This book is a cynical attempt by some modestly talented poets in the main - excepting people like Campo - to jump on the bandwagon of the savage murder of Matthew Shepard. One gets the sense that poor Shepard's body was barely cold before someone decided that there was a buck to be made. Hopefully, word about the poor quality of most of the poems - many of which barely referred to Shepard - has got out so people don't waste their money. I would suggest that more good could be done by writing a check to anti-violence projects than supporting the self-indulgent and cynical exploitation of a tragedy...

Wow! Such mixed reviews on this one! It's true we cash in on the crimes that haunt us, but why look at it that way? Why not see the written word as a way to preserve that which we don't want to forget and that which we wish to use to teach others of our mistakes? MTV recently showed "Anatomy of A Hate Crime," the first movie-type documentation of this tragedy, but I didn't once think the station used it as a ploy to boost ratings. Have a heart! Who said true life is better than fiction? Yet, the tragedy of that "true life" is what has sparked the fire in so many writers throughout the past. Expression, imagination...freedom, let's not forget what we learned from this hate crime. So, I applaud the prose and am sure the poets meant it well. As for you readers who didn't get it, go take out your anger by hitting someone in the head 18 times with the handle of a gun and then let's see what you choose to write about.

This is a great collection of poems about Matthew Shepard. One of the poems that really made me think simply has a "," (comma) on the page, many of the others pages long.

All of the poems are excellent. Great job Scott!

...Which pave the road to mediocrity, a writer's hell. Though it isn't terrible, "Democracy" is little more than a could-have-been in all respects. It has interesting ideas and competent writing, so the potential was there. The problem, as is so often the case, is in the novel's execution.

The idea that power corrupts is an old one, and it is obviously the main point of Henry Adams' novel. His intention seems to be to portray the lengths to which those in power will go to acquire more power, and how the lust for power is certain to deaden one's sense of morality. Unfortunately, Adams would have done better to write an essay on the subject rather than attempt to weave it into a fictional novel, for the author waxes too moralistic on his theme, rather than stepping back and allowing the characters to make his point for him. This does more harm than simply annoying the reader with value judgments; the story itself becomes so transparent and predictable, that it seems a mere vehicle for what soon becomes a tiresome refrain.

Perhaps this is why the characters are so lamentably flat. The descriptions Adams writes for each character seem to foreshadow complexity and development, but this soon is proven to be a false impression. Interesting as the characters might have been from their descriptions, when push comes to shove and the story continues, they remain utterly devoid of personality. Ironically, the main characters, Madeleine and Ratcliffe, are probably the most thinly developed of the entire bunch; the supporting cast is slightly more interesting, but not by much.

Another annoyance is the implausible thinking and actions of so many of the characters; for Madeleine to contemplate marrying Ratcliffe for her sister's sake is simply ridiculous. The fact that she considers her life at an end at age thirty is equally implausible, as is Sybil's attitude of careless youth at age twenty-five: in the nineteenth century, any woman of that age who was yet unmarried would have been considered an old maid, yet that is never even hinted at.

Perhaps the worst of it all was the pacing: this 300+ page book could have EASILY been half its size. It drags along without character development and without even any plot development. Worse yet, the book is centered entirely around politics, yet Adams seems hazy as to the details of those politics. Perhaps Madeleine learned a lot about American politics from her stay in Washington, but very little of this is shared with the reader. As such, the book does not even have an interesting setting to recommend itself.

In the end, it is obvious what Adams was trying to say, but by making Madeleine so careless with regard to Ratcliffe, the author fails utterly. With no temptation, there can be no sacrifice. It is unclear why the reader is expected to admire Madeleine, yet this expectation is clear enough.

To sum up...for a book about government corruption, look elsewhere. There must be something out there better than this. Anything.

"Democracy" is what "Primary Colors" would have been if the latter had been well-written. Like Joe Klein, Adams published his book anonymously and skewered a number of contemporary politicians (including President Rutherford B. Hayes). But Adams goes two steps further: his novel is a scathing commentary more on the American political system in general than on one administration in particular, and his characters are iconic and recognizable in any era.

In "Democracy," the nation's capital "swarms with simple-minded exhibitions of human nature; men and women curiously out of place, whom it would be cruel to ridicule and ridiculous to weep over." But Adams is not hesitant about being cruel in his portrayal of Washington's residents, and he saves his weeping for the true victims in his novel: the American people. The typical American senator combines "the utmost pragmatical self-assurance and overbearing temper with the narrowest education and meanest personal experience that ever existed in any considerable government." (Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!)

The story concerns Madeleine Lee, an intelligent and well-meaning (if somewhat naive) New York widow, who, bored with her cosmopolitan lifestyle, travels to Washington to learn what makes the nation tick. She and her sister are quickly surrounded by a diverse group of politicians, lobbyists, and foreign diplomats, and she finds herself courted by Silas Ratcliffe, a senator with presidential aspirations whose talent "consisted in the skill with which he evaded questions of principle." During one heated (and humorous) argument about George Washington's merits, Ratcliffe sums up his view of politics: "If virtue won't answer our purpose, then we must use vice, or our opponents will put us out of office."

Adams's prose is almost Jamesian in its measured pacing (and this may simply bore some readers); the initial chapters are unhurried as he weaves the web of the plot and sketches his all-too-believable characters. Along the way he tosses barbed zingers at every target. The climactic passages are among the most comically riveting, emotionally intense, and morally satisfying finales I've read in a satire: as you might expect, nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets what they deserve.

To act with entire honesty and self-respect, one should always live in a pure atmosphere, and the atmosphere of politics is impure. -Senator Silas Ratcliffe, Democracy

In his own lifetime, Henry Adams was famous first for being the grandson of John Quincy Adams, thus the great grandson of John Adams; second for his epic History of the United States During the Jefferson and Madison Administrations. It was only upon his death, in 1918, that his third person autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams, was published and that his publisher revealed that Adams had written the previously anonymous novel Democracy. It is The Education which has sustained his reputation, having been named the number one book on the Modern Library list of the Top 100 Nonfiction Books of the 20th Century, but Democracy is still considered one of the better novels of American politics, though surprisingly it is currently out of print.

The novel is both a fairly typical 19th Century comedy of manners--with the widow Madeleine Lee decamping from New York to Washington DC, where she instantly becomes one of the Capital's most desirable catches--and a more serious meditation on the nature and pursuit of power in the American democracy. The widow Lee is specifically interested in Washington because it is the seat of power :

...she was bent upon getting to the heart of the great American mystery of democracy and government.

. . .

What she wished to see, she thought, was the clash of interests, the interests of forty millions of people and a whole continent, centering at Washington; guided, restrained, controlled, or unrestrained and uncontrollable, by men of ordinary mould; the tremendous forces of government, and the machinery of society at work. What she wanted was POWER.

Mrs. Lee's most likely pursuer is Senator Silas Ratcliffe of Illinois, widely considered a likely future President : he sees her as a perfect First Lady and she sees him as her path to power. Through an elaborate courtship ritual and several set piece scenes (in the Senate, at the White House, at Mount Vernon, at Arlington Cemetery and at a dress ball) Adams puts his characters through their paces and affords the reader an intimate look at the rather tawdry political milieu of the 1870's. The theme that runs throughout the story is that access to power comes only through compromising one's principles, but Adams is sufficiently ambivalent about the point that we're uncertain whether he's more contemptuous of those who make the necessary deals or those who, by staying "pure," sacrifice the opportunity to influence affairs of state. Suffice it to say that the novel ends with Mrs. Lee, assumed by most critics to represent Adams himself, fleeing to Egypt, telling her sister : "Democracy has shaken my nerves to pieces."

Like his presidential forebears, Henry Adams had a realistic and therefore jaundiced view of politics, even as practiced in a democracy. The Adams's did not subscribe to the starry eyed idealism of the Jeffersonians. But they were all drawn to politics, even realizing that it was a moral quagmire. This is the fundamental dilemma of the conservative democrat, we recognize that we have to govern ourselves because we know we can't trust unelected rulers, but we also understand that our elected representatives are unlikely to be any more honest than the tyrants we threw out. This attitude is famously captured in Winston Churchill's (alleged) aphorism : "Democracy: the worst of all possible systems, but there is no other which would be better." And the unfortunate corollary is that unless relatively honorable men like the Adamses and the Churchills pursue careers in politics, the field will be left to the real scoundrels. Henry Adams doesn't offer any solutions to the dilemma, but he offers an amusing take on it.

GRADE : B

This is a novel about character development. At the same time, the author enlightens the world of a few people. There is not so much story in this book; its strength lies elsewhere. However, having read Forster before, this novel made me a little bit disappointed. To me, the development of Philip is not thoroughly enough described. It does not seem so likely that such a development would occur, either. Philip goes from "blind" to "seeing". He does not take the world as is anymore, but thinks for himself. There is a chain of events that makes him develop, but the events in themselves are not so important. The other characters do not develop at all in my opinion. That is not to say that they are not complex; some are indeed, but they do not develop. Philip is naturally a complex character, too.

England is used to illustrate the world we already know, whereas Italy is used to illustrate "the foreign". This concept works today, still, although "the foreign" would probably have been moved further away. Irony is a big part of Forster's writing: anyone who "loves everything Italian" should laugh. Forster is very subtle here, too subtle in my opinion.

This is not to say that this is not a good book, but not as good as, for instance, A room with a view.

An English family's widowed daughter-in-law marries unexpectedly while on vacation in Italy much to the discontent of the family. The story mostly revolves around the attempts to recover they love child of the deceased child of the daughter-in-law from the assumed rougheon Italian husband so that the child may receive "proper" care and education. The story is detailed but rambles at times. The plot is understood, but not exciting.

"Fools rush in," apparently, to Monteriano in Italy, where beauty triumphs over cold calculation, and-- to paraphrase the end of Johnny Mercer's couplet, not the original of Pope!-- where the heart rules above the head. This novel may not be as subtly polished as _A Room With A View_ nor as deeply serious as _Howards End_ but it does show a great deal of polish and seriousness, and is also a more entertaining story. In fact, I will do my best not to give anything away. While the plot moves forward organically, Forster shapes it with an Austen-like classical symmetry, as well as the conversations, characters, and (above all) the settings: Italy versus England, Monteriano versus Sawston. There are plenty of "juicy" Johnsonian sentences (get out your notebook), but Forster impresses most with his plain, easy style. He is also very funny-- I trust you'll pick up on the many little jokes. But also don't forget that Forster is a satirist with plenty of bite. His attacks are just as effective as Thackeray's, only Forster cares more about people and is remarkably sympathetic to human suffering in all its forms. A few nasty words about Germans wouldn't please the Schlegel sisters very much, but other than that, Forster avoids black-and-white generalizations and veers toward "moral relativism," for lack of a better term. Forster does a good job creating female characters who are unique and complex, who do not come across as manipulated symbols but as living flesh with thinking heads and-- yes-- loving (and hating) hearts. Once in a while Forster falls into his habit of grand poetic statements all flowery and abstract, but somehow he is forgivable (more so here than in _Howards End_). Otherwise, this is a great little story, with a message that hits home and language that ranks among the best of all English novelists. I would say more, but the best part is discovering this for yourself. Still, don't let the crowded opening paragraph get you down! Practically every character is jammed into the first sentence and at first I wondered if I could ever keep them straight. But Forster has a point in doing this: They are seeds in his hands which, tossed randomly, will sprout up as the story goes on. The humor in those opening sentences is also very subtle-- you either find Lilia's own amusement funny or you don't. But some jokes are so clear, as in Irma saying "me three" after an adult says "me too," they are literally infantile. So, this is a fun book, but also very serious-- quite sad when we see how people mistreat each other, and either purposely or accidentally bring misery on family, friends and even strangers (as well as themselves), mainly on account of social conventions. It's also interesting to see Forster's own gay sensibility show through throughout the novel. While _A Room With A View_ remains my favorite book by E.M. Forster, _Where Angels Fear To Tread_ has left me stunned and warmed, thoroughly satisfied from start to finish.

Strongly recommend another book over this one, even though it is a little harder to find: Mountain Bike Madness in Central Pennsylvania: An Atlas of Central Pennsylvania's Greatest Mountain Bike Rides. Partland is a disappointment.

The authors really do not know much about mountain biking. I was excited about the idea of the book, but sorely disappointed by it.

Mountain Biking is my newest obsession-- The book is great-- It got me pumped and now I feel like I know something about it-- Mount Tam here I come!!

Unfortunately, This book is not your well known X-Files Guide book that we've all grown to Love. If you love Art, and meaning Freaky Art, then this is your book to own. But on a lighter note there are Scully, and Mulder pics. for your enjoyment. Fortunately for myself, I Love unique art, and X-Files is definitely covered under that category. I found it interesting to go into the minds of these very talented artists; to immerse myself into their subconsciously Talented works; In a way looking through their eyes at how they view The X-Files ((who knows, maybe even their own lives)). There are notes for each picture, and descriptions of what inspired the artist to Paint, draw, snap pollaroids or mold out of clay their creation. So if you're into Very Unique, yet captivating Art, then this is a Keeper. "Hope Ya Likes!"

This book, so to call it, was very interesting. It showed creativity, and a darker side of the x-files as represented by the viewer. If you like art, this is a must buy, if not, I wouldn't recomend it.

This is an awesome book for real X-Files fans because it shows a little of the truth behind the show. What I mean is, while there's some aspects of horror to it and a lot of surreal stuff, it also pokes fun at itself and the stars in a genuine way that makes you feel like the people behind the scenes are willing to let you explore things from their perspective a little. The pictures are thought-provoking each in their own way and you can pick up on things you didn't see before each time you go through them. It's a very nice book and would make a nice gift for any fan.

J.W. Gibson's book has a misleading title; I sought it as a source of the technical aspects of the war in Vietnam, and instead found a polemic. His adulation for Ho Chi Minh and even faint praise for Joseph Stalin give away his bias--the book is clearly an anti-capitalist diatribe, although I certainly recognize the validity of some of his criticism. Having been an Army officer in the conflict (199th Infantry Brigade) I experienced first-hand the problems with morale and a frustrating conflict in which we consistently ceded the offensive to the enemy. But I must take exception to his perpetuation of the myth that we used our soldiers as "bait". He and Stanley Karnow, neither of whom fought in the war, agree that the typical American tactic was to blunder through the jungle until we found the enemy the hard way--by being ambushed. The fact is, rougly 90% of all ambushes (the most common type of combat in an unconventional war) in Vietnam were initiated by American or allied forces.

The concept of limited war is one that the author never seems to grasp. He even manages to write an entire book on it without mentioning George F. Kennan, the architect of this war-without-victory concept. The publishing date of 1986 is telling, as the author's pronouncement that the U.S. military has not learned from its past mistakes in Vietnam would shortly be proved wrong in Kuwait. In his subsequent update, he cites Saddam Hussein's continued tyranny after 1991 as proof of failure, as though this was a military blunder rather than a political decision.

Gibson's obvious affection for "wars of national liberation" carry over to his conclusion in which he seems to employ a fairness doctrine to war. If the other side is not our technological equal, we should not use our superiority to reduce our casualties and shorten the conflict. War is always a catalyst for invention and innovation, and the side that does a better job typically prevails. This did not happen in Vietnam because our electorate grew disillusioned after 14 years of war, and because we have elections every two years that resulted in a government that eventually cut the funding--and it is not possible to wage war without money. The other side did not have elections, but they did have tyrants in charge who were quite willing to expend ten or twenty of their young men for every American KIA. In the end, the war of containment became a war of attrition. This is another concept that seems not to have occurred to Mr. Gibson.

Gibson does a great job of providing a framework to understand Us policy during the Vietnam War. Many other reviewers have focused on how Gibson discussed the "incomptence" of the military, but they missed the point completely. Gibson's main concern was to show how policy was, and is, guided by an imperial ideology which can be stated as: "The United States has the most desirable social system in the world and it is our right, in fact our duty, to 'encourage' others to adopt it." In Vietnam, as in various other countries, encouragement came at the other end of a bomb.

US policies weren't "incompetent" as much as they were the logical outcome of the imperial premise. From here, you can see how the corporate managerial perspective viewed the war as an assembly line geared towards producing a commodity: body counts.

It would be wrong to view this as an overview of the war however as he spends less time discussing the NLF side of things than the US side. For something more general, I would recommend Marilyn Young's "The Vietnam Wars."

As for those who criticize Gibson for bias, these accusations stem from a pro-US viewpoint, so how are you not biased? In fact by implying that supporting the United States is "normal" and that any other opinion is biased [and wrong], you only prove Gibson's point about the ideological blinkers that help produce horrific wars, like the most recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This book looks at the Vietnam War in a perspective that can be deeply appreciated by someone who had a four year involvement in it. I couldn't put the book down. Having spent two tours
in-country, being non-military, but supporting the US Army, in both combat and non-combat situations, this book cleared up a lot of "why in the world is this or that happening"? Also, there were several situations that Gibson mentioned that I was a participant in and his writing gives me the notion that he does have some idea of what he speaks.

I do not believe he was leaning to the communist efforts, this writing was about our side. I also know that everyone there was not a dope smoking idiot, but the way MANAGEMENT handled most situations, made a sane person wonder what in the heck were THEY thinking and whos side were THEY on? I have never seen such waste of assets and personnel!

I believe everyone who was there would have a better understanding of all of the goofyness that went on, and there was plenty of it, if they would read this book.

THE EUROPEANS IS NOT ONE OF HENRY JAMES BETTER NOVELS. NEVERTHELESS, FOR FANS OF JAMES, IT'S QUITE READABLE.
THE NOVEL IS ABOUT 2 EUROPEANS - A YOUNG MAN AND WOMAN, BROTHER AND SISTER, WHO TRAVEL TO AMERICA (BOSTON) TO VISIT THEIR LONG LOST AMERICAN COUSINS.
THE PLOT INVOLVES THE AMOROUS ENTANGLEMENTS OF THE COUSINS AND THEIR AMERICAN FRIENDS.
MUCH OF THE STORY DEALS WITH CONTRASTING THE EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN "WAYS" AND "LIFESTYLES" - A FAVORITE TOPIC OF JAMES.
THE BOOK IS NOT A COMPLEX READ LIKE SOME OF HIS LATER NOVELS. IT'S QUITE ACCESSIBLE AND MILDLY ENTERTAINING.

THE EUROPEANS IS NOT ONE OF HENRY JAMES BETTER NOVELS. NEVERTHELESS, FOR FANS OF JAMES, IT'S QUITE READABLE.
THE NOVEL IS ABOUT 2 EUROPEANS - A YOUNG MAN AND WOMAN, BROTHER AND SISTER, WHO TRAVEL TO AMERICA (BOSTON) TO VISIT THEIR LONG LOST AMERICAN COUSINS.
THE PLOT INVOLVES THE AMOROUS ENTANGLEMENTS OF THE COUSINS AND THEIR AMERICAN FRIENDS.
MUCH OF THE STORY DEALS WITH CONTRASTING THE EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN "WAYS" AND "LIFESTYLES" - A FAVORITE TOPIC OF JAMES.
THE BOOK IS NOT A COMPLEX READ LIKE SOME OF HIS LATER NOVELS. IT'S QUITE ACCESSIBLE AND MILDLY ENTERTAINING.

THE EUROPEANS IS NOT ONE OF HENRY JAMES BETTER NOVELS. NEVERTHELESS, FOR FANS OF JAMES, IT'S QUITE READABLE.
THE NOVEL IS ABOUT 2 EUROPEANS - A YOUNG MAN AND WOMAN, BROTHER AND SISTER, WHO TRAVEL TO AMERICA (BOSTON) TO VISIT THEIR LONG LOST AMERICAN COUSINS.
THE PLOT INVOLVES THE AMOROUS ENTANGLEMENTS OF THE COUSINS AND THEIR AMERICAN FRIENDS.
MUCH OF THE STORY DEALS WITH CONTRASTING THE EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN "WAYS" AND "LIFESTYLES" - A FAVORITE TOPIC OF JAMES.
THE BOOK IS NOT A COMPLEX READ LIKE SOME OF HIS LATER NOVELS. IT'S QUITE ACCESSIBLE AND MILDLY ENTERTAINING.

I believe I should first state my religious belief and association with Mormon(s). I'm a Protestant who has been studying Mormonism for quite some time.

First I'd like to state that I think this book is quite aggressive to "anti-Mormons" and I found it mildly offensive. Bill McKeever's book Answering Mormons' Questions isn't nearly as aggresive and abrasive as this book. I strongly feel the title of this book (...Anti-Mormon...) is designed to envoke emotion. "Yea, those dang anti-Mormons ask those accusatory questions. I need this book to stop their hate-filled lies." Would this book sell any copies if it were titled "One Minute Answers To Evangelists' Questions"?...Probably not.

This book also sets a double standard upon itself in it's word choose. Mormons quite often feel they get steriotyped and people think they are in a cult (which they aren't), and people do stereotype Mormons, but this book does the same thing. Besides it's use of "anti-Mormons" it also uses sweeping terms like:

"The anti-Mormons believe"

"The anti-Mormons will then say"

Gibson is stereotyping just as bad as he gets stereotyped. Also, I thought numereable answers here are very fault. A few:

His answer to if JS died a martyr is incorrect. First he gives a dictionary definition (which basically states JS didn't die a maryr) and then states that "the anti-Mormons don't use the orthodox definition", but halfway through his 'answer' he gives his own defintion which contradicts his original dictionary definition. So first he gives a dictionary definition that states JS didn't die a martyr, but then he gives his own definition that states JS did die a marytr. Anyone who has this book, open it up, read closely and you'll understand.

I couldn't help but laugh when he attempts to try to establish that polytheism is biblical. He starts off by saying this line:

"While it is true that Mormonism accepts the Biblical teaching that there are many Gods..."

I couldn't help but laugh. He then spends around 3 pages attempting to prove polytheism is biblical (unsuccessfully). I thought he would simply say that Mormonism is monotheistic (as Millet did in "The Mormon Faith: A New Look At Christianity") but he didn't.

His attempt to prove that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers was increadably weak, and wasn't satisfactory. He attempted to demonstrate that 1 Col. 1:15 meant "First created" which is (simply) incorrect. He also didn't address John 1:3 which states Jesus created all things. It was quite noticeably missing.

As a Christian who accepts good answers, and this book has some, some of the answers in here simply don't suffice.

Stephen Gibson reviewed the anti-Mormon literature and decided that their claims could be summarized in 61 questions. Much of the literature was simply repeating the same claims over and over again.

If Stephen could be faulted in this work, it might be that he has keep the answers short. But this was not intended to be an exhaustive response. His goal was to correct many incorrect perceptions. I believe it has done a very good job.

This is a valuable book for any member of the LDS Church or anyone curious about the Church. Mr. Gibson categorizes the questions by subject for easy reference, and gives full explanations with scriptural backing. There are many strange accusations out there about the Latter-day Saints. This book helps clear these things up, and shows how unreasonable those accusations can be. Example-The reviewer below, who apparently has not even read the book, but wanted to take a jab at the Church. This is the very reason Mr. Gibson wrote this book, and he did an excellent job.

As the elite of contemporary typograhpy will tell you, Art Director David Carsons was neither type designer nor graphic designer, but instead adept collector of typefaces and free favors from young talent. This book is an attempt, on the eve of the sellout of the Ray Gun Empire, to solidify the merit of a magazine built on 2 things: hype, and the desire of the design community and its afficionados to find a voice for the explosion of creativity ignited by the early macintosh design pioneers and their disciple, Ed Fella,while, initially at least, disregarding the need for relevant indie music reporting. Don't buy it.

This book is for the Raygun collectors who admires clever typographic layout. A collector's item.

this book is a collection of spreads from the early years of raygun and other magazines whose art direction was lead by david carson. there is a lot of controversy surrounding carson's work, and carson as a graphic designer. i find the work visually stimulating and closer to art than most design i've encountered. i personally admire the intuitive beauty of this book and have spent countless hours looking at it. while i do not recomend carson's other books i do recomend this one.

Henry James, The Spoils of Poynton (Dell, 1897)

The Spoils of Ponyton is the first novel James wrote in his "later style," in other words, drawing-room satire that isn't really about much of anything at all. For some odd reason, later-era James is what's universally praised in lit classes around the globe, while the early stuff, which is actually worth reading, is largely ignored.

To be fair, James did get better at satire as time went on, but The Spoils of Ponyton has all the hallmarks of being a first attempt at a stylistic change. The novel centers on two characters who are utterly incapable of action, which wouldn't be so bad if the characters who were doing the acting were more involved. Such is, sadly, not the case. Owen and Fleda just sort of drift and react; as the book is told from Fleda's point of view, we end up with page after page of something that, in the hands of a better author (even a later James, had he re-written it) would have come off as uber-Tevye; weighing the various merits of various courses of action, not being able to decide on a course, and letting fate take her where it will. In Fiddler on the Roof, it works (largely because Tevye's monologues are brief and to the point); in Poynton, it blithers on endlessly, with all the fascination for the reader of watching cheese spoil.

If you're new to James, by all means do yourself a favor and start with something he wrote earlier in his career. Leave Poynton until after you've developed enough of a taste for James to pick up later-era works, and then read the major ones before diving into this. *

I give this three stars in an internal world where 5 is James at his best. In comparison to most fiction the rating would be higher, but as a DEVOUT fan, I live in my own internal world. In that world, James who was more critical than any of us, would understand that in comparison to other later era work and even middle period work, Spoils does not live up to his best. It is fun and light, another reviewer mentioned obvious signs of a stylistic shift perhaps being too obvious here. That feels on the money to me. That said, if you've read almost everything, it is a light turn with the Master and that has something delicious in it no matter what.

I read this one a few years ago, and I have to rank it at the bottom of the list (along with "The Europeans").

Though Fleda Vetch can be fascinating in a Hamlet-esque way (through her infuriating inability to act), this novel is far from a must-read as far as James goes.