Duke University basketball coach Mike "Coach K" Krzyzewski and co-author Donald T. Phillips have written a heartfelt and practical book. The coach weaves his leadership and team strategies into lessons not just for sports, but for business and life. The book, which includes a foreword by Grant Hill (yes, he can write, too!), is filled with personal experiences, anecdotes, and examples. The coach uses sports as a metaphor for management. For example, he advises: "Never let a person's weakness get in the way of his strengths." We [...] recommend this well-written book to anyone interested in emotionally balanced team-building, as developed by a winning coach.

I chose this book to read for a business class at my college. The book focuses around Coach K and his experiences with basketball. He alludes to his theories applications towards business some, but it is up to the reader to apply them to his/her own business situations. His theories though on leadership and family are empowering, touching, and entertaining. I highly recommend this book to anyone. It's not just a book for the basketball lover, Duke fan, or business reader. It's a book that shows how one man has steadfastly stood by his beliefs throughout his life. Great book, Coach K!

I graduated from Duke in 68 and am an avowed fan of Coach K.However, I've hit a rut in my reading recently, can't find anything that seems stimulatiing or interesting.I was afraid this book would just be another of those "smaltzy" rah rah type of books that coaches(and usually someone else write), but I was happily surprised. It is really worth everyones attention, whether to motivate a business person or anyone on how to live ones life. The usual blah blahing about excellence is pretty much left out, thank goodness, and the book is full of very helpful aphorisms about what priorities to put first and how to lead a wholesome and successful life,even if you don't have a jump shot.Coach K comes across as really honest and sincere.I can't stand phonies and really was pleasantly surprised by the book. Lots of real life anecdotes about games, players, situations and how to take defeat.Truly inspirational from a superb leader. For sports fans, look what he did with the team of mostly freshman this year, way beyond anyones expectations.He uses his heart a lot, but also his head.You can also read and skip around in the book, its not like a novel.Again, his repeated emphasis on how to deal with defeat and failure shows true wisdom, far beyond that of most college coaches. I remember the tonge in cheek defintion of a college basketball coach by a player once."you have to be a little bit crazy to base your career on someone else's jump shot." Coach K is crazy like a fox.

A tragedy by William Shakespeare, written around 1599-1601. Before the play opens, the king of Denmark has been murdered by his brother, Claudius, who has taken the throne and married the queen, Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king visits his son, Prince Hamlet, and urges him to avenge the murder. Hamlet, tormented by this revelation, appears to be mad and cruelly rejects Ophelia whom he loved. Using a troupe of visiting players to act out his father's death, the prince prompts Claudius to expose his own guilt. Hamlet then kills Ophelia's father Polonius in mistake for Claudius, and Claudius tries but fails to have Hamlet killed. Ophelia drowns herself in grief, and her brother Laertes fights a duel with Hamlet.

Hamlet's dilemma is often seen as typical of those whose thoughtful nature prevents quick and decisive action.

Hamlet contains several fine examples of soliloquy, such as " To be or not to be" and Hamlet's earlier speech lamenting his mother's hasty remarriage and Claudius' reign which opens "O! that this too too solid flesh would melt". Much quoted lined "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", "Something is rotten in the stste of Denmark", "Brevity is the soul of wit", "To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;" The lady doth protest too much, methinks," and "Alas, poor Yorick". Arguably Shakespeare's finest play and one that can be read again and again.

Hamlet is, by far, the most complex of Shakespeare's many plays. Many of the themes covered are love vs hate, action vs non-action, revenge, and jealousy. Hamlet discovers that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" when he encounters the ghost of his father, the King, who has recently been killed in battle. From here, Hamlet goes on a search for the discovery of what happened to his father. However, Hamlet not only uncovers secrets of the past, but also the depths of his own being.

The Folger Edition of Hamlet is a great edition to buy, especially for those who are studying this play in high school or college, because it is relatively cheap in price and is very "reader-friendly" with side notes and footnotes that accompany each page of each scene. So, even if you aren't a Shakespeare lover or if Shakespeare is just a little intimidating (we all know how this feels), this version at least allows you to get the gist of what is going on. Also, there are summaries of each scene within each act, to let you know in layman's terms what is taking place. I highly recommend this edition.

Hamlet is considered, by many scholars, the pinnacle of Shakespeare's dramas. If you haven't read it yet this this Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism edition would be a great place to begin.

The text notes that are included with the play are very helpful to understand some of the more difficult language nuances that are inevitable with any Shakespeare. The structure is well laid out and conclusive. It complements the complexity of Hamlet very well.

Of course Hamlet is one of the great paradoxes and mysteries every written. The search of finding yourself and what it is that fuels the human spirit. Hamlet can be a very confusing play because of the depth of substance. However, the critical essays that suppliment the reading make it very accessable.

Each of the critical essays are of different schools of literary criticism: Feminist Criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, post-structuralist (deconstuctionist) criticism, Marxist critism, and finally a New Historicist criticism. Before each critism there is clearly written introduction to explain the motives and histories of that type of criticism.

This edition of Hamlet will not only introduce the reader to more Shakespeare, but also explain the play and help to familiarize the reader with literary criticism too. It is a beautiful volume that cannot be more recommended if you are wanting to buy a copy Hamlet.

~ -~
* * * * *Josephine Tey writes clever mystery stories, but this is really very different. It is a "second look" at the history of the supposedly villainous King Richard III. It becomes absolutely fascinating and more absorbing than any "who - dun - it".
I didn't know the history of Richard, beyond the "fact" that he killed the two little princes to secure his hold on the throne. You don't need to be a history buff- all mystery lovers will enjoy this book!
~ -~
The book starts out with Inspector Grant recuperating from an injury, and terribly bored lying in a hospital bed. His lady friend brings him an interesting mix of photographs and portraits to amuse him. Grant occupies his time studying the faces, and testing his skill at recognizing the guilty. He becomes fascinated with the portrait of Richard, who he hadn't recognized, and had classified him as a victim, not a killer. He gets more history books to "remind himself" of the facts, and finds contradictions and hints that the "History" we all believe may be an elaborate lie. .
~ -~
Following Grant's hunt for clues, and feeling his suspicion of some of those who survived to "rewrite" history is truly a wonderful journey.
. This book definitely convinced me that the "history" of Richard III needs a second look.
* * * * *
~ Whether you're interested in English history, or just love a good mystery, I definitely recommend this book with 5 stars * * * * * for an absorbing read

Since the winner writes the history books, it's not surprising most people believe that Richard III was evil. According to Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare, he had various members of his family killed, including his poor little nephews, so that he could be king. It's important to remember that much of what we think we know about Richard was written during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I -- who were on the throne as the direct result of the defeat of Richard. To justify the Tudors (Henry's father, I believe) seizing power, Richard had to be cast as the bad guy. We may never know what actually happened, but Josephine Tey presents a different look into history using actual letters and documents from that time. It all starts with a modern-day homicide detective who prides himself on being able to read faces. When he sees Richard's portrait (without knowing who it is), he doesn't pick it as the face of an evil murderer. I've seen Richard's portrait in the National Portrait Gallery in London -- and I think Tey's character, although fictional, may be on to something.

Inspector Grant of Scotland Yard is injured and laid up .... and bored out of his mind. A friend knows he is interested in faces and brings him a pile of portraits, one of which triggers his interest in the reputed murder of the Little Princes by their uncle Richard, the last Plantagenet to sit on the throne of England. Faced with a disparity between his perception of the man and his reported actions, Grant finds himself compelled to investigate the murders, albeit from a hospital bed four hundred years away.

I had heard about this book for years and finally got round to reading it. I am so glad I did. It is a fun armchair mystery about a fascinating subject, Tey introduces enough refutory information to make you want to learn more about Richard III, and all of the characters -- from protagonist Grant to affable walk-ons -- are vivid and memorable.

A real pleasure to read.

Jean Edward Smith is a competent writer who has produced a relatively error-free and certainly positive look at Ulysses S. Grant, but there is something missing. Grant is an elusive subject and after reading this treatment, he will remain as enigmatic and unfathomable as he has always been. Smith has no background on Grant or the civil war and his limitations show, particularly in such a lengthy tome as this. Much of the book is culled from other (superior) Grant biographies and certain issues, such as Grant's drinking, are treated in a paragraph, when pages are necessary to do justice to the topic.

Most disturbing is Smith's propensity to borrow liberally from other authors in his interpretations. Certain sections of this book read similarly to words written by previous Grant biographers. See particularly his views on Grant's drinking, which are similar to McPherson's sections in his book, "Battle Cry of Freedom" (available on Amazon).

Smith is strongest in his post-civil war sections and his chapters on Grant's much-maligned Presidency are well-written and contain much needed revisionism. Grant was not the bumbling fool as President as is so often depicted. Smith deftly shows that Grant's years in the White House were not devoid of achievement.

Still, the flaws of this book surmount any of the positives. The pacing is poor and only a few scant pages are devoted to Grant's valiant race with death and the publication of his brilliant memoirs. The civil war chapters are fairly flat, with no fresh information or anecdotal material. He relies on dated sources and accepts whatever they offered without critical analysis. There are better Grant books out there and you would be advised to search those out.

This is an excellent and complete history of the life of Ulysses S. Grant. It is certainly complete form the viewpoint of Civil War activities of the general, relying on all known sources -- from Grant's letters to his military orders to analyses by others from the war.

Particularly good is the analysis of Grant's presidential administration, treating his role in quashing the Ku Klux Klan; his policy toward American Indians; his role in the attempts by Jay Gould to corner the gold market. This book is strongly recommended for understanding the Reconstruction period politics; also for Grant's role in disarming the 1876 constitutional crisis over the election -- one very similar to the crisis the country faced in the 2000 presidential election.

The only important topic not treated well is the aspect of the Civil War that William Tecumseh Sherman represented: war on civilian support for the rebellion.

In addition, Smith's writing style is crisp and lively; full of anecdotes. The author's side-by-side contrasting two views of Grant expressed by the Adams' brothers is a classic. And Smith's own appreciation of Grant's writing style caused me to seek out the general's Memoirs after reading this book.

Ulysses S. Grant is my summer reading obsession for 2002. I began with his Memoirs, followed with Julia Dent Grant's Memoirs and put it all together with Jean Edward Smith's wonderful biography. Smith tells Grants story, the greatness along with the human weaknesses, with excellent clarity. His research is complete (all sources are meticulously noted) and follows the trail of rumors of Grants personal failings along with his great triumphs in war and peace.

Thanks to Smith's research and clear writing style, Grant's character is shown to the reader. He was certainly one of the greatest generals of all time, he was not a habitual drunk, and he was not an impotent President dragged down by constant scandals within his administration. In fact, the Grant presidency had its fair share of accomplishments that are often overlooked. Grant loved his family, defended his friends with total loyalty (sometimes blindly so) and always served his country as best he could; throughout his entire life.

Thank you Jean Edward Smith for bringing Grant's story back to our attention. This work is long overdue and will certainly cause many historians-and history buffs alike-to reexamine their appreciation for this great American.

This was an interesting and intelligently written account of the life of a very strange but fascinating individual. It would be interesting, if he were alive today, to see if his lifestyle and thoughts would come across as acceptable and normal in todays world. He seemed to be a brave, athletic and intellectual person who may have been almost on the verge of some great magical and spiritual goals and discoveries, but never quite reaching those goals. Although some have labeled him 666 and the Beast, Crowley did not come across to me as being Beastly at all. He did strike me as being slightly insane, eccentric and very self absorbed. He started off in life with way too much time on his hands with his mind drifting off in too many directions in which most of us don't have the time or money to do; which does make his lifestyle difficult to relate to. The book seemed to drag on in places. His mountain climbing antics I found to be fascinating although stretched and drawn out. He was way out there; no doubt;... makes for interesting reading. Strange people are interesting to read about.

The notorious Aleister Crowley: The Beast 666. Magician, Mountaineer, Poet, Author, Gentleman, Entrepreneur, etc. etc. This book, written by the Beast himself, will unmask this Sphinx of a man. He will take you along on the ride of his life, from the boy growing up under religious lunacy to the man proclaiming the Word of his Aeon. I shall let Crowley himself be the guide to his story, urging you thereby to buy this book. Everybody should read this book, whether aspiring to the man or not. Between the lines of his life-story he covers his view on just about every subject, giving his candid, arrogant, yet astutely accurate foliage of human behavior. Only one person that I know of has ever dared to step so completely outside the collective consciousness (and folly) of the human race and observe it like his own little science-project, and that is the author of this book. And he will share it all with you, while joyfully always being the first to remind you that he is no less of a fool. All throughout, he invites you to relive his adventures of mountaineering, wordly travels, and Magick experimentation using the most exquisite use of language I have ever witnessed. This work is in no way the ramblings of a man hopelessly lost to drugs. If he truly was the Beast 666, then let me bow and give my sympathies unto Him, for the man who wrote this book was as true to himself and others as they come. If being this sincere and unfettered by hypocrisy is diabolic, then I am first in line to join that family! Sure, Crowley had his fix ideas, not all of them uncontroversial, but he always either admitted his prejustice or backed them up with lucid reasoning. Buy this book, read it once -or better, twice- and judge for yourself. For Do what Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law!

Because his folowers have granted him godlike status while his critics have dismissed him as a crackpot, it's a bit difficult to explain to those who have not heard of A.C. why this book is such a great read.

Aleister Crowley(1875-1947) recounts his life and the pride he took in being a genius (he had memorized The Bible before he was seven), a poet, an adventurer, a world renowned mountain climber, a blindfold chess master, a lover, a sorcerer, and The Chosen Prophet of the Ancient Gods of Egypt!

But, above all: an English Gentleman.

Unfortunately his compatriots, like queen Victoria on a celebrated occasion, were not amused. The newspapers depicted him as a satanic, devil worshipping maniac. A charge which was somewhat unfounded and rather ironic since this was the man that satanic devil worshipping maniacs were too scared to mess with.

He was a passionate artist with a flair for danger, an extreme of the spiritual and the sensual, a cross between between St. John of the Cross and the Marquis de Sade. Only Rasputin could match him as a true historical figure that seems too improbable to have existed.

Neither man would be 'believable', even in lurid work of fictional melodrama. Yet they lived.

And A.C. topped Rasputin in possesing (or being possed by) a savagely sarcastic sense of humor which took no prisoners. Say what you will of him but one must grant him a remarkable talent for making enemies everywhere.

W.B. Yeats wanted him expelled from The Golden Dawn (The most influential Rosicrucian/Freemasonic lodge of the 19th century) on the grounds that 'a mystical society should not have to serve as a reform school for juvenile delinquents.' For his part, The Magus informs us that Yeats was full of black, bilious rage, because he, Crowley was by far the greater poet.

He once remarked that it was interesting that such a small county as Stratford had given England her two greatest poets, for one must not forget Shakespeare . . .

A.C. founded his own temple of 'life, love, and liberty' after his wife had a vision while visiting a museum in Cairo. The year was 1904 and the gods were ready to annoint an English Gentleman to bear forth their message to humanity and usher in a new era which would replace Christianity, as Christianity had replaced the crumbling faiths of the Roman Empire.

Thus 'The Book of the Law' came to be written (or dictated?) Its main tenet was "Do What Thou Wilt.'

Apparently Isis or Horus were fans of the novels of Rabelais, since that was the motto inscribed in his fictional abbey.

And, in all likelihood Rabelais probably got it from St. Augustine's maxim: "Love, and do what you will".

And if you can name which Greek philosopher thought it up first, treat yourself a trip to Cairo and listen closely to your inner voice. . .

It would hardly be surprising to be told that AC was reared in an ultrafundamentalist Christian sect and thus, he rebelled with vengeance.

What is surprising is that the quest for 'The Holy Grail' never left him, even as he climbed the Himalayas, seduced countesses, hobnobbed with Rodin, and made life quite interesting for anyone around him.

A fascinating look at a strange man and his times recounted with humor, sorrow and faith.

I am having mixed reactions as to whether the Knightfall saga really needed to tell its story this long. For instance, this volume obviously could have done away with some chapters that really didn't need to be there but as a mere extension of the storyline to keep its length at par with Knightfall vol. 1. Anyhow, this story sets us up for the most interesting year in the life of Batman. After Bane broke Bruce Wayne's back we get to see a more human character of Bruce Wayne. We finally see he him going into a direction that doesn't make him a cold fish to people around him. We also see what the next Batman, Azrael, would be like when he will be donning the mask for the next whole year. This book is a major event in the life of Batman and has got us looking into what happens in the Batman books because a lot of things will be a first time for the new Batman.

"Batman: Knightfall: Who Rules the Night" picks up where "Batman: Knightfall: Broken Bat" left off, with Bane having added injury to insult by breaking Batman's back. This second half of the story has pretty much the same strengths and weaknesses of the first half. Writers Doug Moench and Chuck Dixon are clearly trying to come up with an epic Batman storyline. The two key ideas from the first part, the release of all the Arkham Asylum inmates to wear Batman down so he is no match for Bane and his simple but brutally affective tactic of shattering Batman's spine, are certainly worthy of such an epic story, but the individual stories were fairly pedestrian, albeit with a few choice exceptions. In "Who Rules the Night" they have another pretty good idea generating the continuing story. Having been weaned on hundreds if not thousands of comic books are expectations are at the end of this volume Batman is going to be healed and beat the living crap out of Bane. But that is not what happens.

Ultimately, "Who Rules the Night" is about Batman, but not really about Bruce Wayne. The argument is that Batman is too important to Gotham for the city to do without. With the rumors of Batman's death running rampant, Commissioner Gordon lights up the night sky with the Batsignal and Bruce and Tim decide that somebody should fill in and answer the call. The "logical" choice of Nightwing is immediately dismissed in favor of Azrael, who has been hanging around helping out anyway. However, this new Batman is a decidely darker version of the Dark Knight, tinkering with his costume to fit his own views of costumed vigilantism. Still, in the final confrontation with Bane, this Batman also has his own demons to conquer.

The result is that "Knightfall" is the opening act of a much larger story, continued in "Knightquest: The Crusade" and "Knightquest: The Curse" as Bruce Wayne begins the long road to recovery and reclaiming his mantle. Overall the artwork by pencillers Jim Aparo, Graham Nolan, Bret Blevins, Klaus Janson, and Mike Manley is better in "Who Rules the Night" than it was in "Broken Bat," but is still short of the providing the atmospheric resonance of the most stylish Batman art. This also might have something to do with the fact Kelly Jones only does the cover art on this collection and there are no longer all those promotional splash pages where Jones shows up the rest of the artists. The comics in "Batman: Knightfall: Who Rules the Night" were originally published in the comic books "Batman" #491-497 and "Detective Comics" #659-663. This is not a great Batman storyline, but it certainly tries to shoot for the stars. How disappointed you will be simply has to do with the level of your expectations. This is not "The Dark Night Returns" but it is not a sixties "Batman" comic book story either.

With "Knightfall" it is not so much the grand design as it is the execution. Obviously writers Doug Moench and Chuck Dixon were trying to come up with something comparable to the death of Superman for the Dark Night. I think the sacred status of "The Return of the Dark Knight" makes it impractical to try and use the Joker for Batman's primary foe in such an attempt, so Bane plays the antagonist for "Knightfall" the ways Doomsday did for Superman. From a storytelling perspective I really like the triggering event and climax of the first half of the story. The idea of emptying Arkham Asylum as the opening gambit in a deadly game against Batman is a masterstroke. After all, one man can only do so much, and each successive victory weakens Batman. Psychologically scarring a man who has already been traumatized by his parent's murder into becoming a vigilante of the night is going to be pretty difficult, so the idea of simply breaking Batman's back also seems like an appropriate obstacle (Superman already did the coming back from the dead routine). So the set up and the payoff for part one are pretty good.

But it is the execution that most readers seem to be quibbling about. The individual comic book stories in which Batman tracks down the escapees from Arkham are not especially memorable, whereas the goal would be almost for each episode to stand on its own as well as lend itself to a geometric progression of the Batman's troubles. The exception that proves the rule would be the climax of "Die Laughing," where Batman gets a does of the Scarecrow's fear-gas, which only dredges up the Joker's killing of Robin as his greatest fear. But when Bane finally attacks Batman, having worn him down through this long series of battles with other foes, even the flashback of the chain of events does not provide a glimpse of anything more than simply piling on the wounds until Batman has nothing left. The result is functional, but not the spectacular culmination you would hope for with such an epic.

Furthermore, the artwork by pencillers Jim Aparo, Norm Breyfogle, Graham Nolan, and Jim Balent is fairly pedestrian. In terms of providing some of the atmosphere that suits Batman best, the closest would be "Night Terrors," where Aparo's pencils are enhanced by inker Tom Mandrake to good effect. But ultimately the artwork suffers in comparison to the covers and promo pages drawn by Kelly Jones. The idea of Jones having done the entire "Knightfall" saga does induce salivary secretions, but it was not to be. So basically we have a very good idea that could have been great if the execution had been better.

"Batman: Knightfall, Part One: Broken Bat" reprints the first half of the epic tale from "Batman" 491-497" and "Detective Comics" 659-663. The tale concludes in "Batman: Knightfall, Part Two: Who Rules the Night."

Before I read this, I'd heard a lot of bad things about it, but I decided to try it anyways.

I loved it. It was something new and different, and kept me excited.

Once again, Lestat is the main character. He's getting tired of his immortality, so he decides to trade bodies with the Body Thief, Raglan James, for a few days. Lestat is so eager to be mortal again that he fails to see Raglan for what he really is: a clever, lying thief.

Lestat finally realizes how blessed he was to be immortal. As a mortal man, he gets very sick and almost dies (he's also haunted by Claudia, his dead vampire child, in his dreams).

With the help of his mortal friend David Talbot, Lestat attempts to get his immortal body back from Raglan.

The only thing that disappointed me was that it didn't have the same...feel...as the previous books. I seem to prefer the 1700's settings like there was in "Interview With the Vampire".

There is also a big part at the end, but I wouldn't want to spoil it for anybody. : )

I've been a loyal Anne Rice reader (and vampire fan) for some time now, and it all started with this book! Rather than the usual run down vampire plot (in which a normal person is transformed unwillingly into a vampire and has trouble coping) or the "classic" horror movie motif (usually along the lines of a psychotic vampire terrorizing everyone on his mad and seemingly pointless killing sprees), Anne Rice has pulled through with a truly innovative plot from deep whithin the regions of imagination. The Tale of the Body Thief is the story of a once powerful and headstrong vampire who finds himself with the prosect of becoming human again. He readily accepts the mysterious stranger's offer and recieves what he has always wanted- or has he? Lestat soon realizes that being human isn't all wonderful moments and experiences. He finds himself longing for his strong vampiric body back, only to find that the man he traded bodies with has reneged on their agreement and decided to keep his body after all. Lestat now finds himself in unfamiliar territory- unable to defend himself. All the more determined, he calls upon the help of an old friend, and all of his tricks and cunning. Filled with magic, chases, and friendship, The Tale of the Body Thief leads both characters and readers on an adventure that is sure to change their perspectives forever

Anne Rice continues her saga with the same colorful images and characters from her first three books. Lestat, wishing for just awhile to become human again, trades bodies with a mysterious man. But what he finds is far from the sunlit paradise he expected. Instead, he ends up with surprises he didn't expect....and a disaster befalls him when the human in his vampire body runs rampant across the globe.

I laughed at Lestat's struggle with being human, then nearly cried at the sacrifice Gretchen tells of. (I am a pianist myself, understand.) David is still his stubborn self, but with a well-written twist that chilled me to the core when I read it. This book really covered all the bases of emotions. And the descriptions are vivid enough to make me feel as though I really am in Miami; an $8 vacation, so to speak.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who had read the others. I only hope that Memnoch the Devil will continue this trend.

The aim of this "novel" is clearly to shock the senses while giving a painstaking look into the mind of the criminally insane. If this type of lesson in the underside of the mind was all that I look for in reading Batman material, I would have given this piece five stars. Instead, I look for some semblance of a plot that makes me want to turn the page and see what comes next. Morrison could have easily written a masterful book by wrapping the dark experience of insanity around a story that made you want to stick around in such murk and darkness. Take Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (which is obviously an inspiration for the work as Alice and company are quoted throughout), in Carrol's classic you actually WANTED to continue the trip through lunacy with Alice. With Arkham Asylum, there are times you begin to wish you weren't there because filth for filth's sake is just not that enthralling. Top this lack of any decent plot off with some really strained attempts at deep symbolism (just throw in lots of religion and philosophy for no good reason), and you have yourself a shocking bore.

As for the artwork, it suffers a similar fate as the writing. If the frames were judged one at a time as art for art's sake, the work would deserve five stars. However, this art has another purpose which is forgotten throughout the book: it's there to move the story along. There were many frames that I just stared at, wondering how what was illustrated there related to the story at all.

For those who are looking for a fairly bland study of the mind of the lunatic, Arkham Asylum will be a good purchase for you. However, if you are merely looking for a well written, well drawn Batman novel, pick up The Dark Knight Returns.

First let me say that the art is fantastic, don't listen to the huddling masses saying it's slop, Picasso had to deal with the same thing.
The story is phenomenally good, while on the whole quite disturbing, it does not use gore simply for it's own sake, as every character in the comic is amazingly disturbed. All the inhabitants of the asylum are incredibly dangerous, and if left to their own devices, would quite happily torture and maim all of us. Bad things happen to good people, which is what some people seem to have such a problem with, but a recurring theme of the book is how we deal with the bad things that happen.
Batman himself is rather insane when looked at straight on. Dressing as a bat to fight crime at night, schizophrenic tendencies regarding the "Batman" persona, etc. He says at the beginning that he doesn't want to go into the asylum because it might feel like "coming home."
It is very much for mature readers, but not just for the violence, it will twist your head and take you to uncomfortable places, so be ready. Even if you don't like Batman, try it out, it isn't really a superhero story.
So go get it. Get it now. Now!

If I were told that I could only give someone one single graphic novel to convince them that at least some of the Batman comics are art, Arkham Asylum would be the one.

Told masterfully by Grant Morrison, illustrated beautifully by Dave McKean, Arkham Asylum stands as a frank and brutal look at the difference between sanity and insanity. Are Batman and the Joker really that different? Is Batman drawing more criminals to Gotham with his actions? Does one have to destroy to heal?

Arkham Asylum asks a lot of tough questions and provides very little in the way of comforting answers. It's also by far one of the most graphicly violent of the Batman stories.

And yet, out of this violence and chaos comes an elegant and graceful story, full of gallows humor and biting commentary.

Arkham Asylum represents one of the most important comic tradepaperbacks of the decade. It cannot be highly enough recommended.

Robert Louis Stevenson was without a doubt one of the greatest historical/adventure novelists that ever lived, and Kidnapped is unquestionably one of his best works. My only regret is that I waited so long to finally read it. It was a new and exciting change from Treasure Island, a book which I love, but have read approximately once every year since the second grade. Finally, longing for a little swashbuckle, and wishing for a way out of my Jim Hawkins rut, I picked up Kidnapped, and was immediately swept off on a thrilling, suspenseful and exhilarating adventure through the Scottish highlands. For days I sat rigid on the edge of my seat, eagerly following the young David Balfour as he was cheated of his inheritance by his wily uncle, kidnapped by pirates, and befriended by a cocky Jacobite outlaw. Breathlessly, I followed him and his companion as they were falsely accused of murder and forced to flee from British troops. Finally, I heaved a sigh of contented disappointment as the story ended, glad at the way things had ended, yet upset that it all had to end and that I would at last have to part from the two heroes of whom I had grown so fond. This is without a doubt a book that I will reread as many times as I have Treasure Island, and I envy the lucky reader who is picking it up for the first time. It is thrilling, exciting, suspenseful, unpredictable, and thoroughly intoxicating. After reading it, my thirst for such dashing adventure was so terrible that I immediately had to run to the library and lay my hands on every adventure novel I could find. I would highly reccommend it to every lover of adventure stories, particularly those with a historical base. I would suggest though that first time readers take a minute to read just a very little bit about the Jacobite rebellions, particularly the one of 1745. It will help greatly to clarify the story, and make it that much more enjoyable. (If indeed, it could get any better than it already is!)

I missed this one as a kid, which is too bad, because I think I would have appreciated it then as well. Set following the failed Scottish rebellion, 'Kidnapped' tells the story of young David Balfour, whose greedy uncle tries to cheat him out of his inheritance by having him kidnapped and sold in the American colonies as a slave. On the way, however, he befriends a Jacobite rebel and is instead caught up in the Scottish troubles and has to fight his way back to his home and claim his inheritance. The adventure is all the more exciting because it feels like such a real world with all the careful place-related detail Stevenson employs. While the language can be difficult in places, that quickly fades once you get into the rhythm of the book.

"I will begin the story of my adventures with . . ." That's how Robert Louis Stevenson begins one of the best novels in his career, Kidnapped. Set in the aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 in Scotland, Kidnapped is an intriguing story narrated by David Balfour, a young Whig and Lowlander of Scotland, who is tricked by his miserly uncle; survives attempted murder, kidnap and shipwreck; and in the company of Alan Breck, a Jacobite, escapes through the Highlands and returns home to claim his fortune. The book is a wonderful adventure story with a vivid, clear presentation of the ongoing events. Although originally written for entertainment, Kidnapped effectively blends David's adventures with the ongoing historical events of the time. In some ways this story relates to the lives of people in our present time, as people still do anything to try to keep family inheritances to themselves, and friends of different rival ethnic backgrounds try to look beyond their racial differences to maintain good friendships. These racial tensions run deep in the ancient misunderstanding between the two heroes themselves: Whig and Jacobite, Lowland conservative rationalist and romantic liberal Highlander. The book is written with such realism that one would think it to be the true adventures of a person during that period, carefully recorded in a diary before being published as a kind of biography. This just shows the distinct imagination the author uses to capture the roles and personalities of the characters, the themes, and the environment before putting them all together to produce one outstanding novel. Kidnapped is a novel so good that it could be enjoyed by anyone. But it distinctively calls out to those that want the suspense and adventure it has to offer. I recommend it for an intelligent reader in search of a good piece of historical fiction.

One need only read the reviews of this book by James McPherson in The New Republic and Robert Remini in The New York Times Book Review to realize that here is a book that many prominent historians phrase highly. Thus I was bemused by some of the criticisms directed toward this book, and none so much as that offered by Robert Redman, a fellow who appears to be a few bricks shy of a load in his celebration of George Thomas and his denigration of Ulysses S. Grant. Mr. Redman simply does not know what he is talking about (and neither do several of his positing buddies). Here, to balance this, is some of what UCLA professor Joan Waugh had to say:

Brooks D. Simpson's splendid new biography of Ulysses S. Grant recounts the remarkable story of the thirty-nine-year-old clerk who rose swiftly through the ranks of the Northern army during the Civil War to command the entire Union military effort, win the war, and secure the peace. In this first volume of two, Simpson spends little time on Grant's early life. The bulk of the book offers a meticulously researched account of his military career in the Civil War. Simpson's Grant is a complex, intelligent, and ultimately masterful leader of men and of armies. Although Simpson does not shy from discussions of miscues and mistakes, in the end his evaluation of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant is positive, even glowing. **** The chapters that cover Grant's subsequent career in the war show Simpson's mastery of both military and political sources as well as his talent for fine writing. Simpson avoids the "great battles and leaders" syndrome by linking the story of Grant and the western theater with a close and careful contextual analysis of why he emerged by 1864 as the leading general of the Northern armies. Lincoln exulted: "Grant is the first general I have had!" We learn why Lincoln's estimation of Grant was so high as Simpson describes Grant's hard-won victories at Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga. The last two battles were masterpieces of strategy that placed Grant among the top generals in history. Simpson argues that Grant developed the political skills that complimented and strengthened his martial abilities. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Lincoln's policies, especially the use of black soldiers, and emphatically denied he had any interest in running for office.

So much for Mr. Redman and his fellow critics.

Ulysses S. Grant is one of the most written about figures in all of history and one of the most surpassingly interesting. I have been reading about Grant for almost forty years now and I still don''t think that I know enough about Him.Brooks Simpson has written a magnificent biography which takes it's place among the classics of Civil War literature. Simpson is not a Haigieographer. He clearly takes an objective view of Grant, which is long overdue.The Author explores Grant's complex relationships with His parents and His cantankerous Father-in-law, Colonel Dent and also the most important relationship of Grant's life with His beloved wife Julia and their children. Simpson shows us how Grant's failures in civilian life prepared Him for success in war.Simpson clearly shows us that Grant was one of the greatest military commanders of all time. He did''nt not prevail because of superior numbers and resources, you will note that Lee did not surrender to McClellan , Burnside or Hooker who also had superior numbers and resources. No Grant prevailed because of superior Generalship. Simpson shows us how the persistent allegations about Grant's drinking are overdone at best. Certainly Grant did have a drinking problem but He was able to control it. And there is no record of His drinking ever interfereing with military operations.Simpson does not overlook Grant's shortcomings, some of which were horrendous. I cannot reccomend this book highly enough. Even if you are not a Civil War buff I believe you will find this a great read.

Union General Ulysses S. Grant, the only man since George Washington to hold the title of Lieutenant General, was certainly no success story when he entered the Civil War. Yet he emerged from that conflict heralded and completely mystifying. Both his contemporaries and future historians have cast him at various times as a hero, a man "uniquely stupid", a drunk and a bloody butcher, indifferent to the numbers of men sacrificed in order to win the war. Even long-time comrade General William T. Sherman observed, "Yet to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself."

In fact, Grant had such hard luck before the war, that one could easily claim that the defining aspect of Grant's character was adversity. In Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865 (the first of a two-volume biography), author and Civil War historian Brooks D. Simpson provides a closer look at the struggles through which one man emerged triumphant in spite of himself. What results is a balanced portrait of an essentially moral, modest man who shunned fancy military maneuvers for common-sense action, skillfully balancing bickering generals and multiple politicians while bringing the Civil War, at long last, to a successful conclusion.

Grant's personal life and the difficulties he faced played a major role in the man he eventually became. But unlike Pulitzer Prize-winning Grant biographer William McFeely, Simpson does not shun these influences on the General's makeup. The many conflicting personalities within Grant's life (a slave-holding father-in-law, a father who never shunned an attempt to cash in on his son's military successes, and a strong-willed wife) were the proving grounds where Grant honed his skill at handling the various military and political personalities during the war.

Born on April 27, 1822, Hiram Ulysses Grant's boyhood was distinguished only by an extraordinary skill with horses. At age seventeen, he entered West Point, where a fateful error in his registration changed his name to Ulysses S. Grant. (During the war, those initials came to stand for "Unconditional Surrender" Grant.) His unremarkable West Point career preceded a stint in the Mexican War, after which Grant wedded Julia Dent in 1848, following a bumpy courtship.

Thinking Julia would be unhappy as the bride of a professional army man, Grant resigned from the only occupation which had thus far engaged his interest, making the ill-starred choice to experiment in the business world. Various entrepreneurial attempts, including peddling wood on street corners and an attempt at farming, all met with disaster. At his lowest point, Grant found himself serving as a lowly clerk in his father's general store.

All his life, Grant had sought to prove himself - either to himself or someone else - but then along came the Civil War, bringing redemption for Grant as it did for other men who appeared ill-suited for ordinary life. Grant reenlisted and his life changed forever.

Though obviously partial to his subject, Simpson also notes Grant's tactical errors with unflinching honesty. But he does so in a balanced, well-researched effort that is more than a "warts and all" picture. From the bloody fields of Shiloh to the stubborn siege of Vicksburg, Simpson examines not only Grant's actions but those of the other players on the stage. Grant prosecuted the war while facing jealous superiors, wily politicians and resentful generals, all of whom thought they could do a better job than their commander.

Was Grant a hero? Most certainly. When other Union generals refused to move, Grant stubbornly pushed forward. Did he drink? Yes. However, the alleged degree of his drinking was often exaggerated by men who suffered from rampant ambition and an eagerness to pass on falsehoods or rumors to Grant's superiors in order to further their own careers. Was he a butcher? No - not when viewed through the lens of military necessity. Grant, sensible about war, knew that war meant killing and dying - but he was not immune to the suffering around him. Indeed, he knew that swift prosecution of the war meant, in the long run, lives saved, but the sufferings of his troops never failed to upset or move him.

In his preface to Grant's memoirs, Simpson notes that when Grant was asked to write his memoirs to the monthly magazine Century, he inquired of the publication's editor, Robert U. Johnson, "Do you really think any one would be interested in a book by me?" Clearly the General had no idea of the fascination with which he was regarded, both by those of his time and of times to come. The upcoming second volume of the series, entitled Ulysses S. Grant: The Fruits of Victory, 1865-1885 will examine Grant's post-war life and his Presidency and complete one man's illuminating portrait of a figure who continues to inspire devotion and debate.