Scaturro does a thorough job debunking some of the interpretations of history which keep plunking Grant in the "worst President" realm. For those interested in Grant this is a must read. As a Grant fan I was happy to see a defense come out in favor of Grant's accomplishments, however, Grant's shortcomings as a President (be they created by bad luck, bad spin, or bad policy) were manifold and I would have liked a more even-handed approach. Still, I enjoyed the book.

During the 50 years following the Civil War, the presidency of U. S. Grant was completely distored in an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of the Grant era (Civil Rights) and to take away some of the luster from the man who saved the Union.

The Democratic party- particullary of the South- stiffled the great civil rights efforts of the Republicans during reconstruction. As time passed, and voting rights and other legislative initatives of the Granta administration were dismembered by the Southern Demacrats, they constantly sought to sully the memory of Grant. One of the keys to that effort was portraying the Grant administration in a bad light in terms of corruption. This was done by distortion history, and the outright falsification of the facts involved in the Grant administration. To a large extent these distortions have not been challanged.

Grant Reconsidered presents the historical record in a straight fowrward manner: The Grant presidency offered tremendous acomplishments- and really offered a bridge from a slave nation to a nation where all men have the same rights. An outstanding book!!

Readers looking for a history of Grant's presidency will be sorely disappointed. The author assumes that the reader has at least a passing familiarity with previous biographies of Grant and of such events as Reconstruction, the Crédit Mobilier scandal, the Whiskey Ring and the Treaty of Washington. Nevertheless, "President Grant Reconsidered" is an important book that should help reshape debate about these events and rehabilitate the reputation of perhaps the most underrated President in American history.

Lots of names in this book, most I have no clue who they are. Tony Williams? Rolf Bjorling? Stephen Burks? I think another column explaining who these people are would wrap this book up nicely. Also, too many empty or generic causes of death. A little research would fill in these blanks (death cirtificates are public information).

This is the ultimate book of celebrity death. Anyone who has passed away and enjoyed 15 minutes of celebrity (of the theatrical kind)has made it here. There is no such thing such as a quick look/see. Every time I look at this book I find that 2 or 3 hours have flashed by. If you have a modest interest in cemeteries, death, or whatever-became-of you'll find your questions answered here. It is superbly organized and each new edition provides new information (and lots of it).

I have been purchasing Final Curtain since 1986 and am anxiously awaiting edition #10. I have also purchased the book as gifts for many friends who have the same interests. One of the critics wrote "causes of death are generic or missing". Until recently doctors could list heart attack, seizure,tumor, etc in a generic manner. Some states may still allow this but in California all underlying causes of death must be totally explained with a clinical type diagnosis on one to four lines on the death certificate. Although a public record it's not that easy to attain one. You do have to have some kind of need to know. I love the idea of listing the status of the person such as star, character actor, bit player, etc. Photos would be divine but probably cost prohibitive. My Final Curtain has accompanied on many journeys in my quest for cemetery history knowledge. The subject is "dark" however this book is absolutely fantastic! Carol Ann Hale Mountain View, Califonia.

Of the numerous football guides I've read, this is the first book that actually went beyond the X's and O's of football. As the title says, it not only discusses the on-field game, but also preparation, team building, and the mental side of the game.

This book touches interesting topics and is probably intended for giving some more food for thought and different angles on coaching issues. It is not exactly a DIY-manual or a literal step-by-step gude for all football coaches on how to build a successful team.

While some of the chapters are a bit academic and subject to cross your personal views, this book is a recommended especially for those who are just starting their coaching career or coach youth and junior football.

A book that any coach should have. It gets the wheels going in your mind allowing you to develop new schemes. Its interesting to read other famous coach's ideas on topics like the Double Wing, Passing from your own endzone, and using the 50 front.

I just got a job coaching and thought that I would pick up a book to help me in learning the ins and outs of the game. I have found it here. Thi is one excelent book. I played some college ball and now am going to coach, but I have learned a ton of things that o would not know until you start researching the game. EXCELENT..

Flee The Darkness is not a bad novel, but that's about as far as it goes. If, like me, you have a taste for Christian Endtime fiction, you'll probably enjoy this novel. There's nothing wrong with it but, like many other novels in this genre, there's nothing standout about it either. If you're interested in reading a truly exceptional novel about Revelations, I would suggest We All Fall Down by Brian Caldwell. Caldwell uses Revelations, not just to imagine what it might be like, but to truly explore the nature of God an mankind. I read the novel three months ago, and I'm still thinking about it, God and myself. Flee is a good novel, it just doesn't come anywhere close to We All Fall Down.

Only 2 words can describe this book - A triumph of nouns with a graceful multitude of adjectives, verbs, and the occasional splattering of gerunds.

I, too, have read the LEFT BEHIND series, and thought none other could be so all consuming. But I was transported from the first page and became totally involved with the characters. One night, when I awoke from a dream about the book events,I found that I was praying for the safety of the characters! I would say that WAS involvement. I have watched for additional books. When?

The works that comprise Michael Grant's rendition of Cicero's "On the Good Life" are: "The Tusculum Disputations (V)", "On Duties (II)," "On Friendship," On the Orator," and "The Dream of Scipio." These works expound upon the very essence of the highest good--namely the highest morality--and lay down a clear system of practical, applied ethics for the aspiring youth, statesman, orator, or sage. Cicero, furthermore, attempts to use these virtues to the direct benefit of the individual citizen and ultimately to the dignity of the Commonwealth. The sheer stateliness of these treatises will be enough to attract and excite scholars and, in a word, enlighten students seeking to grasp a general view of the works of one of the greatest philosophical popularizers in history, the immortal Marcus Tullius Cicero.

This review refers to the work, -Cicero: On the Good
Life-, translated and with introductions by Michael
Grant (Penguin Classics).
What is to like about this collection of sections
of essays by Cicero? I personally favor very much
the excellent introductions by Michael Grant, as well
as the excellent thought and expression by Cicero.
Be aware that this volume contains parts of whole
works. The parts themselves are complete, but if one
is looking for the whole work, then one should look
to the Harvard/Loeb editions of Cicero. Michael
Grant has piloted several Penguin Classics volumes
of Cicero parts, so one will have to purchase several
volumes in order to get the benefit of Mr. Grant's
insights and translations.
But those introductions, the main "Introduction" to
this volume itself, as well as the "introductions"
to each of the selections are excellent. Michael
Grant not only gives you the historical and cultural
context for Cicero himself, but he also in the main
"Introduction" (as he does in other volumes he
superintends) gives you the historical and cultural
influence which follows after Cicero, the influence
of his works on later generations. In this particular
volume, Mr. Grant says that he starts first with
"indicating how important [these works] still are
for us today." "For Cicero, through these treatises,
has been the greatest of all conservers and trans-
mitters of cultural values, the greatest unifying

force of Europe, the shaper of its civilized speech."
That is tall praise indeed. And, when he gets
to the historical influence itself, Mr. Grant is
no less emphatic. "One of the very strongest forces
contributing to the ideals of the Italian Renaissance,
and thus to the whole intellectual, scientific, and
social development of western Europe, was Cicero's
thought as interpreted by Petrarch (d. 1374)."
So, if you have ever scratched your head, and/or
your mind, and/or your soul, and wondered just
what DOES constitute the good, moral, worthy,
excellent life, then Cicero is an invaluable
companion to help you quest in search for an
answer to that most important of quandaries.

Although "On the Good Life" is a hodgepodge of Cicero's essays, there are a few reasons why this book is a must buy. First, these are Cicero's words, some of the best writing to come from ancient Rome. Second, the essays are a great introduction to Cicero's immense collection of essays, speeches, and letters. His literary productive output was vast. Finally, Michael Grant's translation and introduction is of the highest quality.

A lot can be said about the selection of the essays - why would Michael Grant pick a Book Five (Discussions at Tusculum) and a Book Two (On Duties) instead of a complete collection of each? Where's the rest of these works? Frankly, it didn't matter to me. Once I began reading "On the Good Life" I was hooked. This book converted me into a lifelong Cicero fan and Grant's translations (through Penguin Classics) are my primary sources for his works. I have five Cicero books from Penguin Classics so far.

My favorite essay was "On Friendship." I would recommend it to anyone. It is wise, philosophical, and applicable to everyone even today. The rest of the essays were also fantastic with the exception - my opinion only - of "On the Orator." That I could have done without. It was a little too long and way too dry. I wish Michael Grant had squeezed in some other essay of Cicero's.

There are more comprehensive translations of Cicero but "On the Good Life" is a wise choice as a Cicero starter. If you enjoy classic literature and you haven't read Cicero, start here.

This is a small book, but don't judge it by its size. It is a great little book. Grant & Lee, with such different backgrounds, lead two great armies in the strangest of times. In the end, with no grudge, the two men get to know and respect each other. But the story of how these men fought & how they thought so similarly in the battlefield and how they were both so noble and courageous help show that two men that could not have been more dissimilar, ended up being so alike serving their causes. I highly recommend this book. Very entertaining, and very educational.

The oft-repeated view, especially from Confederate defenders, is that Grant won though he was a drunken butcher indifferent to high casualties whose triumph was inevitable because of superior manpower and supplies. John Frederick Charles Fuller, the British Major General, and along with Liddel Hart one of the top military strategists of the 20th century, provides overwhelming evidence to lay this view to rest. Grant practiced maneuver warfare when he could, and his Vicksburg campaign (not just a siege, rather a series of five battles), along with Jackson's valley campaign, are the two greatest campaigns of the war. In his final Overland campaign, Grant could not maneuver much because Lincoln required that he keep substantial forces between Lee's army and Washington. By a thorough analysis of Grant's and Lee's battles throughout the war, Fuller makes the case that Grant was among the best generals ever, and greater than Lee, who was also great but had his limitations (after Order 191 was lost and recovered by McClellan's troops before Antietam, Lee would only issue oral orders, and his subordinates were often confused by them; Grant was known for crystal clear written orders, following the example of Zachary Taylor under whom Grant (and Lee) had served in the Mexican War). Rating Grant so highly will of course be heresy for neo-Confederates, but there is no question Grant has received unfair treatment even among historians. Another Fuller book, "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" adds more details to the defense of the claim that Grant was an excellent general. In assessing the relative greatness of Grant and Lee, one should keep in mind their age difference and the difference in upward mobility on the two sides during the war. Lee was 14 years older than Grant, Lee was already a Colonel when the war started and still serving on active duty, whereas Grant had left the army as a captain after the Mexican War. At the start of the war, Winfield Scott, who had served in the War of 1812 and masterminded in the Mexican War the amazing defeat of a country of 20 million people with 12,000 invading troops, was the greatest soldier on either side. However he was old and so fat he could no longer ride a horse; his campaigning days were over. After Scott, Lee was the best soldier on either side at the start of the war--and Lee was offered command of the Union army but turned it down. However Grant rose through the ranks because he learned quickly from his mistakes at Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, and Holly Springs. By the end of the war Fuller's analysis shows Grant was clearly the superior general, and not just because he had superior numbers. Even the oft-cited mistake at Cold Harbor, according to Fuller, is exagerrated. Fuller summarizes the overall casualy numbers during the war: the ratio of killed and wounded to total forces engaged for Grant was 10%; for the whole Federal army it was 11%; for the whole Confederate army it was 12%; and for Lee, it was 16%. One must be fair to Lee and not lose sight of the fact that he was an exemplary, even a saintly individual who must always be acknowledged as among the great American generals. But the simplistic, grossly unfair judgment of Ulysses S. Grant is revealed here as a sham which must stop. Under the razor-sharp and penetrating analysis of Fuller, one of the greatest military historians of all time, the conventional, common opinion of Grant is shown to be balderdash. Ulysses S. Grant was one of the greatest generals the U.S. has ever produced. Though written many years ago, Fuller's book is still relevant to this ongoing national discussion, and is a must read for anyone who wants to compare Union and Confederate generalship. Regarding Grant's drinking, Fuller doesn't discuss this, but this too is greatly exaggerated. He was indeed a binge drinker. When I asked the renowned Civil War historian Ed Bearss about this, he said Grant got drunk about four to six times during the war, always when he was away from his wife (she was with or lived near him during some campaigns and he was always lonely without her). Moreover, in the Civil War one could usually tell when battle was near, and there was usually inactivity during the winter months. The circumstances are not comparable to a modern general's always being on call in the nuclear age. Grant's occasional binge drinking never once affected his generalship, in public functions he usually would not drink at all, being a semi-recovered alcoholic except for the occasional binge. The stereotype is that Grant was constantly drunk during the war. This too is an unfair assessment not based on historical fact. Read this book and will see just how wrong the stereotype of Grant's generalship is, and how good a general he was.

I have to disagree totally with the previous reviewer. While the relative merits of both generals have been argued since the conclusion of the war and will be into the future, the interesting point about this book is that General Fuller began with the assumption that Grant was the butcher of legend who bludgeoned with numbers and that Lee was the battlefield genius. His studies lead him to conclude otherwise (in an intersting appendix he shows that througout their respective careers, Lee lost a higher proportion of his men than Grant).

The main point Fuller makes is that Grant was the first general to understand the totality of warfare in the modern age, including the role of political expectations. He also was a superior strategist and campaigner to Lee, although Lee was probably the better battlefield tactitian. Lee had the advantage in the Overland campaign of fighting on the defensive, and Grant was aware of the approaching elections and the need to produce a result, rather than the traditional Army of the Potomac stalemate, or worse. He additionally had responsibilities for overseeing the Western and Valley battlefronts.

The main point to remember when considering the careers of the two men is that, if my memory is correct, of the three armies that surrendered during the War, Grant received two of them.

An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's tactical operations. However, this book reaches too far. Like the title, the author's military assertions and their subsequent impact on the Union's conduct of the war are a little too grandiose. Grant did not win the war on July 4, 1863. It would drag on for two more years. But just maybe Lincoln did.

Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. From the point of view of Grant's career, he had to win, had to take unorthodox chances, because he was as close to being dead meat as any Union general ever came. For months and months he was bogged down before Vicksburg. We know Lincoln was so dissatisfied with Grant that he sent Charles Dana to Vicksburg as the President's special envoy to see what was really going on.

General Banks, a Lincoln political appointee and very close friend, was driving north from Baton Rouge toward Port Gibson and Vicksburg. Banks stalled and Grant was ordered by Halleck (via Lincoln??) to assist Banks. Grant disobeyed this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and went his own way. WOW! Big decision. What a way to make friends when you are under the looking glass.

Last, placed within Grant's command structure is another Lincoln political appointee and friend, General McClernand, who Grant subsequently relieves prior to Vicksburg's capitulation. Is he thumbing he nose?

At Vicksburg we see Grant's first inclination to tactically detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvinistic defense of Vicksburg and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe? Or was it the internal pressure within the Union army and Grant's desire to save his career that forced Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals, causing him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the war?

Last, from the Confederate side there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity. Did Jeff Davis hang Joe Johnston out to dry? And lets not forget Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order: Save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psychologically important to the South as it was, but also the loss of an entire army, complete with thousands of men and irreplaceable stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command, i.e., a traitor in his midst (McClernand), a presidential spy at headquarters (Dana), an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander (Banks) and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders (Halleck's), Grant should be thankful for Lincoln's reaffirmed evaluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights". Good for you, Charles Dana.

Grant's military victory at Vicksburg IS amazing and this book is as good an account of it as there is. But the author fails to live up to his title's claim. Grant's political coup (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience and non cooperation with Lincoln favorites) is even more incredulous than his military one. Had not Meade just beaten Lee at Gettysbury on the very same day that Vicksburg fell? Which would have been of more immediate importance: a captured Confederate army on the Mississippi River or a victorious Confederate army next door to Washington? If Lee had won at Gettysburg, Vicksburg would have been what it will always be, a spectacular feat of arms. But Union army and Northern political concerns aside, maybe, just maybe, Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee lost the war that fateful day when they made the conscious decision to risk swapping Vicksburg for Washington and lost their gamble on both counts.

The most important item to come from the Vicksburg conflict was not Grant's victory as much as it was Lincoln's recognition of Grant as his next General in Chief. And in that vein it was not Grant's victory at Vicksburg but Lincoln's subsequent promotion of Grant over Meade that won the war.

An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's Vickburg's operations.

But like the title, a little too grandoise in its assertions. Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. Here we see Grant's first indclination to detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvenistic defense of Vicksburg (and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe) or was it the internal pressure within the Union army (forcing Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals)that caused him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the War?

Prior to this victory, Grant, as a general, was probably as much at risk to continuing his command as any time subsequent in his military career. He had horrifically bogged down at Vicksburg. General Banks, Lincoln political appointee and close friend of Lincoln's, is driving North from Baton Rouge. He is stalled outside Port Gibson and Grant is ordered by Hallack (via Lincoln??)to assist him. Grant disobeys this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and goes his own way. WOW! Big decision.

Also, within his command structure is another Lincoln political appointee, General McClernand, who Grant relieves prior to Vickburg's capitulation.

Last, there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity (did he hang Joe Johnston out to dry)and Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order; save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psycologically important to the South as it was, but also an entire army, complete with thousands of men, stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command,i.e., a traitor in his midst, McClernand, an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander, Banks, and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders, Halleck's,he should be thankful for Linclon's non military, non political eveluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights".

Grant's military victory at Vicksburg is amazing. But his political victory (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience)is even more incredulous.

Arnold's book is a good solid history of the Vicksburg Campaign. His descriptions of the battles and the strategic and tactical issues facing Grant and the Confederacy gives one an understanding of what problems faced the parties and how they were resolved. His description of the battle of Champion Hill is the best part of the book, as one can feel the bravery of the soldiers involved.

The books limitation is Arnold's almost infatuation with Grant and the need to make Vicksburg the pivotal battle of the war. While the strategy that Grant utilized was daring and unorthodox that does not substantiate the comparison with Napoleon. There is nothing in the campaign that demonstrates that Grant's tactics were Napoleonic in nature.

Whether Vicksburg was the pivotal battle of the civil was may be true. However, Arnold did not make the case that it was. A Union loss at Gettysburg surley would have had a dramatic impact on the Unions will to continue the war. While the issue of which battle was more important was not important to the Vicksburg story, once the issue was raised Arnold should have at least spent more than a moment discussing Gettysburg.

As a story about the Vicksburg Campaign, the book excells.

This book really doesnt' get going at full steam until the middle of the story, when the Exterminatrix character enters the tale. Then there is some human romantic tension, in a weird, alternate universe kind of way.

The main problem is that there are so few interesting characters to enjoy, since Marvel Boy is so aloof and unsympathetic. There is a very cool, ... alternate reality version of the original Iron Man, who is a villain here, and then his confused daughter, the Exterminatrix, adds a human element and chemistry to the too aloof Marvel Boy.

If you like J. G. Jones, then this book will not disappoint you. The art is very nicely drawn, but it can't hide the coldness of the characters' hearts.

The writing is strange and unique, and very original in the way that it carelessly expresses main characters who find it impossible to care about anybody, though they crave love and material wealth, or destructive revenge, they are all very shallow and casual about interpersonal relationships. It's an interesting point of view in a comic book novel, but it is not extremely endearing.

A better J. G. Jones read would be the "Black Widow" graphic novel, written by Devin Grayson, which is the high point of J. G. Jones career, as far as beautiful artwork is concerned.

What if you were an alien stranded on a primitive world, hated and feared by civilizations that,quite simply,suck? Would you fight for their safety, and admiration? Probably not, and neither does Noh-var. Put simply,the first chapter in the Marvel Boy trilogy (if it indeed is still that) seems to be Grant Morrison channeling the imaginations of Jack Kirby and Satan simultaniously, and writing the images he recieves down as words.
As fast-paced, and hallucinogenic as he felt like making it. Morrison crafts what couldn't be deemed a dense tale of charactor driven pathos, however it does out-do The Authority for people with personalities( after all, how many issues of people sitting around for three issues only to hit the world conquering threat of the month into submission- without development of characters can you handle?) the development of the characters takes a passanger-side seat to the plot, with neither truly dominating the other... although the plot does speak with a louder,shinier voice at times. Marvel Boy doesn't really break any new ground, until it's too late, and you realize just what is really going on. That's all i'll say about the story, not that what happens is a major suprise, it's just that I hate thinking i'll ruin someone's fun.
Art-wise, J.G. Jones is definetly hitting strides. The art is a perfect compliment to the story, picking up just enough of certain Kirby-isms without being anything other than an homage, even though Jones' art looks nothing like Kirby's. Weird I know, and when you look at the art you might think i'm crazy, but... Just study the overall flow of the story, and it might come to you. The art brings an unparalleled sense of design to the characters that just plain makes sense. Everything about Marvel Boy clicks in what can only be called "Planned coincedense." Everything looks like its two different styles of comics coming together at a random angle, but it feels like the only thing that makes sense. Noh-varr designed by Joe Maduer...y'know Battle chaser's guy wouldn't FEEL right. As a matter of fact, there are only a handful of artists I feel could have pulled off realism in a world created by a sociopathic God.
Believe me, Marvel Boy is more than "Pop comics", or an experiment of what would Stan Lee do if he were inspired by drugs, but it also isn't. When deconstructur-ism seems to be the leading trend in super-hero comics that mean something, Marvel Boy is just the opposite. Flashy costumes and superpowers for the sake of Flashy costumes and explosions, with out being dubbed "Wide-screen" Comics, which those simpering skin-cells at Wizard(shudder) seem to apply to anything these days.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not giving Marvel Boy hand love for the sake of hand love, a little more time could have been spent on developing Noh-varr and Oubliette, and just why their particular brand of neo-relationship works,(which i'm capable of ignoring: If people can form bonds over chat rooms...). My only major gripe with Marvel Boy comes with tha fact that it is indeed edited. The sting of non-anarchist chaotic rhetoric seems to loses it's edge when edited. Oh the irony of the Comics Code.
A comic about someone changing the government, filtered by the government... if you catch my admitedly vague statements. Hopefully, Marvel Boy2 (which Morrison claims to be already writing) will be released through the less restrictive guise of the Marvel Max imprint. One can only hope. So at least read a friend's copy of Marvel Boy, if for nothing else but to see a "Superhero" eating trash for strength.

Marvel Boy is Grant Morrison and J.G. Jones twisted re-configuration of the Marvel Universe.

It's not as good as Morrison's best work (such as his stunning work on such titles as Doom Patrol and The Invisibles) but it is a a bizzare, over the top comic book full of daft action and slick, kinetic artwork and as such it's a very entertaining read.

The story really gets going with issue three and the introduction of Hexus, the living corporation. From this point on the story is a blur of great ideas and shiny visuals, and the climax to the whole thing is wonderfully absurd.

All in all it's like a flashy, punk rock superhero comic, and a damn fine one at that...

i defintely enjoyed this book. i love the characters in the allen-teague ad agency, and all the other characters in this book. i especially enjoy the realistic aspect of the ad agency having to deal with it's clients, etc. this book is casually written so that you feel almost like sydney is talking to you rather than you are reading a book. i have now read smoke screen and just started cuttings, but i would definitely like to add sydney to my list of favorite detectives.

Not being acquainted with real estate, I found the premise of the title and the concept unusual. The story and the characters kept me reading with interest while the solution eluded me until the very end. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and encourage other to give it a try.

Writers have a long tradition of leaving their mark on the landscapes of cities they set their stories in, so that readers can imagine the London of Sherlock Holmes, the New York City of Laurence Block. In Anne Underwood Grant's debut mystery, "Multiple Listing," the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, comes in for much the same treatment, don't expect the chamber of commerce to embrace this book with much fervor. The city is treated as well as the book's murder victims.

"Multiple Listing" -- a dull title that describes a service in which a home for sale can be shown by many real estate agents -- attempts to merge the cozy mystery with the serial killer genre with mixed results. Sydney Teague is a divorced mom with two kids, a small ad agency business and a drinking problem that has been under control for more than eleven years. Her comfortable existence is disrupted with a friend of hers is found brutally raped and murdered. When Sydney discovers that the murder may be connected with a series of thefts at homes that have been put up for sale through the Multiple Listing service, Sydney finds herself involved again with a homicide detective she had dated several years ago.

"Multiple Listing" is packed with attitude and character. Genre writers tend to soft-pedal their leading character, fearful of offending or putting off readers. Scarred by alcolholism and a bad marriage, Sydney has the strength of character that means she takes no nonsense, from her co-workers, her business competitors, even her detective friend. Call it the Kay Scarpetta Effect (after Patricia Cornwell's character), but this is obviously a woman born to lead. One can easily imagine her rushing off to investigate a murder involving her friends.

Nor does Grant dilute Sydney's distate for Charlotte, a city the author lived in for a decade. In the first few pages alone, Sydney is musing on a city with "lots of services but very few tangible products." "Like a newly rich southern woman eager to buy her way into social prominence. Charlotte is a New South city, full of herself with polite aggression, portending to the crown of shifting economic futures, hoping Atlanta will slip, pretending she has no past." Wap, wap, wap!

Weighing in at 325 pages, "Multiple Listing" could have used a firmer editorial hand. Several times, Sydney retells the facts in ways that more experienced writers would have finessed, and the "woman in jeopardy" ending is as stock as explosions in a Sylvester Stallone movie. Yet Grant has written a strong debut novel about a heroine with unexpected and as-yet unexplored depths, and that alone is worth cheering.

There are much better books out there. This one did not seem to have any concept of organization. I could find most of this information out with a little work in the yellow pages travel section. The "quest" here should be to find a better book. Should not be difficult.

This book was a very inspiring book to read, as well as full of great information (seems like it's about 2/3 reference and 1/3 inspirational). Most travel books I've read cover where to go, what to see and what to do in your particular destination. Quest covers so much about what you need to know before you go on a trip, including how to get the best deals on plane tickets and even free accomodations in countries all over the world. Has tons of practical info you need to, like info on health & insurance, passports, world wide weather for every month in all major destinations, flight times and distances, U.S. Embassy locations & phone numbers and Foreign Entrance requirements, etc. I think this book is in a class by itself, being that it seems to have everything you need to know before you go.

I've always wanted to visit Spain, it's actually been a lifelong dream. Quest not only inspired me to make the trip a reality but helped me to do it in style without spending alot of money. I was even able to bring my girlfriend who I proposed to on the hillside overlooking San Sebastian, Spain! I highly recommend this book.