentary. As such it is thorough and comprehensive, and the author clearly has extensive Biblical knowledge and not inconsiderable Christian wisdom.

Certain individuals seem to make a hobby of rubbishing books they have not read by authors they dislike. This is an unfortunate irritant we must live with, alongside the benefit of internet book reviews.

Many Christians think that since science has 'proved' evolution, the Biblical creation account must be myth or allegory. However, by examining the many references to Genesis and Creation throughout the Bible, this book shows that such a view is not easy to reconcile with the scriptures. In fact, to anyone who holds that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, belief in evolution or an old earth is untenable.

Many people avoid the issue, by trying to come to some sort of compromise, or more likely, not thinking too much about it.

Be warned, this book could be dangerous. Armed with the Bible's references to a recent creation, you will soon reduce a progressive creationist to bluster and reference to scientific 'facts'. The more committed someone is to a compromise position, the more aggressive they are likely to be. Be careful talking to your vicar/pastor!

Understanding the reality of a recent 6-day creation, brings new understanding to the whole of God's Word, to the Gospel, and to evangelism.

Matthew specializes in pseudohistory books for New York's limousine liberal crowd. This book is a downright distortive pseudohistory that dwells on one Madison quote and inteprets Madison's whole political philosophy as some proto-authoritarian republican advocating a strong central government and "Machiavellian" politics to maintain "stability." The author essentially muddles his own socialistic, authoritarian philosophy on politics with that of James Madison. He tries to reintepret the history of the Presidency of Madison along these lines.

This work is truly goundbreaking. The comparison of the liberal/commercial views of James Madison with the radical democratic views of his close friend, Thomas Jefferson are truly enlightening. Matthews shows how Madison was closer to Hamilton than to Jefferson in political philosophy. Madison was obsessed with balance, and order in the liberal tradition. Jefferson,on the other hand, had a vision of radical democracy in the republic. Ward republics, and local democracy were infused into Jefferson's thought. Madison was more concerned with balancing the interests of society and controlling "factions". He viewed government from a more Hobbsian view than other Jeffersonians.Madison was far less trusting of human nature and more concerned with "stability" in society than with experiments in government. This book goes against the grain of current scholarship which unites Jefferson and Madison in philosophy when in fact in many ways they were poles apart. A great book.

If Men Were Angels is as "poor" a book as reviewer "Joseph (see more about me) Schulman" thinks, why is it that Gordon Wood gave it a favorable review in the New York Review of Books? Moreover, it received praise from several leading historians including Jack Greene and Forrest McDonald. Perhaps open minded readers might come to different conclusions about this book.

This book has nothing to do with science. Every time a scientific theory is discussed, Morris starts talking about his own faith and urges the reader to discard the stupid ideas you learned in science class and read your Bible again. For example, the order of creation. Morris points out that Genesis says the order of creation was (1) earth (2) sun, (3) moon, and (4) stars other than the sun. Okay, he's right, that is the order of Creation in the Bible. Then he goes off the deep end and says that the order of creation in the Bible makes more sense to him than the imaginary and unproven scientific theory that the stars existed before our earth did, and that the planets somehow spun off from older stars. Since the universe was created FOR man, it only makes sense (to Morris) that God chose to create the most complicated structure, the earth, before the less complicated structures (moon and stars.) For the neo-Creationists out there, the scientific theory says that the Big Bang initially created hydrogen and helium, and heavier elements like iron, carbon and oxygen were formed through a fusion process inside the extreme heat and pressure of a star, and then expelled by either a nova, or possibly a huge solar flare. Either way, a star had to go through enough of its life cycle to produce iron and then expel it, before our earth existed at all. Now, if you use this nonsense in a debate, they may not laugh at your face, but you know what they're thinking: this is why Christians complain that science is pushing religion out the back door. A better developed approach is Intelligent Design, but the underlying theme is the same. Let's teach those kids about the Bible in public schools, and get rid of those damn fool theories that contradict the Word of God. The simple truth is that we have learned a lot more about the universe since Genesis was written, and those ideas prove, beyond any doubt, that Genesis was neither written nor inspired by the Infinite Intellect that created the Universe by a mere act of Will. It was written by a desert nomad sitting in the desert, staring up at the stars and wondering, How did I get here?

This was the first creation book I have picked up and found it very useful in weighing the evidence presented in numerous school courses. Henry Morris looks straight at the facts of science and gives his own PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation within his framework, the Bible. It's within this framework that he claims science can best be interpreted. I performed a debate in Civics with this book and found no equal for Creation Science...

If you are not deeply into science or technology, don't be intimidated. This book presents an easy-to-read introduction to the relationship between the Bible and Science. Unlike the ignorant critics who would have us believe that the Bible was written by nomads, or who tell us that the Big Bang theory is fact (as if its major problems, or mainstream scientists who question or reject it, did not exist), this book sticks to scientific facts in presenting its case.

This is a book long on accounts of parties and gossipy tidbits and short on historical accounts Dolley must have felt real horror as the British approached but this was not really portrayed in the book. Her servants seemed much more frightened. Dolley was more concerned with the politics of the day than with actual living. Altogether this book would not be missed if not read

I have to say I was disappointed in this novel; I was looking for more detail on daily life and less imaginary cocktail parties and political history redone up as a novel. I doubt Dolly Madison thought or conversed as she is portrayed here. She is indeed a "dolly", puppet for a history lesson from Author Brown. It was a quick read and a fun view into American history so I give it 3 stars, but for style and substance, it's lacking.

Rita Mae Brown delivers again...recommended reading! Dolley has a good flavor of Madison's era. Fortunately its written as a novel and not a textbook, making it very readable and occasionally juicy. I found it to be a gentle way to get acquainted with - and interested in - early American history. Interested enough to go seek out Dolley Madison's memoirs and letters...too bad they are out of print :(

Most stories collected in this volume are interesting, although only half of them can be called detective stories, and few are really classics. There are 4 stories by Kaminsky, by Westlake, by Chandler and by Glaspell that are boring and make no sense, but overall quality is good, if one is not too peculiar about the detective-ness.

When I saw this, I wondered "how could I go wrong with Westlake as an editor?" Well, I forget how much detective fiction is inferior or more about crime than crime-fighting. So we get a very mixed bag. While stories by Simon Brett and Edward Hoch and Shirley Jackson stand out, others by acclaimed writers like Rex Stout and Ellery Queen fall flat. Some tales, especially one by Jack London, are barely readable, and the choice of Sherlock Holmes story for this anthology is uninspired. Still, most of what's here is entertaining and the good stuff begs for me to find more by the better writers.

Oxford University Press has been making a fetish out of publishing mystery anthologies over the last year, with the noirish "Hard-Boiled" deserving a place on any mystery reader's shelf, and "The Oxford Book of American Detective Stories" of somewhat more borderline quality. Now comes "Murderous Schemes," a cleverly designed book by Donald E. Westlake, a writer of mostly comic caper mysteries who is himself something of an institution.

What is ingenious about "Murderous Schemes" is that Westlake takes eight conventions of the mystery genre -- locked room, capers, armchair detectives and so on -- and picks four good stories to illustrate each, from an oldie but goodie to a hope-to-be classic. The result is an evenness of tone which the eight sections bob up and down like a steady sea wave. The book's organization also allows the reader to dive in according to his or her interests: fans of over-the-top mysteries can head directly to that section, while those who want to read all the latest stuff know exactly where to go.

What they will find in almost all cases are top-quality stories that are not solely limited to mystery writers. Alongside such standbys as Raymond Chandler, Rex Stout, Stanley Ellin and Lawrence Block are some effective choices from writers whose nefarious doings are rarely noted: Isak Dinesen, Roald Dahl, Jack London and Damon Runyon.

Weaknesses? Hardly any, although it's surprising to find Chandler's "I'll Be Waiting." It's a fine, taut tale, but the fellow's waiting also in Oxford's other two anthologies. Ellery Queen's "The Adventure of Abraham Lincoln's Clue" can also be found in "American Detective." And -- this is a personal quibble, mind you -- but I can do with a lot less of Edward D. Hoch's stories. His clue-filled stories are rarely memorable, and he seems to be praised more for his output (he's a monthly fix in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine) than for the quality of his work. Like Dr. Johnson's dog walking on its hind legs, it is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all.

Although the author's previous regency, The Scotsman and the Spinster wasn't half bad, the Sinister Spinster is. Bad.

Madison gives us a third rate murder mystery in regency dress. It is so badly done that she cannot even keep track of her own plot twists. And as to the regency dress, she knows little of the period and gets everything wrong, from forms of address to class distinctions. Oh, and the love story is the worst sort of emotionless, motiveless formula.

This novel is just chockfull with plot devises, never ending action, and tension that just never lets up. A country house party, agents for the Crown, a Russian prince who has his own personal agenda, spies, missing diplomatic papers, murder, and in the midst of all this a growing attraction between a clever and intrepid young woman, and an espionage agent who fears that the woman he is beginning to fall in love with may be arrested for treason if he doesn't unmask the real traitor in time -- "The Sinister Spinster" has everything!

Adam Darrach, the Marquess of Falconer, is at the Earl of Derrings country house party mainly to keep an eye on Prince Peter Alexander Bronyeskin, who seems to have the Grand Duchess's ear, and the English Foreign office is unsure as to just how much influence he has on the Czar, and to what effect he will use his influence. However he soon finds his attention centering on Miss Elizabeth Mattingale, Lady Derring's charming and witty, but much used companion. His interest in her is even more aroused when he realises that Elizabeth and Prince Alexi are old friends. Could Elizabeth and the Prince be working together for some more nefarious purpose? And then a few of the Earl's papers go missing, and suspicion falls on Elizabeth. The Marquess is outraged and vows to discover who the real thief is and protect her. But things soon take a more sinister turn when one of the guests is murdered. Again, Elizabeth is the chief suspect. And even the Marquess is beginning to wonder about Elizabeth -- is she as innocent as she seems or is she hiding her more sinister self under her charming facade? For the Marquess it is a case of his heart being at war with his brain. As for Elizabeth, much as she's beginning to fall for this very autocratic but entirely lovable Marquess, she realises that she cannot simply stand by and wait for her friends to absolve her of all crimes. And so Elizabeth resolves to try and discover who the murderer and the real spy is. Who will arrive at the truth first? Will Elizabeth and her Marquess finally come to an understanding with each other concerning their growing attraction for each other? Or will the spy-murderer implicate Elizabeth so deeply that there can be no hope for them?

"The Sinister Spinster" is really enjoyable read. With each new chapter, something happens to up the stakes for the real spy-murderer to be apprehended before Elizabeth is arrested for something she is quite innocent of. The tension is quite palpable. And the romance that develops gradually between the always in control Marquess and the very feisty Elizabeth, was a joy to read. I liked that the Marquess found his usual calmness deserting him at the thought of the danger that Elizabeth could be facing. I thoroughly enjoyed "The Sinister Spinster" and have no problem recommending it as a good read.

The problem with lumping all novels of a certain type into one conveniently labeled bin--Regency Romance, for instance--is that some novels have more to the plot than just the romance. If, like me, your preferences lean toward that sort of book, you'll probably find yourself liking those books that other readers sometimes do not, because of the lack of extreme sexual tension or love play on every page.

A terrific example of this plot-heavier book is 'The Sinister Spinster' by Carolyn Madison, a positively wonderful writer, no matter what name is on the cover as author. I've always found her research to be thorough and dependable, and I've especially liked her books with espionage as a major plot line. This reasonably new volume in the 'Spinster' series carries over at least a mention of some of the previous spinsters and the husbands they captured, along with introducing us to new ones of similar type.

Make no mistake. These 'Spinsters' are not your typical Regency misses, believe me! These ladies are well-educated, well-traveled, and in spite of their acquaintance with the 'ton' and all it's activities, are nobody's ninnies. Far from it.

A lady's companion is supposed to be seldom seen and never heard from, while running never-ceasing errands, whether real or conjured up to create busywork. Elizabeth Mattingale finds herself in this uncomfortable position, which she approaches as a trial effort. If she can successfully weather six months of Lady Derring, she'll then feel more willing to let her Grandmother find her a more demanding position. She's not sure what that might be, but it will certainly be more intellectually challenging than this one is.

Until, of course, Adam Darrach, Marquess of Falconer, arrives on the scene. As a member of the diplomatic corps, he's been assigned to secure the help of Lord Derring in catching a spy. He'll soon have his hands full, what with the youthful, gorgeous and very available Dowager Duchess of Barrington. Then there's Prince Alexi, known to be a confidante of the Grand Duchess, who is really the power behind the Russian throne, in spite of her brother, the Tsar, believing that he's the ruler. Adam is even more confused when Alexi and Elizabeth seem to be very old and very good friends.

Add in your usual mix of house party guests--not least the group of twenty-something young men, who think that serving women are all fair game--the close-to-the-sea location, making smuggling a more effective means of communication than the postal service, and you have most of the ingredients handy for a sometimes comic, sometimes tragic houseparty, complete with assignations by moonlight, stolen papers, and a mad dash after the escaping carriage, sure to contain the wanted spy!

The variety of tensions will keep you turning the pages with increasing enjoyment, as Adam and Elizabeth each achieve their own goals. Now, for Elinore's book! After all, even if she is a Duke's daughter, she's still a spinster!