This book is about the first journey of Lieve Joris to Africa. And in my opinion you can feel/read between the lines that she is travelling like this the first time. Though I had some problems getting through the first 70 pages, I became to like to book/story very much. After those first 70 pages and having overcome the cruiseship and the typical people, the real adventure unravels. Lieve Joris gave me a view of Africa that I will never experience. First of all Zaire is now the Republic of Congo. Secondly I would not dare to travel like she does, therefore this book is a dedicated window to Africa for me. I like the way Joris writes, somehow like a journalist getting into her subject. Not like a novelist at all. This book was my hypertextlink to Conrads 'Heart of Darkness', for Joris travels the same river into dark Africa.

This guidebook orients you to the essentials of the four cities but it's a good buy even if you plan on visiting a little more than just the capitals since it includes tips on excursions outside the cities as well. Monuments, churches etc are briefly but well described and gives you a flavor of the history and the culture of the country you're visiting. The guide seem to be written more to satisfy the culturally interested tourist than the bargain-seeking backpacker. This travelbook enhanced my trip and answered almost all my questions. A little minus is that the maps in the book only features a few of the mentioned sites and therefore some of them can be a bit tricky to find even if there often are suggested walks.

I found this book very educational. Purves' writting made it hard to put down. I finished the book on two plane rides between Cleveland and Austin. Purves presents his impressions in a non-judgemental way; this is just how things are. Excellent reading for anyone planning to have business dealings in the PRC.

This life of Benjamin Silliman is thoroughly researched, persuasively argued, and eminently readable. Brown has crafted an exquisite work. He has given us the life of a relatively obscure American and made it relevant, vivid and immediate. The reader comes away with a detailed picture of Silliman and, perhaps most importantly, a poignant understanding of the milieu in which Silliman lived--this is exceptional biography and brilliant history.

Police work in Berlin, which was part of the new Weimar Republic, was difficult during the political revolution and social extremes after the Great War [WW I]. Hsi-huey Liang gives us a quick historic look based on local history, documents and interviews with veterans who were fighting crime which included the street fights between Reds [Communists] and Brown [Nazi]. His last date of reference is 30 June 1933.

The Black Book of Bosnia is not a reference book. Nor is it a summary of the events and actions that occured in the war. Rather, it is an interesting variety of social commentary put together in one place.

In any war today, a variety of correspondents are distributed to the region. This book is a compilation of essays brought in by several well-known correspondents or commentators, including Arthur Miller.

What is great about this book is the diversity of opinions as well as scenarios that are brought to us by the contributors. Some talk about the reasons the war came about, while others focus on effects on Europe, and the United States. Perhaps the most important essays are those that discuss the big reason that almost any recent conflict in Europe came to be....nationalism. Filled with insight, and evidence, this book brings a different perspective to what most of us just know from CNN or the Nightly News. By bringing us closer to the war by describing problems the common citizens of Bosnia see, it may strike a personal chord with some of us.

Several essays in this book bring about how truly pathetic and tragic the war really was. One of the most saddening was one essay by Slavenka Drakulic who commented about the destruction of the Mostar Bridge, a monument that had stood since the invasion by the Ottomans. In these few lines, the full destruction of the war is captured.

A book by the writers and authors of the New Republic, this book was enjoyable mostly because of how well written the essays in it were, but also because of how much information they brought out. Why this book differs from several others is mostly because it is not just hard, cold facts, but rather opinion and insight that give it more depth than several others.

I would reccomend this book to anyone to anyone who is interested on looking at the conflict in Bosnia at a deeper level.

Marge Piercy thanks a a lot of people in the preface to this book. Clearly there's been much research here. Before we begin reading, we know we will encounter things Jewish and things Cybernbetic! And the novel does, indeed, interweave the Kabbalah's story of the Golem, (alternate chapters, shades of `Kapilan Of Malta'), with the story of the Cyborg/Android, (Shades of `Blade Runner', `Frankenstein',`I Robot', `Player Piano', and `Startrek, The Next Generation'!

But this is no ordinary do-the-housework Cyborg! More akin to Startrek's Data than Shelley's Frankenstein, Yod is just so superior to the ordinary mortal that he's acceptable, though different, (shades of `Guess Who's Coming To Dinner'). Yod is handsome, physically and mentally superior, incredibly strong and brave, yet gentle, sensitive....and ROMANTIC! (Sidney Poitier, eat your heart out...this part was written for REDFORD or NEWMAN!!)

But of course, and this is the crux of the story, Yod, the last of a series of Cyborgs all considered imperfect for one reason or another, (usually a tendency to VIOLENCE), differs from his predecessors in one important facet of his evolution. Though designed and constructed, just as the others, by the cruel Ari, Jewish Cyber-engineer with all the usual male failings, Yod has been handed to WOMEN to be COMPLETED. Thus his `socialization' is accomplished, first, by Mulcah, Jewish Cyberscientist grandmother, and then by Shira, her granddaughter, Cyberscientist also, who has returned to the Kibbutz-style settlement after her marriage has broken down and the giant Cybercorporation which ruled her life has downgraded her work, denied her custody of her son, and transferred her ex-husband and child to another planet.

Now I consider this is quite a SEXIST book..or FEMINIST, if that sounds better. There are no nice men in this book...not one male character we can respect, yet strong, wise women seem to be in plenty! Yod is the superior `male' standard against whom the others are measured, and found wanting...but it is this contradiction of form and function that must ultimately destroy him. Designed by a man to be a weapon which enjoys killing , yet conditioned by women to be gentle, passive and loving.. Yod must, we realise, eventually self-destruct,(an especially timely scenarion given that Australian society is currently questioning whether the emergence of feminism and Equal Opportunuty legislation is directly responsible for what appears to be an alarming rise in the young male suicide rate. )As to the cloning question, Shira has at her disposal the means to accurately recreate Yod. Whether she should, you will be forced to ask yourself; whether she will do so you must read the book to find out!.

And this book is a jolly good read no matter how you decide! It's well crafted, well constructed, well written- with something for everyone. Cybermaniacs will love the Virtual Reality journeys, the Intelligent Houses, the enhanced people and all the computer activity. Sociologists will enjoy the post-nuclear-world scene (yes, it DID blow up in the MIddle East!),the Jewish theology and mythology with descriptions of computer-enhanced communes, the depiction of social classes strictly regimented under Big Business Corporations, (shades of Player Piano), and some new twists to the science-versus-humanities theme. The feminists among us will be interested in the strong female roles throughout the novel, particularly, perhaps, the tribe of genetically enhanced Amazon-types which inhabits the caves of nuclear devastated Old Palestine. Even those of us who have become a trifle addicted to visual and textual violence will not go unsatisfied...there are some GREAT FIGHT SCENES! And if you enjoy crime and spy stories, the form and degree of Industrial Espionage and Big Business Guerilla tactics which Marge Piercy envisions for the next century will keep you reading long past your bedtime !

So, no criticisms at all?
Well, perhaps, just a tiny one....I'd have found the whole moral question on which the book is based a little easier to evaluate had Yod been just a tad less PERFECT...just as Spencer and Katherine might have seen things rather differently had their daughter brought home an unemployed school dropout with drug-running convictions!
Had Yod been UGLY, with his transistors and ball-bearing hanging out all over, would Shira have been so BESOTTED...would Yod have been more, or less, human in that case?
And is the story about HUMANITY or about LIFE? Is it BLADE Runner all over again...or more akin to `Last Of The Mohicans'?(Is Data more alive than Mr Spock?)

Yes, `Body Of Glass' leaves us asking ourselves lots of `"what-if?" questions and making lots of mental notes. Isn't that the test, after all, of a good sci-fi? Robin Knight,

In the public mind, the treaty of Versailles is considered a fine example of how NOT to conduct a peace treaty. However, for the past several decades, scholars have been arguing that the treaty was not unreasonable. Certainly, the way Hitler used the problems of Danzig and the Polish Corridor to kill two-ninths of the population of Poland encouraged people to think that Germany was not too hard done by in 1919. Many scholars have argued that French reparation plans actually were part of a complex and reasonable plan of reviving the European economy, and anyway the Germans whined their way out of all but a fraction of the bill. And, many argue, wouldn't an ever harder peace have done much to prevent Hitler from coming to power? Such are the arguments of the "realists" in defence of the treaty.

Douglas Newton's book deals with British policy towards the Weimar republic, both the first several months of the latter's existence, and British propaganda encouraging an overthrow of the Kaiser. It starts off rather dryly, but gets better as it goes along. It is massively documented, based on no fewer than 16 sets of Government papers, private papers from more than fifty archives, dozens of memoirs as well as dozens as newspapers. And it is a valuable work as it shows the failure of an earlier "realist" version of British diplomacy.

For propaganda purposes the British claimed, not inaccurately, to be fighting an aggressive Prussian autocracy, and at times they claimed to distinguish between the German government and its people. At times they claimed to desire a democratic government for Germany, which would hopefully encourage the peace of the world. In point of fact they cared little for this goal and had no serious strategy for encouraging it, achieving it or maintaining it. By 1917 the British government was dominated by Conservatives fronted by the charisma of Liberal prime minister Lloyd George. They failed to see that the threat was not from Germany, but from authoritarian and imperialist impulses. Being imperialist and authoritarian themselves, the Tories preferred to believe that all Germans were collectively guilty. The result was a whirlwind of cant and self-serving rhetoric. Massive amounts of well qualified evidence on the seriousness of Weimar's democratic beliefs and the hardships suffered by the Allied blockade were dismissed on the words of limited, unqualifed and secret sources; chauvinist publishers ignored or distorted the reports of their correspondents; "realists" spread rumours that a prostate Germany was funding strikes and subversion across Europe or that the Kaiser was to be restored and that the revolution was a simple fraud. Although Wilhelm II was denounced as a tyrant, Tories argued that the Germans were fully responsible for his acts, and when they did overthrow him, that was insufficient to remove their guilt. The revolution was declared to be unconvincing, yet at the same time the British denounced those revolutionary socialists who had always opposed the war, refused democratic town council elections and disbanded the soldiers' councils wherever they met them. The British opposed all advice to bolster the democratic government--yet they claimed that the revolution was insufficiently consolidated.

Newton is quite good on the subject of reparations. He points out that the British were aware that this violated the Lansing Note which they were morally bound to. He points out that Tories supported reparations from Germany because it was preferrably to levying higher taxes on the rich, and that instead of reforming British industry to make it more productive than Germany's they preferred to swamp Germany with trade restrictions. Newton also points out the British were not forced into a harsh stance by popular opinion. Much of the electorate was apathetic (turnout was only 57% and the soldier's vote was much less), by-elections soon turned against the government, the media were after all strongly Tory in the first place and were closely connected to the government, and in fact Lloyd George made key measures to encourage an irresponsibly high figure before popular opinion made any claim on the matter. Newton points out that there were good military reasons for the British accepting the armistice when they did, since there were strains in their forces, and a delay would only increase the United States' influence. Newton is very good, if somewhat tedious, in explaining the different factions within the government, such as the coalition parties, the Foreign Office, the Political Intelligence Department, the press and the economic lobbies. But would a softer treaty have made any difference? Trying to prove this would be impossible, and Newton's argument is somewhat weak here. But he points out that the British had no objections to the SPD alliance with the army when it was used against radicals. Most important he demonstrates that they never had any real interest in supporting a democratic government. The Allies only sought to impose external constraints on Germany, and never really considered internal ones. As one prominent official said "I don't care a
d--- about democracy; but I do care a great deal about beating the Hun." Ironically, many of those who most denounced the German Republic (Kerr, the media barons) were those most willing to appease Hitler. Disaster upon disaster.

"Burden of Dreams" brings the human element in the midst of historical events. The author shows how the fundamental changes in Ukraine has and is effecting the lives of its people, something that cannot be forgotten in any study of this kind. Too often an author focuses on one element, such as politics or economics, and forgets that these changes effect far more than national policies.

Shandor tells the modern history of a section of Ukraine now known as the Zakarpatskaya Oblast. This is the fascinating story of a country that has been a part of five different nations in the 20th Century and whose people today live in six different countries. It was a part of the Hungarian Empire until the end of the First World War. After the war it was promised autonomy as Subcarpathian Ruthenia, the third part of Czechoslovakia, but this was never realized until the break-up of this country in 1938-39. Then for three days in March of 1939 it was the independent country of Carpatho-Ukraine, until the Hungarian Army crossed the border to reclaim it. In 1945 the Czechs and Russians agreed to make it part of the Ukraine without consulting its people. Shandor was the Ruthenian delegate in Prague between the two wars and has quite a tale to tell. Occasionally, the reader is swamped with names and details mentioned to prove Shandor's point of view. The presentation could have been more balanced, but overall it is fascinating reading.