Pam Anderson, a former editor at the much-revered "Cook's Illustrated," had a good idea with "How to Cook Without a Book," that I believe just didn't quite pan out.

The concept of "instinctual" cooking is appealing. Most of us remember the delicious meals our mother's and/or grandmother's whipped up without ever even glancing at a recipe. The problem is that the skills these women possessed were honed by years of experience--cooking three times per day for 30+ years--and usually instilled in them by their mother's and grandmother's in early childhood. The world has changed a lot since then and not only have our tastes vastly changed, but they've also expanded. Most of us regularly eat, and cook, many types of ethnic foods, as well as a host of "healthy" meals that would have baffled cooks in the 1930s and '40s.

So, instead of "teaching" people to "cook without a book," as Anderson's title promises, it focuses more on how to put a meal on the table for your family in about 30 minutes--a territory already well covered by dozens of other (more useful) cookbooks.

In fact, the "tips" Anderson offers here are so basic as to be useless for almost anyone who knows anything about cooking (Hey, did you know that lettuce could be chopped instead of torn to save time? Or that vinegar and oil made a good salad dressing?) Anderson's advice is hardly revolutionary. And I just can't imagine anyone being that perplexed about how much lettuce needed, per person, per salad.

Of course, this book might be nice for someone who literally doesn't even know how to boil water, or thinks opening a can is equal to preparing dinner. The advice and tips given aren't bad, just painfully basic. If your cooking skills are already past the "heating up a Lean Cuisine in the microwave" stage I doubt you'll find much here that's of use.

The overall lesson about cooking in this book is THE BEST OUT THERE. She tells you the truth. I can't imagine anyone not knowing what to cook for dinner if they had this book. It breaks everything down, gives you the big picture, so you realize what those recipes you've been following blindly were trying to do. It's true she has you get pre-made sauces and chicken broth (some Asian sauces should be bought pre-made anyway) and if you actually have time to make them you'll have to open up another book for those things if you're a beginner (who has time these days anyway?). On the other hand, I am so sick of reading cookbooks where the cook writes as if they are performing on stage, which has no relevance whatsoever to what I'm doing in the kitchen. This book doesn't waste your time, gets right down to business.

"How to Cook without a Book" is the cookbook that I have been hoping to find. It teaches you the mindset and skills neccesary to quickly prepare a healthy meal with what you've got in your fridge and pantry. The weekends are great for trying new recipes and new ingredients, but what do you do on Wednesday night at 6pm when you're tired and hungry and haven't yet given a thought to what you'll cook and whether you have all the ingredients?

"How to Cook without a Recipe" teaches you a few simple techniques which can be used with a variety of ingredient combinations. For example, Ms. Anderson's saute techinique works for chicken, pork, fish, tofu, and more. So, if you have any of these on hand and a few seasonings, you've got your main dish.

So far I've read a few sections of the book, and it has already improved my cooking. What the book boils down to is this: learn a few techniques, stock your pantry, make a weekly trip to the grocery store to buy whatever's in season or on sale, and you'll be able to put a "real meal" on the table anytime.

Excellent for someone setting up a new house or apartment and for those who are tired of take-out and packaged instant meals. Would make a great gift for a college graduate or for a bride and/or groom-to-be.

Sometimes you just wish your favorite characters would run off somewhere nice and safe. After following travails of the Black Company and rereading books time and again I have to applaud the author for the ability to create complex plots without losing too much cohesion. Part of the tension for me is seeing how my favorites meet their end, hoping that it'll be good but finding in many cases a sorrowful and painful one. This book ties up many of the loose ends, perhaps too tightly and overzealously. Occasionally a Valentine's day massacre occurs for many characters, some major, in a literary spring cleaning of sorts. I wasn't disappointed in the end. It was karmic or at least fitting, although sad nevertheless. I miss all the old characters, Raven, Elmo, the "real" Captain and that is in my opinion the biggest fault and one that's impossible to avoid. The original three books were the best and one of my favorite trilogies I've ever read. How can you top that? Still I enjoyed this book immensely, although anyone who thinks about reading it should also be given the original trilogy and left in a deep hole until they've finished it (preferably with a flashlight).

I've written a lot about Cook's series over the years, and I do feel this was a very fitting ending to this chapter of the Annals.

However, folks seem to have missed something. Not only did Cook set it up for a continuation of the Company, he also paved the way for prequels! With Croaker's new position (how's that for obtuse?), he can dwell on his own memories (you have to read the book to understand what I'm talking about) and see how the original Companies were formed and came forth from Khatovar.

Which means he COULD go back in time, to when a young Croaker joined the Company. We could meet with our old friends again, from when they were younger.

Me, I think this would be pretty damn cool, as we could see the south side of the Sea of Torments, with the Jewel Cities, etc.

I think maybe I'll drop Glen a letter at TOR with just this idea...

Thank you, Mr. Cook, for 16 years (or so) of delightful Black Company reading. Now, more Bragi!

Now I could start off talking about how i've been a Black Company Fan for years.....well I really can't as I just read the entire series over the past 3 weeks. I guess its obvious that I obsessed over the series, it's that good. But the last couple of books in the "Glittering Stone" series really did not seem up to par with the earlier books. Maybe its because i prefer Croaker's Bitter-Old-Man version of the Annals, but I just didn't enjoy Murgen's or Sleepy's volumes as much.(I still thought they were better reads then almost any other fantasy novel) But with "Soldier Live", the series comes full circle for me. Everything in the book works perfectly for me. Croaker is back as narrator, The Company is once again an indestructable force, more of the plot is revealed, the two worst wizards in the universe pull off what could only be seen as a cosmic practical joke, and the book just flows. I started reading this book at 10 PM one night, and knew there was something wrong when I finished with the sun rising. I litteraly couldn't put it down. The book is long(500+ pages), but I never noticed the length. Quite simply this book is my favorite of the series, and a perfect send-off(probably) for The Company.(though I would not mind prequels)

What an extraordinary book! Pain, gain, joy, pathos, and the aroma of braised short ribs. It made me want to open (God forbid!) another restaurant. I never thought anyone could capture the magic and mission of being a chef, but theyve done it!" Barbara Tropp, Chef-Owner, China Moon Cafe "An unusually comprehensive book, immensely readable, at once passionate and coherent, probing and well-informed. For anyone interested in the historic coming of age of the professional American kitchen, this is a requisite buy." Michael and Ariane Batterberry, Founding Editors and Associate Publishers of Food Arts "Finally, a book that lets chefs speak for themselves! An insightful look at the complex life of a professional chef in the 90s. Fascinating portraits of the people who have defined American cuisinewho they are and how they got to be where they are today. Anyone who is interested in becoming a chef will find this book invaluablethis is what it takes to make it." Mark Miller, Chef-Owner, Coyote Cafe and Red Sage "After reading this book, I understand that becoming an outstanding leader is not very different from becoming a chef. Both roles require passion, discipline, authenticity, and an experimental attitude. On top of that, organizing a kitchen may be as difficult as organizing any business. Not only will present and future chefs and restaurateurs want to read this book, but anyone with a taste for excellent cooking and excellent leadership will find something of interest on every page." Warren Bennis, Distinguised Professor of Business Administration at the University of Southern California and Author, On Becoming a Leader and Leaders "Becoming a Chef is a marvelous book for the interested home cook as well as the aspiring chef. Like great wines with great food, there are great dishes and a great education here."

Ever wonder what got people like Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Charlie Trotter interested in cooking in the first place? Why top chefs like Patrick O'Connell (who never went to cooking school) wouldn't hire someone without a culinary degree? What it was like for chefs like Emeril Lagasse when he worked at restaurants in France as a stagiaire? How chefs like Rick Bayless and Mary Sue Milliken got their first jobs in the restaurant business? What chefs like Mark Miller and Bradley Ogden got out of their travel experiences, and how they were changed as chefs in the process? What the favorite books are of chefs like Lydia Shire and Michel Richard, and what they learned from them? What some of the dumb mistakes made by great chefs like Jacques Torres were, and how they persevered? And why leading chefs like Alice Waters believe that "being a really good cook has to do with having a point of view"?

Becoming A Chef will provide all the answers, and so much more. This is one of the best books I've ever read.

I loved this book. It provided great information for aspiring chefs and those who want to see what it is really like to be a chef. With quotes from some of the country's top chefs, the authors delve into the proffesional cooking world . Great recipes, info on cooking schools and inside information from these chefs is included. The book also includes a great history of the French culinary "family tree." Anyone thinking of becoming a chef needs to read this book!

After reading this title, boot camp and law school will seem like child's play. Ruhlman enrolled in the prestigious and expensive Culinary Institute of America (CIA) to get both material for a book and a culinary education. However, the drive and commitment required from day one, the demand for speed and precision, the pressure and perfectionism of the job'all hilariously and touchingly told'immediately erase his writer's detachment. But the tale goes beyond Ruhlman's anecdotes; he describes the curriculum with objective detail, so the reader also learns how a chef makes a flawless stock (and repairs a flawed one at a moment's notice), organizes the cooking station, prepares gourmet meals for crowds, and attains excellence and recognition. The short chart at the end shows the course work for the CIA's associate degrees. An enjoyable read, recommended for most collections and required for aspiring great chefs

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has a deep love for the process and craft of preparing food. Whether you're a professional, a devoted home cook, or one of many people contemplating a career change, I think you'll find this a compelling read. The demands of achieving a high level of competence in the culinary field require devotion and meticulousness that many outside the world of a restaurant kitchen may take for granted, but you'll never under-appreciate the professional chef again after reading this book. You'll find yourself more involved with the students in Ruhlman's class than you might imagine, given his storytelling abilities. I would also recommend his second book "The Soul of a Chef" very highly.

As someone who is considering attending culinary school, this is truly an informative and inspiring read. Michael Ruhlman truly takes us into the heart of the CIA to experience the hard work and dedication of their students! It's obvious that he put great effort into telling the unbiased story, which is that the life of a chef is in no ways glamorous. This is one of the few non-fiction books I have actually enjoyed reading, and where I actually felt interested in the characters. My one complaint is that the sequence of his storytelling was sometimes confusing, and he skipped over some units while spending way too much time on others. I know Skills is important but I would have liked to hear more about the Pastry units! Overall, though, a worthwhile read for anyone considering becoming a chef or even if you're just curious as to what it takes to become a chef!

As a big fan of Augustine's writing I give this book five stars. The way that he has interwoven his thoughts, feelings, and personal experiences with the humble eloquence of repentance will have you as the reader very exuberant. In reading this work you will learn more of Augustine's life, the spiritual turmoil he faced, and how he came to knowledge of the truth in a most triumphant manner. Although, that's not all that you will find interesting in the Confessions. In fact once Augustine converts to Catholicism and discovers the mystery of the faith, he then proceeds to fill in the blanks philisophically were he had once been left in error. Finally Augustine ponders on the book of Genesis and discourses a respectable point of view on the creation of heaven and earth. Oh Yeah! I forgot to explain how Augustine corresponds the subject matter of this book with a profound emphasis on the Holy Scriptures. So I recommend this masterpiece to anyo ne who has a love for great Latin literature, or to all that wish to read the prestige of Christian writings.

After Sacred Scripture itself, perhaps no other book has brought more people to a deeper understanding of the truths of the Christian faith than "Confessions." Simply put, it's the story of one well-educated, intelligent man who led a profligate life in a sophisticated pagan society. It took his mother, prayer, and the grace of Almighty God to make him a saint--and indeed one of the greatest saints of the Catholic Church.

What is most striking about Augustine's story is how easily it relates to our own lives and our own times. It is impossible to read "Confessions" without seeing a little bit of yourself in his tales of his early life. The book is perfect for anyone struggling with their Christian faith. Indeed, it helped bring me back to the Catholic Church.

This translation is well-written and highly readable. I own it and highly recommend it.

St. Augustine's Confessions is a treasure of Western literature, and, much like the book of Job and the Psalms, really belongs to the heritage of the entire culture and has transcended sectarian importance. That is not to say that these books are not religiously important--of course they are, and the Confessions perhaps even more so to a confessing Christian. Much of what the entire Western church still believes comes straight from the mind and pen of St. Augustine, and to understand his mind one really needs to read the Confessions. Nearly the entire orthodox Catholic tradition of fall-redemption theology sprung full-formed from Augustine's mind, which can be seen in his allegorical interpretaiton of Genesis 1, the section that ends the Confessions and gives them an "unfinished" quality. Augustine was a well-known and revered man when he wrote this book, and rather goes out of his way to depict himself as a youthful deviant to his followers. This is both a heuristic device and what Ausgustine really believes about himself; he is interested in his flock realizing his own fallenness and finitude, and seeing it in themselves as well. A brilliantly modern book for fourth-century fare, it is amenable (at the risk of anachronism)to a multitude of interpretations. Here one can find existential angst, control-dramas, the quest for and the overturning of the ego-self, and an almost pathological study of human guilt (it has been quipped that if the Saint from Hippo had had a good psychotherapist, the Church might have been spared nearly two millennia of sexual dysfunction). Augustine's conversion in the garden reads almost like a kensho experience in Zen. Read the book and draw your own conclusions, but never forget that, as you read, you are sitting at the feet of (and in judgement of) one of the sharpest minds ever produced in Latin Christianity. He writes, "For although I cannot prove to mankind that these my confessions are true, at least I shall be believed by those whose ears are opened to me by love" Book 10.3, and whether or not your ears are open to him in love, they should at least be open. Augustine always has something to say to the careful reader, and no less a careful reader than Derrida lui-même is an inveterate reader and student of Augustine's. Quite a compliment from a reader who certainly does not share Augustine's faith concerns....

Ruhlman gives wonderful insight into the makings of a top tier chef and explains his point of view by approaching the subject from 3 perspectives - Technical Excellence via the discussion of the CMC exam; Passion/Personality through the coverage of a new wunderkind chef in Cleveland (perhaps the most enjoyable part of this book); and, Philosophy in the discussion of the remarkable chef at the French Laundry in California (fascinating, but the weakest section of book.)

I probably should have read his earlier book first, as I would probably have become more familiar with some of the kitchen terminology with which I was unfamiliar. Nonetheless, in addition to explaining his view on chefs, Ruhlman provides a terrific window on this unique world.

this new hardcover, written by michael ruhlman is excellent. the first section in particular is truly gripping(esp. if you are a food nut like i am!) the almost blow by blow account of a group of chefs trying to pass a series of incredibly arduous tests (a ten day herculean nightmare)in order obtain the title of master chef from the Culinary Institute of America makes the Iron chef challenge look like a stroll though the park! one of the main themes of the book is the quest for

perfection in cooking and it's intriguing to say the least. it is like night and day, comparing the book to kitchen confidential by anthony bourdain where it focuses mostly on the dirt and the dysfunction that goes on. needless to say both capture many different truths about the restaurant industry. another exciting section is the fascinating behind the scenes of The French Laundry, a highly acclaimed restaurant and how the chef's personal philosophy affected the running of the restaurant.there is also a well written account of a dinner with john mariani, one of america's preeminent food writers. the author's journalistic objectivity has served the book very well especially in a field that is filled with hype.

Ruhlman does a fantastic job of exploring the development and nature of three chefs. This book is particularly intriguing if you have read "Kitchen Confidential." It shows the more civilized side of professional chefs. The tension of the Certified Master Chef exam in Section 1 is intense. In Section 2, Ruhlman does a superb job of detailing the visit of a well known food critic to a new restaurant. The third and last section is a well-balanced look at the Tom Keller's French Laundry in Yountville. Througout, Ruhlman uses his CIA training to give vivid descriptions of menus and preparations.

The Penguin Guide is a well-written, informative survey of the field. It's the only jazz review omnibus I return to for pleasure, rather than for reference.

While this tome is more opinionated than competing reviews, it's good to have a consistent frame of reference. You learn what the authors like and dislike, and can apply that to your own preferences. The essays that accompany the ratings avoid the redundancies found in the All Music Guide, and do a better job of placing the recording in the context of an artist's career.

Because the authors are English, however, much of the discographical data isn't very useful for American consumers. Also, the representation of American labels can be understated. For example, there's a lot more Blue Note CDs in print in the U.S. than in Europe, leaving some notable gaps in an artist's output. Fans of other American labels and artists might find similar holes in the discography.

The flip side of its European focus is that you get reviews of artists and releases usually ignored by American reviewers. And the English/European jazz canon is different than the American version, making the Penguin Guide something more than the Revised Standard Version of the received wisdom you'd find in an American omnibus.

I wish the Penguin Guide would follow the example of the All Music Guide and simply review the important albums, deleted or not. Eventually those Bobby Hutcherson titles (to choose some personal favorites) will return to print, and when they do, you won't be able to consult the Penguin Guide, unless you wait for the biannual update.

If you haven't bought one of these books, buy this one. If you own the 5th edition, however, save your money.

You have three primary choices for these "jazz guides": All Music Guide, MusicHound, and Penguin. AMG includes reviews of out-of-print CDs, and older LPs, which can be frustrating because you'll read glowing reviews of albums you won't be able to find. MusicHound is a compilation of reviews by different authors, so you can forget about any kind of consistency. Penguin is informative, contemporary, and consistent. It's your best choice.

This book features 1601 pages of CD reviews and artist biographies, not including the introduction and index. Whatever your level of knowledge, however long you've spent listening to jazz, you're sure to discover something new in this book. And that's a tremendous reward for Amazon's price.

On the other hand, as an update, this edition doesn't impress me. Significant artists like Mel Lewis and Carl Fontana still lack entries. Mick Goodrick, Christian McBride, and others have actually been removed. The artists suggest, in their introduction, that those noting omissions should get a life. Of course, no one's perfect. There are, however, both minor omissions and glaring omissions, and this edition still includes too many of the latter.

Jim McNeely, for example, is listed on page 1005, along with four of his CDs -- the most recent, from 1992. The authors ignore "The Power and the Glory" [Storyville, 2001] and "Play Bill Evans" [Stunt Records, 2002], which are forgivable omissions. I believe "In This Moment" [Stunt Records, 2003] was released too late to be included.

But also missing are McNeely's "Lickety Split" [New World Records, 1997], which was nominated for a Grammy Award in 1998; "Nice Work" [Dacapo Records, 2000], which was nominated for two Grammies in 2001; and "Group Therapy" [OmniTone, 2001], which was nominated for a Grammy in 2002. You'd think an artist nominated for four Grammies would receive a more complete listing in a book like this.

These are limited examples of a larger trend: this edition doesn't show enough improvement over its previous edition to be worth updating. If you don't own the Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD yet, then my criticisms are nitpicks. It's a great investment for a reasonable price, and you should buy it. If you already own an older edition, however, I can't recommend you buy this. Spend your money buying a new CD, instead. Let's hope that 2005 will bring a 7th edition that will amaze us all, anew.

This the best guide to jazz available. The authors are intelligent, witty and biased - just the way they should be. I have all editions except the first one, so I obviously like their book. Nevertheless, I want to focus on the worst aspects of this remarkable piece of jazz scholarship.

1) Cook & Morton use a star-system to evaluate the CDs. Unfortunately, the ratings are inflationary. A mainstream record usually gets at least three (i.e. good) stars. This makes it useless to compare recordings by different artists; in other words, the ratings can be used only when one wants to know what might be the best recordings by a particular artist. Are jazz records really always good or very good? Of course not. It is simply absurd to read e.g. pages devoted to Chet Baker in the fifth edition: 76 records and only 8 of them is rated worse than 3 stars! Perhaps the authors, after all, have not had enough time to listen this vast amount of music?

2) Cook & Morton are very fond of both avantgarde jazz (especially european) and classic jazz of the 1920s. No problem with that. But they really should include more jazz fusion. I don't mean easy-listening instrumental pop, but serious jazz, like Allan Holdsworth. It seems to me that if an artist has flirted with rock music he will not be included even if he starts to make mainstream jazz. For instance, why isn't Bill Bruford included? The Earthworks records, not to mention the album with Eddie Gomez and Ralph Towner, have not found favour with Cook & Morton - probably because "Bill is not a jazz drummer". Is this just a coincidence or spiteful discrimination, I cannot tell.

3) The latest edition (5th) has too many errors. Of course there are always minor errors in a book this size. I give two examples. Coltrane's Ballads album hasn't got "I fall in love too easily" in it. Is the Navarro-Parker collaboration (Bird and Fats - Live at Birdland) worth 3 (cf. Navarro's entry) or 4 stars (cf. Parker's entry) and what actually is the quality of Navarro's playing on this record? More serious trouble has risen when the aurhors have edited their text more than once in order to update the entries. Sometimes they have failed and the text has thus become incoherent.

But never mind my complaints. This is a great book!

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close.

Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense.

It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

Let's face it. All my fellow DM's know Dungeon Mastering is hard. You need to be in tune with the entire game enviornment, and every NPC and every monster and...I could go on, but I'm not going to bore you. Anyway, I think 3rd Edition rules are pretty darn good, but this Dungeon Masters Guide is useless for experienced DM's.

There are many useful tables throughout the book based on almost everything imaginable. They are quite useful for in-game reference. The classes included are quite interesting. My personal favorite is the "Paladin Gone Bad." It's real name is the Fallen Blackguard, and he is very bad-arse. They have other interesting ones, like the Arcane Archer, and Loremaster. There are tips in the first chapter of the book for beginners, that could come in handy.

The problem is this book is geared for neophyte DMs. Experienced ones can rip out Chapters 1,4, and 5, because they just give you pointers on what adventures and campaigns are and how to control them. Trust me, If you've DMed for a fair amount of time, don't even bother buying this, and stick with your 2E Dungeon Master's Guide for reference. iF you are new to DMing, this is the perfect review for you.

The third edition Dungeon Master's Guide details a DM's options as they've never been presented before. While previous DMGs have mainly been a compendium of rules, this is more of a guidebook, with a lot of tips for DMs that could only be picked up through experience in the past. The book talks extensively about game balance, gives pointers on dealing with different player types, and more than anything else emphasizes the DM's power and responsibility over his game.

There's a lot here for experienced DMs as well, though: Details on creating new races and classes, including the "witch" example and some new example "prestige classes". Solid info on creating game worlds, designing adventures, and awarding experience points. A ton of new material on magic items, finally giving real detailed information on how a player character can create his own items.

This book is amazing. It revitalizes the whole game of D&D.

This is an excellent 'renovation' of the DMG which will be useful both to veterans and beginners. It details large numbers of magic items, gives demographic design tips to DMs (i.e. how many levelled characters there are in a town/village/city of a certain size), has intriguing prestige classes (which are like add-on character classes allowing characters to get special abilities -- sometimes at a price), and plenty of plain, solid information for running a good game. I'm a DM with 17 years experience and I've owned all editions of the game, and I can say that this book is an invaluable updating of D&D. The one criticism I hear a lot about 3rd edition is that it is for 'power gamers' or 'munchkins', but I can assure you that even if the characters are a little tougher than their 2E counterparts, so are the monsters; the game is better balanced, as far as I can see (there are even challenge ratings so that you can determine just how many encounters of a certain toughness a party can handle). An excellent book -- if you like D&D or are interested in finding out about it, buy this volume!

I have trouble reading classic literature. I am an avid reader and I want to enjoy the classics, but just find it difficult to understand the meaning in some of the writing.

This, however, was a pleasant surprise. Although written in the early 1700s, the story itself was fairly easy to follow. Even towards the end, I began to see the underlying theme of the satire that Swift has been praised for in this work.

Being someone who reads primarily science fiction and fantasy novels, I thought this might be an opportunity to culture myself while also enjoying a good story. I was correct in my thinking. Even if you can't pick up on the satire, there is still a good classic fantasy story.

Essentially, the book details the travels of Lemuel Gulliver, who by several misfortunes, visits remote and unheard of lands. In each, Gulliver spends enough time to understand the language and culture of each of these land's inhabitants. He also details the difference in culture of his native England to the highest rulers of the visted nations. In his writing of these differences, he is able to show his dislike with the system of government of England. He does this by simply stating how things are in England and then uses the reaction of the strangers as outsiders looking in, showing their lack of respect for what Gulliver describes.

I found it very interesting to see that even as early as the 1700s there was a general dislike of government as well as lawyers.

I would recommend this book to anyone who reads the fantasy genre. Obviously, it's not an epic saga like so many most fantasy readers enjoy, but it's a nice break. I would also recommend this to high school students who are asked to pick a classic piece for a book report. It reads relatively quick and isn't as difficult to read as some of the others that I've tried to read.

Lemuel Gulliver is a surgeon/ship¨ˆs captain who embarks on several intriguing adventures. His first endeavor takes him to Lilliput, where all inhabitants are six inches tall, but resemble normal humans in every other respect. His next voyage lands him on Brobdingnag, where a grown man is sixty feet tall, and even the shortest dwarf stands thirty feet tall. On his third trip, he travels to several locations, including a floating island. During Gulliver¨ˆs final voyage, he is abandoned by his mutinous crew on the island of the Houyhnhnms, which are extremely intelligent horses. No evil or concept of lying exists among these creatures. The island is also inhabited by Yahoos, savage, irrational human-like creatures who are kept as pets by the Houyhnhnms. Gulliver wishes to spend the rest of his life on this peaceful island, but he is banished and forced to return to England.
I really enjoyed this book, and I would recommend it to people 14 or older. Since the novel was written in the 1700¡¯s, the words, grammar and usage are a little confusing. The reader also must have prior knowledge of 18th-century politics to get a full image of what Swift is trying to convey. At some points, the author goes into detail about nautical terms and happenings, and that tends to drag. Overall, the book is well-written, slightly humorous, if not a little confusing.

It's amazing how our perspective changes as we age. What we thought was important as children may now seem completely insignificant, replaced by entirely new priorities, priorities children wouldn't even understand. At the same time, things we used to take for granted, like having dinner on the table, being taken care of when we're ill, or getting toys fixed when they are broken, have become items on adult worry lists.

Your perspective on literature can change, too. Reading a story for a second time can give you a completely different view of it. "Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, which I enjoyed as a sort of an adventure story when I was a kid, now reads as a harsh criticism of society in general and the institution of slavery in particular.

The same thing is true of "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The first thing I realized upon opening the cover of this book as a college student was that I probably had never really read it before.

I knew the basic plot of Lemuel Gulliver's first two voyages to Lilliput and Brobdingnag, home of the tiny and giant people, respectively, but he had two other voyages of which I was not even aware: to a land of philosophers who are so lost in thought they can't see the simplest practical details, Laputa, and to a land ruled by wise and gentle horses or Houyhnhnms and peopled by wild, beastly human-like creatures called Yahoos.

While this book has become famous and even beloved by children, Jonathan Swift was certainly not trying to write a children's book.

Swift was well known for his sharp, biting wit, and his bitter criticism of 18th century England and all her ills. This is the man who, to point out how ridiculous English prejudices had become, wrote "A Modest Proposal" which suggested that the Irish raise their children as cattle, to be eaten as meat, and thereby solve the problems of poverty and starvation faced in that country. As horrible as that proposal is, it was only an extension of the kinds of solutions being proposed at the time.

So, although "Gulliver's Travels" is entertaining, entertainment was not Swift's primary purpose. Swift used this tale of a guillable traveler exploring strange lands to point out some of the inane and ridiculous elements of his own society.

For example, in describing the government of Lilliput, Swift explains that officials are selected based on how well they can play two games, Rope-Dancing and Leaping and Creeping. These two games required great skill in balance, entertained the watching public, and placed the politicians in rather ridiculous positions, perhaps not so differently from elections of leaders in the 18th century and even in modern times.

Give this book a look again, or for the first time. Even in cases in which the exact object of Swift's satire has been forgotten, his sweeping social commentary still rings true. Sometimes it really does seem that we are all a bunch of Yahoos.