When I read this I couldn't beleive that anyone could take this methodology seriously. Firstly, Harrison wants to change the way Christian's think on the issue of abortion and other social stances typically taken by Christians. She completely fails to take into count that this cannot happen given that true Christians follow the Bible and the Bible has certain teachings on issues like abortion that the church is powerless to change, much less Harrison with her meaningless dialogues.

Harrison states that "Women's competence as moral decision makers is being denied" and states, not argues, that women must have the right to procreative choice. In doing this she totally missed the point and her argument is circular.

Harrison totally fails to engage the abortion issue - the question that must be answered is: is the unborn child a separate moral person with a right to life? If the unborn child is a human being with a right to life then no one has the right to take that life so talking about women's procreative choices without answering this question is as irrelevant as me talking about my procreative choice to refuse to use my body to feed my infant and assume that that somehow settles the matter about the morality of infanticide. If the unborn is not a human being with a right to life then perhaps its fate is less important and the woman, giving it's existence affects her body might be able to make that decision.

By demanding a woman's right to make her own procreative choice and waahing on about women's competence as moral decision makers on abortion, Harrison demonstrates that she has already decided this issue and from there uses her position to claim that her position is right. This proves nothing.

From the outset Harrison has already decided that the unborn's life is less important than the woman's, this is obvious as she assumes that its fate can be decided by the woman. If we were talking about five year olds and whether women were morally capable decision makers on the issue of whether they could choose to kill them or not we would all be laughing out loud at Harrison's methodology because no one, not even a five year olds mother for any reason is justified in killing a five year old because a five year old has a right to life regardless of how physically and emotionally dependant it is on its mother.

Starting out assuming that women are morally capable of deciding to kill five year olds when discussing the issue of infanticide and whether it is morally acceptable, clearly shows that you don't value the life of the five year old or view it's moral status as equal to the woman's. It is clearly flawed to approach the issue of the morality of killing five year olds by stating that women are capable of deciding their fate and that the state should stay out of it. Generally, when the issue of human life is at stake we trust in the state to protect it, we don't give individual people the right to decide based on how they feel if we live or die.

Yet this is where Harrison starts on abortion, she assumes what she is trying to prove; because it is ok to kill them, it is ok to kill them, and therefore proves nothing except the fact she cannot reason and this book is a waste of your time and money.

Beverly Harrison is one of the most well respected social ethicists of the twentieth century, and this book provides an excellent sampling of her contributions to the field. She has a formidable intellect, and her essays reveal an extensive knowledge of Christian history and philosophy. She is well known for her development of a Christian ethic of procreative choice.

At first glance this book seems almost as simple as paint-by-number, but when trying to do the projects I found that the explanations were sketchy and the photographs didn't show every step. I'm not an absolute beginner with pastels but my attempts certainly didn't get anywhere near the projects shown, and I don't feel as thought I learned anything. It's nice to see what's possible, but it would be better to work with simpler projects that are explained in detail. I definitely don't recommend this book to anyone who is not already accomplished in oil painting if not pastels.

Beginner to Intermediate (and maybe even some advanced) pastelists will find this book useful for developing their own pastel painting skills. The book is divided into 3 major sections. 1 gives a brief history of pastels followed by explanations of the various types of pastels and surfaces. 2 is Learning from the Masters. 3 is Pastel Techniques.

In the second section Learning from the Masters each chapter begins with an in-depth critique of various masters of the past and explains how many of their effects were achieved and why they are considered masterpieces.

What is interesting is that most (though not all) of these masterpiece critiques are of oil paintings. The Master critiques focus on general concepts of what made this or that painting work. For example, in the first demonstration she critiques an atmospheric oil painting by J.M.W. Turner. After devoting a few pages to the Turner painting she then introduced a guest pastelist who demonstrated how they achieved a similar effect (in this example- atmospheric) with soft & hard pastels. I found the critiques of de la Tour and Degas particulary interesting.

Each painting also shows color swatches of pastel colors recommended if you wanted to copy one of the historical paintings or the guest artist's demonstration. The swatches are given instead of particular brand names and colors since these will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Beside the color swatches will be a box listing the techniques the guest artist uses and the page number to the third section of the book that gives a detailed discussion of the technique.

The critiques will have one page where the full painting is shown and an over-all discussion at the side. The next page will show the same painting on a smaller scale with a "points to watch" format with arrows pointing to particular areas of the painting that the author wants to emphasize. The third page will introduce the guest pastelist and show step-by-step how to achieve a similar goal with a pastel painting.

The final section of the book focuses on the various techniques. Effects such as mixing colors, broken color, combining charcoal and pastel, corrections, creating details and edges, feathering, hatching and cross-hatching, line strokes, side strokes, underpainting and wetbrushing. Actually I only listed a few of the techniques described in this section.

Over all this is a very good book if you are a beginning to intermediate pastelist. Even advanced pastelists might find it interesting since a large part of the book is devoted to critiquing and discussing master paintings. There are a wealth of photos demonstrating everything explained and an index in the back.

The sole reason I gave this book 4 stars instead of 5 is that there is almost no discussion or serious consideration given to oil pastels. I have used oil pastels for several years and am always disappointed at the poor attention given to this delightful medium.

For someone who wouldn't miss the lack of attention given to oil pastels then this book would probably rate a 5. Overall this is one of the better pastel books I've read and I refer to it constantly as I'm learning to paint with soft & hard pastels.

Despite the fact that the info page for this book carries the publishing date of 1997, the book was first published in 1965, and it is showing its age. Much of the information is sadly out of date. For example, recent and widely published work on the equine eye has discredited the ramped retina theory. Nonetheless that theory is presented as state of the art information. The information in each chapter is repetitive, poorly organized, frequently uninformative, and to make matters worse, the writing style is dry as dust. I am not suggesting that horsemen from an earlier era have nothing of value to share with us, but this particular book is not worth the time it takes to read it.

The author transports you into the world of the horse and allows you to experience and analzye the thought processes of the horse. It enables you to see the world as the horse visualizes it and consequently reacts to it. You can allow yourself to think and react to the world as a horse does. A detailed chapter covers the eyesight of the horse and its broad field of vision and acuity. Horses are ever vigilant and process data from spectrum the human can't even imagine. Not only the horse lover will gain insight into this creature's world, but trainers will greatly benefit from the author's description of the horse's uncanny senses and interpretation of and reaction to stimuli in its surroundings

This book can be read on its own even though it is the sequel to TYPEE. There are 82 short chapters that cover life on a whaler and various experiences on the island of Tahiti as well as surrounding islands. We get a feel for life on a whaler and for life on the islands and how foreigners, especially missionaries, influenced the natives for the worse.

Omoo means a rover or one who wanders from island to island. Thus the title fits the feel of the narrative, but also points out a shortcoming as the book roves too much. We are taken from situation to situation a bit too abruptly. There are many characters and events that are introduced, but usually only on a superficial level. I would have liked more in-depth analysis from Melville as many of the characters were just that--characters. Also there are many, for me, unknown nautical terms used that made the reading hard work.

However, enough of the stories give you the sense of being "omoo", especially in a time vastly different from our own, that I recommend the book, even with the many sections that make you plod.

is an excellent travel memoir (partially fictionalized) in the same vein as Typee.

Typee struck me most by its pictorial quality and sumptuous imagery. In Omoo, however, Melville shores up his powers of characterization, creating a fine supporting cast of individuals.

If you are only familiar with Melville's later work, you will be surprised by the wry sense of humor Melville flashes throughout. Detailed descriptions of practical jokes, drunken brawls, and cultural faux-pas will make you smile, and sometimes laugh out loud. Certain passages are actually a riot!

Also, in this novel (as compared to Typee), Melville's intrusions into the narrative are less glaring than they are in the previous novel. Yes, some of the diversions take the steam out of the narrative, as in Typee, but these diversions oftentimes give necessary exposition to illuminate characters' motivations.

The beginning of the novel effectively captures the claustrophobic atmosphere aboard a whaling ship, and the crew are indeed a motley lot.

Though you do not have to read Typee before you read Omoo (although the first page of Omoo is, literally, a continuation of the last page of Typee), I recommend you read both in conjunction. Be prepared to absorb a beautifully rendered atmosphere, describing the life of two roving beachcombers in the South Pacific in the early 19th century.

Rollerball is a collection of short stories by the author William Harrison. After reading this book, the only story that really stood out for me was "Roller Ball Murder" which the movie Rollerball was based on. The movie is fairly true to the short story but is only 15 pages long and really only touches on part of what the movie was about. I found all of the other stories fairly dry and uninteresting and reading this will add nothing to what the original movie had.

Harrison is a master storyteller, & his hallmarks are bizarre premises or characters driven to do bizarre things & a terse & spartan writing style. "Roller Ball Murder" had the bizarre premise & was Harrison's most commercial success. The original story is a first-person narrative of a panic-stricken sports hero, watching his sport become increasingly cruel & barbaric.

"The Warrior" is an interior monologue (told as if the reader were sitting next to the narrator) of a restless soldier of fortune, who, without a war to fight, decides to take on that conspicuous example of cosmopolitan excess, an international film festival ("Christ, some show."). The narrator of "The Good Ship Erasmus" smuggles cigarettes on a quit-smoking cruise; like Kafka's Hunter Gracchus, he is destined to cruise forever.

Harrison's characters are sometimes on the verge of breakdowns: a fireman thinks he's causing fires so he can rescue lost loves; a weather forecaster thinks he causes the weather. This is an early collection of Harrison's stories, published while he was still teaching writing, something, as he wrote in the Preface, he could never again do with "a straight face."

I just received this book as a Valentine's gift from a co-worker and finally sat down to read it last night. The poetry is awful, the stories are mundane. I almost want to return this book to my friend so he can get his money back.

I love this book!! It touched my heart in so many ways. This has been a great gift for my mother, sister, and even my dad. My favorite parts were the stories of his family. This has also become a favorite of my grandmother. ... What a talented writer!

I've just re-read this book (for about the 12th time), and I felt I'd better pitch in my two-cents worth. Now this series is an excellent example of "typical" science fiction. You have the main protagonist who, after living blindly in a world where he was one of the priviledged, realizes what is going on around him and tries to fight the injustices of the world. Of course, he doesn't succeed, gets banished to a backwater planet, gets into trouble, barely survives, but becomes a leader in the "Great Rebellion", becomes a hero and saves the day. Like I said, typical, and predictable.

What makes this series an excellent read is Harrison's ability to create characters with depth, and to weave the plot, predictable as it was, in a way which keeps the reader on the edge of his seat, cheering the good guys on. I keep coming back to this book from time to time just to re-visit the characters, and to enjoy a good old-fashioned adventure. This book is well worth the effort to dig it up.

To The Stars is an excellent omnibus colleciton of Homeworld, Wheelworld, and Starworld.

Homeworld is a novel of a single man's personal discovery that the world he has always lived in is a disgusting lie, and his decision that he cannot continue living in that lie, that he must actively fight to change it, and the awful consequences of his decision.

Wheelworld is the delivery of those consquences onto the back of the main character.

Starworld is the culmination of the plots of the first two novels.

Homeworld and Wheelworld were written in the early 80s, and this shows quite clearly. However, this novel is in very little way "dated" in its technological descriptions. What I especially like is the extensive descriptions of the possibilities of surveillence technology, many of which have become widely accetped as either actual technologies or things that are likely to exist in the future. Definitely an idea taken to it's logical extreme. The main character is caught several times by his own inability to fully understand the scope and true extent of serveillence tech.

Starworld was written later, and this shows. The end of Wheelworld seems to have pointed future events in a clear direction, but Starworld seems pick off where Wheelworld ends, and promptly heads off in a new direction. Not that this is wrong, but it is something of a surprise.

The author does not hesitate to use the main character's viewpoint to convey a complete view of what is going on, and then yank that out from under both the main character and the reader to show that in the rest of the world, things beyond his control are going on, most of which are not to his benefit. How to phrase this better? The main character is a brilliant electronic engineer, but in his attempts to play revolutionary, he simply cannot--by professional training or sheer intelligence--compete with or beat the security professionals who are tracking him. This is something I like a great deal, that other people in positions of importance in the universe are clearly shown as competent experts in their field, capable of doing their jobs and not be flim flammed by some johnny come lately.

Overall, I liked this book, and the money I spent on it was well worth it.

It was very broad and didn't really give too many specifics...

As the author of this book I was surprised to find it listed here. I'm afraid it is permanently out of print and you will have to go the Library of Congress if you want to read the hardcopy version. A web version is available free at my personal website.

Black Pearls is the first novel I've read that depicts what was going on in Hawaii during the 1880s. The story's characters were ok, but the hero Peter Darien was really controlling when it came to the heroine Rosalind. I think the book could have had a lot more romance and conflict.