The diary is an excellent way to look into the eyes of a young woman during the Civil War years. She sounds like a typical teenager today, writing about boys, socializing, familys issues, lonliness, happiness, body image, sexuality, and just life in general; however, it also contains information related to the time, such as her views on slavery and the war. Unfortunately, what is missing from this book is an historical examination into the people, places, and events she wrote about.

For those of you like me who are not general history buffs but enjoy personal stories from bygone eras, this is a wonderful book. Reading along with Lucy, sharing her joys and pain during the days of the Civil War, she becomes a friend, and we her confidante. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the Civil War, particularly women's views. In reading her story, we can relive a piece of America's past through the eyes of a young woman.

This book typifies this author's arrogance. It seems to me that he is so self-centered that he can not write about things in a the broad context of life, without including his own narrow perspective. A glorified autobiography!

Reading James Ragan is no easy thing but as a master of languages he challenges you to do that. The imagery is intense and takes so many twists and turns one is constantly reframing the mind to keep up...to follow the tale. The secret is to read the title, take a moment to reflect and go from there. It was in that fashion that "Delivering Newspapers Past the Cemetery Dead" came alive to this old paper boy.

Ragan does what I wish more poets would do: size up the world and significant matters about it from his perspective [the only one any of us has a complete grasp of] instead of attempting to dazzle us - as many do - with how he experiences himself and his own turmoil. He does not write about bunions on his bum or bruises on his abused ego.

I am afraid that I can only regard someone who thinks this gifted man [or his poetry] arrogant as someone with an ax to grind. I have had the privilege of meeting and interviewing him. He is down to earth, accommodating, pleasant and as delightful to talk with as he is to read.

My only regret about Lusions is that most everyday readers who would undoubtedly find his topics engrossing will not find reading him an easy thing to do.

I had to get this book, as I love National Geographic feature maps. Once I acquired it, however, I was shocked to discover how few maps are provided by this book. Furthermore, I am usually disappointed by this book when looking for specific events, dates, and locations. Help me recover my dignity as a consumer and buy something else!

I've been on an ancient history kick lately, and since it's been about 20 years since I've done a lot of reading in this area, I thought I would check out what's available in the way of good historical atlases of the ancient world, or of world history in general.

This book is one of the half-dozen big atlases out there that are available. Since I've been looking in detail at all of the current ones, I'll give brief comparisons and you can go from there and decide which one might be best for you.

Atlases are great for looking up those events, both momentous and not-so-momentous, to get a quick grasp and overview of the situation without getting bogged down in some more detailed and ponderous history. All the current ones do a decent job of that, but they very in terms of readability and the number of maps included, and the degree to which they integrate the visual maps and materials with the text. Here's the scoop on all of these.

1. For my money, John Haywood's Atlas of World History is the best combination of features and price. Haywood writes very well and has a nice, deft touch with the material, unlike many atlases, whose prose often sounds somewhat dry and technical. The book was written along with a team of graphics experts skilled at combining the written word with maps and illustrations, and it shows. Although not as large as the Hammond and Dorling-Kindersley books, it's still excellent and only a fraction of their cost. Two other nice features are the color-coded timelines which accompany each two-page spread, and the many special symbols and legends on the maps, which are used to illustrate and highlight points in the text.

2. The Oxford Atlas of World History is also well written, and has lots of maps just like the Haywood volume. I found the writing style somewhat drier than Haywood's, but it's one of the most scholarly of the atlases out there, and could be used by college students given the level of presentation of the material. These two books are otherwise very close, except that the Haywood volume is less than half the price of this one.

3. The Nat'l Geographic offering has some of the most entertaining writing by Noel Grove and Daniel Boorstin I've found in any history text. Some of the tidbits are really great, such as Grove's comment that "Russia's...Peter the Great died at the age of 53 after diving into the Neva River in winter to rescue drowning sailors." And "Vikings were not just ruthless killers; they traded as often as they raided, and their wives knew rights that other medieval women could scarcely imagine."

However, the main shortcoming of this atlas is that it contains almost no maps. Most of the illustrations are arts or crafts related, for some reason. In that sense the book hardly qualifies as an atlas, and it would be more accurate to say it's a more like a well-illustrated history of the world, instead.

4. The Hammond Atlas, along with the DK, is physically the biggest, thickest, and most comprehensive of the 6 discussed here. It's also the highest priced, and more expensive than the cheapest one here by a factor of four or five. It's still a fine atlas despite the cost, and I'd still be quite happy with this one as it's certainly a beautifully done atlas.

The book has over 600 maps and illustrations, many of which show such nice details (which not all the other atlases do) as mountain ranges, and in general are beautifully colored with a variety of symbols showing movements of peoples and armies and other important historical and cultural details, similar to the Haywood volume.

The level of presentation of the material is also high, and would be appropriate up through college level, but the prose style is a little drier and more technical sounding than the DK or Haywood, for example. However, someone who is already pretty knowledgeable about history could probably still use this atlas, compared with the DK, which, although more attractive graphically, is obviously aimed at a broader audience.

5. The Dorling-Kindersley atlas is the most beautifully designed, graphically, of all the offerings out there, and they often set the maps at various angles or distort them in creative ways to fit all the different paragraphs of text and illustrations on a page, which sometimes looks a little weird. Because of this, the presentation consists of an introductory section in larger type, with other paragraphs in smaller type which are paired with the other maps and graphics on each two-page spread. In fact, there is almost a 1 to 1 correspondence between the illustrations and the text paragraphs. I found this made the atlas harder to use than the others, since the pages are almost so dense and busy with material that it's almost distracting, but there's no doubt it's the most visually appealing and graphically innovative of all the atlases out there. Their maps are really spectacular, and they use the glossiest paper, so their maps look more attractive.

The DK atlas also provides the best coverage of non-European history, doing a much better job of covering Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania. The other atlases are more Eurocentric in their focus. Next to the DK, the Hammond atlas provides the best coverage in this regard.

6. The last atlas I wanted to discuss is the Times Atlas of World History. Although now a little dated, having come out almost 10 years ago in 1993, it still counts as one of the mostly scholarly, well-written, and well-illustrated of these works, and it's also intermediate in terms of price. I read somewhere that the more recent Hammond atlas is actually this one updated, but they don't state specifically that the Time atlas was its predecessor, so I can't verify this.

Hope my little "Consumer Reports" comparison guide helps. Good luck and happy atlas shopping, buying, and reading!

I give this book four stars because, while it is really not an atlas, it is a wonderful overview of history.

The book features the superb photography/illustrations that folks expect from National Geographic. These graphics are used to good effect, showing the progression from early history to the late 1990's. I find it a most enjoyable "refresher course" in world history. There is a timeline at the top of each page indicating significant events for the given period.

If you wish to have a succinct world history summary/review with great aesthetics, you can't go wrong with this. However, it offers relatively few maps (around 60 or so), so don't depend on it as a true atlas.

As an academic, I anticipated liking this book very much. I find the day-to-day petty politics of the university amusing in real life and thought such a satire would be enjoyable. The Groves of Academe, however, proved to be lifeless and long-winded. The protagonist is so entirely unlikeable that I found myself wishing he'd just leave and get it over. None of the other characters were particularly engaging either; they tended to be rather flat stereotypes (e.g. the dried-up spinster), which usually work in a satire, but really needed to be more human to counteract the distaste inspired by Mulcahy.

The setting in the post-war, commie witch-hunt days really turns out to be less important than anticipated. While it provides some interesting strategies for our anti-hero, it could be replaced with any number of "isms" without changing the essential effect.

McCarthy's style is excruciatingly dry and her dialogue is stilted to the point of being stylized. The sheer boredom of plowing through her prose deadens the mind to the point that any satirical effect is largely lost.

The jabs at "progressive" education were mildly entertaining, thus two stars rather than a mere one.

With my interest in the academic genre -- David Lodge is good, light humor, Richard Russo's "Straight Man" was a wonderful, comedic treat -- Amazon directed me to "Groves", where I quickly proceeded to become lost among the trees.

Like Kingsley Amis' "Lucky Jim", a book I found to be absent much appeal, McCarthy offers a highly literate analysis of the travails of a male professor struggling at university after World War II. McCarthy's Henry Mulcahy is strapped by poverty, with a sickly wife and four children, in a temporary teaching position offered, in part, out of a sense of guilt by the college president. Then Mulcahy gets the dreaded and unexpected "non-renewal" letter.

Some aspects of academic life have not changed in fifty years: petty squabbles and politics, the longing for job security, the poor wages of some professors, the need for intrinsic interest in teaching, the complaints about students' habits. But the focus on communism and loyalty oaths as a basis for job insecurity is a distant memory to most people. And Mulcahy's own dishonesty (or grasp of reality) left me confused rather than sympathetic. Rather I found myself attuned to Mulcahy's nemesis, the president.

The story is simple yet the tone of the book put me off. There was more philosophy than conversation, and when academics did speak, they spoke in a fashion most would find hard to expect in conversation. I grew bored. The characters weren't that interesting despite their intelligence, and I found myself speed reading the last thirty pages. And I found myself as displeased with "Groves" as I had been with "Lucky Jim".

Sometimes very literate and well-educated authors don't translate well to my level, to meet my self-admittedly need for a clearer, more linear story and engaging characters.

I am an alum of the small college "Groves" is based on. I am also an academic and great fan of McCarthy's novel "The Group". I should have found "The Groves of Academe" engaging on these three facts alone. Sadly, the book left me cold. As a satire the novel is dissatisfying on several levels -- where we spot the familiar, the recognition is only sad, not humourous; and the plot, even for an academic who can be expected to find campus politics interesting, is deadly dull. If you aren't familiar with McCarthy, start with her far more interesting and accessible "The Group" instead. If you are new to academic satire, start with "The Lecturer's Tale" for a far more entertaining and cunning critique of academic culture.

...then buy this book. But, if you like think for yourself and are not a basketcase, then pass this book up...This book is just the same old, same old. The theme: "There's this group of rich white guys and they, like, totally run world." Really? We'll they're not doing a very good job of it if ever paranoid fruit loop in this country knows about it...

What is a "ruling class"? It is worth recalling that well into the eighteenth century, even the most penurious laird in Scotland enjoyed the regalities of "infangthief and outfangthief, pit and gallows" - in other words, the power of life and death over all those on his land. Compared to these rights of High and Low Justice, the political bigwigs, corporate CEOs, and scions of old, monied families identified by G. William Domhoff as the modern ruling class must be content with the relatively benign High and Low Jinks of the Bohemian Grove. Domhoff also describes two other less well-known clubs that put on similar festivities.

Is it surprising to anyone that rich people move largely in social circles made up of rich people? Is it surprising that they sometimes mix business with pleasure, or that they discuss common concerns? Prof. Domhoff is surprised, for he presents this information with an air of revelation, leading to the breathless and climactic conclusion that there is a "national ruling class" in the United States.

Of course there is a national élite. Every society in human history has had one. Even the Soviet Union, founded on the egalitarian premises of Marxism, couldn't help developing an élite known as the nomenklatura. Furthermore, as Vilfredo Pareto reminds us, history is the graveyard of aristocracies. Élites shift and change. If resilient, tough, and adaptable enough, they absorb rising talent; if not, they are soon at one with Nineveh and Tyre. They also possess varying levels of power, authority, and influence. In the "workers' paradise" established by Lenin, a telephone call from someone in a high place was sufficient to assure that an offensive person was immured in the Gulag or got a bullet in the nape of the neck. Prof. Domhoff, by contrast, says unkind things about corporate executives and Republican politicians, but this conduct has not interfered with his ability to hold forth as an author and teacher, however distressing he may be to those grey eminences. This says more about the nature of the American élite than do any of his books.

Prof. Domhoff has shown himself, in his other works (such as "Who Rules America?" and "The Higher Circles") to be obsessed with the status indicators of the nineteenth-century WASP plutocracy, such as private prep schools, the Social Register, and men's city clubs (like the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, of which the Bohemian Grove is a part). Like his others, this book (published in 1973) shows little recognition that the political and economic preëminence of the old haute bourgeoisie had been faltering for years. Indeed, James Burnham noted this as early as 1941 in "The Managerial Revolution." While the rising managerial élite at first aped the manners and interests of the older upper class, its courtly and genteel institutions like clubs and cotillions were already falling on hard times by the early '70s. If the Bohemian Club has survived, dozens of others have folded due to lack of time and interest on the part of the new élite. Nixon, in his day, may have favored retreats at the Bohemian Grove, where informal discussions of economics and public policy were mingled over the course of a fortnight with amateur play-acting. Clinton, by contrast, attended Renaissance Weekends, there to hear the earnest vaporings of his fellow policy wonks, sans home-brew theatrics, and on a much tighter schedule. Is the great revelation, at this late juncture, that Tricky Dick had a greater sense of fun and more appreciation of leisure than has Slick Willy?

The best parts of this book are the descriptions of the Club's rather silly and harmless revels. These should be read with the same spirit as one might enjoy the eminently more humorous and sympathetic chronicles of such subjects by the late Lucius Beebe (e.g., "The Big Spenders" and "Snoot if You Must"). If anything positive can be said about Domhoff's relentless left-wing antipathy to the people he describes, it is that he is at least less hysterical than the conspiracy theorists of the religious right, who invariably view as satanic any sort of ceremonial mummery other than the snake-handling and speaking in tongues of their own low-protestant conventicles. Better sociological understanding of élites may be found in Pareto's "The Rise and Fall of Élites" and Gaetano Mosca's "The Ruling Class." The old WASP élite receives a more balanced view in the works of E. Digby Baltzell, as do its latter-day descendants in the films of Whit Stillman. For a picture of today's "bohemian" upper crust, see David Brooks's "Bobos in Paradise."

The Bohemian Club, a very elite club made up almost entirely, (the exception being Colin Powell) of rich, white, men who gather together in Northern California in late July. Anyone that has looked into this Club knows how fascinating the information is on this story and how elusive it is to try to get information about it. Let me just say how elite and how rich the members are that get into this club, our President, George W. Bush, his father, every Republican President since Hoover, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Gingrich, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Walter Cronkite, many, many CEO's of numerous corporations, (I'm still trying to find out if any of Enron's people were Bohemian Club members)and more rich, white elite men.

The interesting aspect of all this is what exactly goes on there and how come most Americans have no idea about this place when you would think the media would be all over it. There is high level security surrounding the club and it is located in a remote place in Northern California. There are many, many rumors of strange activities there but some things are almost beyond doubt: Bohemians get drunk, it is comparable to a college fraternity, there is some gay activity by at least SOME of the members, some drug use, (which almost points to a huge hypocrisy since most of these "conservative, religous, family values" types have spoken out publically against gay rights, and have spent billions on a so called drug war)

Almost beyond doubt is the bizarre Pagan relationship with the Bohemian Club. First off, it is in midsummer, which is considered a very important time in the Pagan calendar, there is a huge owl statue that has been photographed there, there are widespread rumors of some sort of sacrifice being made there ALTHOUGH the Bohemians state that it is not a live human, but just a dummy. I don't want to get into that argument, BUT my question is WHY HAVE SOME SORT OF HUMAN SACRIFICE THERE ANYWAY? Fake or real? How bizarre and strange is that?

There is a Bohemian Action Network there that makes regular protests against the Bohemian Club and until recently feminists have made protests there since no women were allowed to become members or work there, until recently. The Network's argument against the Club is not about the bizarre rumors but sticks to the more solid and mainstream argument that these elite and powerful people make speeches, Kissinger made one recently,and it is widely reported that in 68, Nixon convinced Reagan to stay out of the Republican primaries, and the 92, a Gulf War General told the Bohemians the actual number of Iraqi deaths but warned against telling the masses, (the other 95%), because we would not be able to handle it. That is a very common attitude at the elitist Club, that information and power should and ought to be put into the hands of the few since grassroots democracy would be dangerous, how dare the masses feel that they should rule.

Anyway, the Action Network argues that important policy speeches made in the Grove should not be private for the ears of the 2000 or so rich, white elitist men that are at the Club, but should be made public for all of us to hear. A very convincing argument that is hard seriously debate. But of course that is not likely to happen and the aspect of the Club most people will be interested in is what exactly goes on there, and how strange and bizarre are the practices there.

There, in a nutshell, is the Bohemian Club. The question is WHY isn't this unbelievably fascinating story being reported in the media. For those that may find this hard to believe at all, go to MSNBC webpage and search for Bohemian Club and you will find several articles on it. The Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle have also written articles about it. On the FAIR.ORG webpage, you will find an article written by respected journalist , Jeff Cohen, (One of the guys on FNC's "Fox News watch, he's the REALLY liberal and left wing one! Ain't he great?) He writes how two articles from People and TIME magazine were trashed by the editory at the last minute for unknown and mysterious reasons, well probably not so mysterious if one thinks long enough. Finally there is Alex Jones, and infowars.com, he's the man who claims, and I believe, snuck into the Bohemian Grove, and videotaped much of the activities there, of course hidden and from a distance, it appears legit to me and is truly a bizarre sight as men with hoods and torches worship the huge owl statue. If seeing that doesn't get you interested in the Club, Nothing will.

I hope this was not a waste of time and people will put want to find out more about this place and why it isn't being covered by the media and what exactly these priveleged, elitist hypocrites are doing and saying there.

read the subject, it describes the book in full detail

it was ok nothing special dule kind of no point

We are currently on page eighteen and were looking for information on the author. We are so interested in this book as Vicki Grove writes so amazingly well. This is a great book for kids our age (8-10) The begiining is very intriguing. The part when Brenda's father's death is creating problems for the Tuckers is interesting. We have many emotions, like feeling sad and concerned for Jean. We also feel happy when Jean shares her experiences. We will let you know more when we are done the book.

I didn't like this book too much. A little bit too simplistic...

The above question has stimulated debates and arguments throughout the centuries and still hasn't been resolved. Jesus For Beginners attempts to answer the question through exploring the Jesus of history, the Jesus of faith and the Jesus as seen through the eyes of the institution called the church.

Readers are given a clear and broad historical view of Jesus, the times he lived in and the context in which he preached his message. From there we are led into the theological developments of Jesus as interpreted by the Apostle Paul and finally we are given a sweeping view of how Christianity in the form of an institution (the church) dealt with defining the person of Jesus in order to stifle doctrinal dissent.

The material in the book is good as well as its presentation. O'Hear attempts to be objective but ends up in a quagmire of doubt in finally pinpointing who Jesus was. In many cases the author shows his ignorance about theological views that focus on Jesus by not giving them a closer examination. If anything, O'Hear keeps the debate going. Those who have theological training will appreciate O'Hear's attempts to introduce Jesus and his place in history. I picture this book as one for stimulating discussions about Jesus for those who are professional religionists (clergy, seminairians, laity in full time ministry) as well as someone who wants to know about the historical character called Jesus.

If you are looking for a fast, simple introduction to Jesus and Christianity, this is a superb starting place. There is more comic-strip illustration than text, and it does try to cover all the basics in a very short space, from issues such as who Jesus thought he was or was not, as the case may be, who his followers thought he was, through to the early Church and on to phenomena such as liberation theology.

It could be used as a resource for groups wanting stimulating discussion.

The title of this book sounded great. However, upon reading it I have found it to be somewhat lacking in content. There is little depth; I recommend Clowney's book if you want a detailed look at this subject.

For anyone seeking a Basic understanding to the many symbols of OT worship, this book is a great read. It is very easy to read, smooth in its transition and always makes a connection between the OT and the fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This is a book on the basics, but is very well put together for the layperson or pastor.

most of the texts from this series are reliable introductions to the thinkers they discuss. this series is more in depth than the "beginners" series of comic introductions. this text falls short in that wittgenstein secondary texts are usually thicker than other texts in the series for a reason. wittgenstein is a complex thinker in which it takes time to explain no less outline. this text to too brief and too generalized to be effective and winds up confusing more than, in wittgensteinian terms, elucidating

I have no interest in spending a month figuring out exactly what Wittgenstein *really* meant and wrote, but I do need to be able to read a text that mentions "dasein" or "Wittgenstein's view of technology", for instance, without stumbling. This introduction was amusingly written and gave me enough of an outline that next time I come across Wittgensteinian references I'll know where to look for more detail if I need it.

In general I quite like the comic style - so refreshing compared to many academic texts which seem to relish being as abtrusely and boringly presented as possible - sometimes I thought the illustrator was thinning out the paint a bit much. The same illustrations are mixed and remixed till I was thoroughly sick of that same old drawing of Wittgenstein's face.

Had it een called "Unix Command Summary" I might have given it four stars. FOr someone new to linux with experience in Unix there will be almost nothing useful in this book.

The thing I like about this book is that it's small and handy and has only essential info. The information includes all the stuff that's a pain to find using man pages or by wading through all of those other thick books sitting on the shelf far away from my computer.