I bought this book in anticipation of finding out about Maud's personal life and her thoughts. I was very disappointed. There was nothing in the biography that gave me any insight into the life of my favorite author. I do not recommend this book.

This biography of L.M. Montgomery, marketed towards young adults, has nothing new to offer. It was mostly a rehash of Montgomery's own memoirs, titled "The Alpine Path". Plus, there was surprisingly little information about Montgomery's years after she published Anne. Perhaps it would have been at least an average bio if the author had illustrated some of Montgomery's experiences or parts of her life, but he really didn't even attempt to do that, with the exception of parts of some of her minor romances. If you are looking for a good L.M. Montgomery biography, try "The Alpine Path" or her journals to hear about Montgomery in her own words.

Denis attempts to put an Aboriginal law case into perspective but fails miserably. His abstract pseudo-intellectual style fools no one and his points and arguements have little sway.

An interesting book, which examines a 1992 Canadian court case concerning Aboriginal ceremonies from a variety of perspectives: colonialism, nationalism, feminist theory, etc. Although the questions and ideas raised are interesting, reading the book is a bit frustrating. I found myself wishing for more factual information, more details about the case itself, more information about what had happened, but instead practically buried in analysis. I also think that the author's political motivation was much more concerned with the fate of Quebec than of the native peoples, which struck me as somewhat disingenuous. Additionally, I think the author owes more to Foucault than he credits. However, I found it worth reading, if simply to force myself to question some of my assumptions about law, sovereignity, and individual rights.

A horrifyingly trite view on such a beloved author. The writing was commonish and rather juvenile. Chock full of the author's personal life, not that of Atwood.

Admittedly, any biography of Margaret Atwood has some intrinsic fascination--both for what readers do know about Atwood, and what we don't. We know that she is a very gifted and, above all, a morally serious writer; she is one of only a few writers alive today whose reputation and popular appeal rest on her concern with terrifying political issues. But the same thing has happened to Atwood as has happened to other writers in this situation: her readers and critics have come to know her mainly by reputation, even after reading everything she has written. Thus although she is one of today's most studied, quoted, and in some ways feared literary figures, little new is actually said about her, the positive pole focusing on her Cassandra-like gifts and the negative on her being a disgruntled woman. Neither does Atwood justice and this biography does very little to change that. We are indeed presented with a gifted and apparently rather complex human being, her friends speak of her with affection and some fear, but much as Atwood speaks of her cult with contempt, the culty atmosphere surrounding her is never dispelled and one is left with the uncomfortable feeling that the writer encourages it because, perhaps, she does not have the faith that human beings will listen to her painful messages without it. While it is admirable of Atwood to resist sexist stereotyping as a "witch," it is permissible for us to try to see her in context. Atwood's cooperation with this effort is simply to increase mystification by telling us we can only get it wrong, as if it were impossible to understand why a human being would be horrified at what she sees around her (though she accuses us of thinking this way). To her discredit, the biographer caves in every step of the way. Atwood the writer and Atwood the woman are rich material. Atwood the myth is not.

Without knowing Margaret Atwood personally, it is impossible to tell if the problems in this biography stem from a biased interpretation by the author or from the very biases of Atwood herself. Whatever the source, bias pervades this biography. While on the one hand the reader is presented with a picture of a woman who defied what she considered to be literary convention by living in rural areas and having a child and a successful relationship with a man, the reader also is left with the uncomfortable feeling that Atwood is attempting to set her own convention and is looking at those who do not conform to *her* conventions. The Atwood in this biography seems critical of the single woman, the childless woman, the urban (esp. New York City) writer, and the lower class writer. Although I cannot quote the book directly (I got rid of it in a fit of disgust), there is one scene that has burned itself into my memory. The author discusses Atwood's belief that a writer shouldn't poor. While it is true that one is freer to write when certain material comforts are present and when material concerns do not predominate, Atwood is then quoted as saying something to this affect: I've never been a janitor or held any other sort of low-class job, but don't quote me on that, because I know it's unfashionable. One is left feeling that if a writer *does* come from humble origins, one must not speak about it later or let it influence one's writing.Although I disliked the book because of its pervasive biases, it does present a comprehensive overview of Margaret Atwood's life and some insight into the artistic process. I think that an Atwood fan (which I myself am) who is married with children (or who desires that lifestyle), who loves nature and has had the luxury to live that lifestyle, and who has had a comfortable middle-class upbringing, might actually enjoy this biography. For others, though, you might just find yourself driven to furious rage at the potential creation of a new, but equally dogmatic, stereotype.

Maude Barlow does not like free trade. Why she has written so many books about hating free trade, and by extension freedom to associate and contract with other people, is a mystery. If she could state just what is so bad about free markets perhaps some meaningful dialogue could take place. Barlow main point is that it is bad if people who run corporations make money, but it is okay is labors make money. What does she favor one group of workers over the other? Well, firstly she does not consider managers to be doing any type of meaningful work, yet she gives no reason for why she believes this. Secondly, like the previous review her dislike of foriegn corporations borders on xenophobia, Barlow knows this and actually states that she is not xenophobic, but making such statement is meaningless given the position she has staked out.

For over 200 pages Barlow repeats every single argument against free trade that she has stated in all of her other works. The difference this time is that she's decided to call it an autobiography.

If you've read any of her past work, Parcel of Rogues or Class Warfare, there is no need to read this book. She trots out her tired old arguments: corporations are bad, markets are bad, foreign ownership is bad. At one point she states that her nationalism is not xenophobic despite the fact that she constantly rails against foriegn ownership: foriegner ownership is bad because the owners are not your own nationality and therefore cannot be trusted, if this isn't xenophobic and potentially racist I don't know what is.

Another odd characteristice of the book is that any proponent of free markets is presented as fools, but any of Barlow formers colleagues who turned their back on her causes are pretty much forgiven.

National Socialists like Barlow should learn some economics and history before they write drivel like this and contribute to deforestation.

The other person from ottawa took the words right out of my mouth!

This is THE worst book that has ever been put into print. I do not know who's sick, SICK idea it was to force grade elvens to read this but I personally would pay-- I would pay not to have this book put into print and for the board of education to find an actual book like Catcher in the Rye or the stranger DO NOT come close to this book, if you can help it. If Amazon allowed it I would give this book negative ten hundred stars.

I love Leonard Cohen and try to read whatever is available about him. This book was so miserable, I couldn't even finish it. The person who wrote it is a whiney sycophant. This horrible drivel isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It really makes the reader hate the person who wrote it. Don't buy this, not even used for a nickel. 'Nuff said...

By far this is the worst book ever written about Leonard Cohen. To start with a good portion of the book is comprised of Leonard Cohen's poems and lyrics! The rest is badly written drivel about a man who made a fairly mediocre TV documentary about Leonard Cohen more than 20 years ago. Suffice to say that the book is nothing but a tool to vent off Mr. Rasky's anger at the world for not recognizing his 'talents' as a filmmaker. I did like the book cover but wait a minute that was taken from Leonard Cohen's last album cover as well.

This book emphasizes the Canadian role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and suggests that the Canadians played a pivotal role in this crisis. The fact is Canada was a bit player in the drama of nuclear brinksmanship, and this book will only appeal to the Canadian audience. All others will be bored and patronized by the author's sweeping nationalistic assertions.

After condemning capitalism because it is "secular" and asking Christians to repent for the crimes of the market economy, Goudzwaard pleas for Marxism--just another "secular" option! He seems to ignore that leftist economic views rely on a deep misunderstanding of the subjective nature of cost & price (determined by the supply and demand, not by the "omniscient" state interventionism) and that they always lead to utter poverty and alienation of all freedom.

The real tragedy was that this book was published at all! Amateurish dialogue, terrible plot (at least I think there's one) that goes nowhere, totally unbelievable characters without reason for being in the book who disappear after initial introductions, descriptions that are cliches of cliches, and threads that lead into thin air. I do not recommend this book and would give it -10 stars if that were possible.

I just finished a major suspension rebuild on my Toyota truck. I used the Chiltons for reference, which was a huge mistake. Most of the procedures were poorly written, confusing, and/or wrong. Many critical torque specifications were incorrect to the point of being dangerous or destructive. Save yourself a lot of frustration and wasted time by purchasing the Toyota factory repair manual for your specific vehicle.