You'd get about the same information from talking to a couple 3L's for ten minutes... There were a few useful pointers, mostly about what to expect. It helped me not to freak out so much in the first days.
But I found her to be very melodramatic about several things. Maybe she's just dating herself, or maybe it's just my law school, but the classroom is not nearly as confrontational as it used to be (and as she makes it out to be). Most of my professors are wonderful, interesting people who are not out to get me.
I would borrow this book from someone if you're curious or just that nervous (which I was).

This is the kind of book an uncle or aunt gives you as a present before you are about to start law school; you brush it off but then notice it's comforting to have around every now and then when you feel a bit crummy or discouraged during your 1L year. Definitely a fun little book to browse through. It's a little book of "tips" that are not totally commonplace (a lot are, but there are a few to pick from that aren't that bad...and work). For example, it may seem silly to use this as an example from all the tips, but the one on using air fresheners around your home is something small yet it really does make it a bit more pleasant to be home...and study...she explains it much more eloquently. But it all falls under the theme of giving yourself room to unwind in the stress that befalls your life during 1L year. As long as you're mentally prepared for it, you CAN begin to see that's it really is all just small stuff!

This book isn't perfect, but it does have some great common sense advice. Definitely check this book out if you're entering law school. A lot of the info contained here, such as how to handle the stress, most people (such as myself) don't figure out until their third year.

I have read the entire Trillium series and indeed Black Trillium was the very first fantasy novel I had ever read. Thus it was with some anticipation that I awaited this, the final book of the series. This review is written to warn of any others who might approach this piece of fiction with their hopes up - it is written to prevent you from being shot down the way i was.

Seasoned readers of fantasy will find the ideas extremely jaded. Ideas of sacrifices to gods and cults are far from original. Readers of the Black trillium might also share my sentiments over the way MZB has characterized haramis. From the bright and intelligent, though somewhat proud youth, we see her transformed into a crotchy, insesnsitive and bitchy old lady. Needless to say I was extremely put off by this. Besides this, the protagonist of the story also far from earns our sympathy. In fact I found I could not empathise with her at all.

To summerize the ramblings above, Lady of the Trillium is a poorly written and unoriginal tale that must rank among the worst books I have ever read.

Having not read any of the Trillium series, I was a bit skeptical about being able to get something out of this book. However, as a fan of MZB, I took the chance and was not disappointed. Of particular fascination was the relationship between Mikayla and Fiolon, who share a special psychic bond with each other, and the struggle of each of them to assume their respective magical responsibilities. Definitely worth a read!

Mikayla begins her unwanted life as an Archimage when Haramis says that she's the next Archimage. Mikayla doesn't want it though ... she wants the life that she's had planned. To marry her best friend, Fiolon and live her life as a royal princess.

Mikayla's resistance makes Haramis' life harder. She wonders why Mikayla isn't glad for the training she is receiving; Haramis would have killed for a chance like what she's giving Mikayla.

Mikayla finally sees that Haramis is doing something good ... but now Mikayla's life is in danger. Will Haramis arrive in time and will Fiolon remain as loyal and loving as he ever has?

This is the first of the Trillium series I have read I enjoyed it very much. Even though a lot of reviews have not enjoyed this book I think it's worthwhile and a very good read!!!

Though Meade seems to enjoy Keaton's screen work, most of what she writes about him personally is written with either scorn or the most obnoxious form of pity. She really doesn't write like she cares much for her subject. Meade also makes a claim that Keaton was illiterate but the proof isn't substantial. It's a miracle I even finished the book. Meade's comments just become too annoying. One thing though, the filmography is very good.

If you do read this and it is the first book that you've read about Buster, you should follow it up with another biography. Try digging up a copy of Rudi Blesh's "Keaton."

This is not an ideal book for sensitive Buster fans who feel over-protective of him and cannot tolerate criticism of the darker side of his personal life. The book is at times an offensive target into that, and does not always paint him as flattering. Marion Meade does not hesitate to label Buster as somebody with vanity, and likes to use the term "extreme egotism" to describe him. It may be that Meade has drawn on this conclusion because as a child, Buster was the center of attention at all times, as a result of becoming a vaudeville star at about the age of 5, and with this, he was the main breadwinner in the family, therefore, the center of attention which may have grown into extreme egotism. Meade also states that Buster was illiterate. Buster may have been unschooled because of his traveling vaudeville show, but he wasn't illiterate. I've seen his penmanship, both handwriting and printing. Also, he was able to read the part of "Little Lord Fauntleroy" when he was 11 years old (another family-breadwinner situation).

But other sources I've read and seen have proven that Buster's behavior was as a modest level-headed guy, a miracle to occur in the world of show business. During his successful years, he did not hesitate to loan money to leeches, rarely getting paid back. He also financially supported his entire family, siblings and all, even after they were well past adulthood.

However, because I thrive on Hollywood trash, I recommend this book to anyone interested in old Hollywood gossip because it's a page-turner. It's dense with information. It does not skip any part of his 70-year life, which previously written books have done. Meade gives us a lot of background information on the people in his life. Buster was married 3 times, and it's hard to find information in other books about his 2nd wife, Mae. This one gives us her full background, and also what became of her after the marriage ended in 1935. Two periods in Buster's life that are skimmed over in other books that he'd cooperated in the making of are his MGM years (1928-33) and the drinking problem years with Mae (1933-36), probably because they were too painful to talk about. In "Cut to the Chase", we get full explanation of those years.

I was actually surprised to find myself enjoying this one better than I expected to. Meade's tactic of laying some pretty heavy charges against dead people leaves something to be desired though. The dead can't defend themselves (and neither can their dead friends set the record straight, unfortunately) and while I'm sure there's something satisfying in claiming that Keaton's unswerving loyalty to his father, his mentor (Schenck) or his hero (Arbuckle) was the result of drunken beatings he suffered as a child, it all falls apart messily when Meade (who started to remind me a little of that other pop-psychologist Lucy Van Pelt) tries to insinuate that as a result, Keaton shuffled through life wearing a downbeaten expression because he was an emotional cripple. All you have to do is watch his films to put the lie to that bit of nonsense. The mirth is evident in his eyes in more scenes than I care to recount.

Still in all, I give Meade some major points for the sheer volume of fascinating Three Keatons Vaudeville era information, for laying out the social landscape of early Hollywood so effectively, and for filling in the gaps in my own knowledge of Keaton's life after MGM. And the recipes at the end are a nice touch, too.

I only wish she'd been able to finally name the actor who plays the barber in Steamboat Bill Jr.

This was a difficult book to rate. It is, to begin with, a fairly short novel; just over 200 pages. I felt one of the problems with this book was that the author moved us around too much in time, place and character. The brevity of the book made this confusing. We're one place then another before we got settled in with the former. The basic plot of the book is challenging but worth the effort to try and follow. A doctor (Raphael)who was a youthful survivor of the Holocaust is trying to come to understand his experiences. Through him we meet a wide array of characters of whom the most important is a man nicknamed Pedro. Raphael is in a search for Pedro and for meaning to the horrors that are beyond meaning. There is an irony in the duality of his search. On one level Raphael searches for a real savior that he has lost. On the other level, he searches for the savior that was never there. In the end he encounters both. We are left unfulfilled. Having gone this far with him, we expect more. We want a clear answer, a happy ending. We get neither and, in this ambiguity, we get a sense of Holocaust reality; there is no meaning, there is no happy ending. Night represents evil, day represents good. In the twilight lies the madness.

Twilight seeks to explore the relationship between God and his creation in the context of a mental assylum whereby the accusation of God's insanity in the wake of the Holocaust is juxta-opposed against God's care. The book is filled with wonderful characters in the assylum who 'double' in their insanity as characters from Hebrew Scripture - Adam, Joseph, Cain, Abraham, the Messiah and God. The book is somewhat complicated in that the deepest questions concerning the nature of God and humanity are explored while historic 'flash backs' break up the intensity to tell the real struggle of the main character and his family under the Nazi regime. The book is written with an intense passion and stimulates emotions and arguments and insights concerning God's relationship to humanity in the light of the holocaust from all angles. God is seen as omni-present but veiled, simultaneously imminant and transcendent. Many times the question WHY? is thrown at God and options of God's insanity, cruelty, indifference and usury are expressed. Finally, the accusation of God's insanity in relation to the hohlocaust is defended through the patient who beleives himself to be God - 'When exactly was I suppose to stop it? Go on, tell me'

The novel evokes sympathy for God as a concluding note and in the face of anger and accusation because of the holocaust we are left with an unveiled God in tears and pain through the accusation 'you could have stopped it - you should have stopped it'.

This is a short novel the weaves a masterful tapestry of emotions, history, theology, accusation and theodicy. It's setting in a clinic is unique, the patients are loveable, understandable. Wiesel leads the reader to be on everyone's side, in everyone's shoes. A stunning novel - well worth coming to terms with and reading over and over again.

This was my 1st Wiesel work and I did not find it to be "perplexing" or "weird". Actually, I found it to be a quite sane story depicting one of the 20th centuries' most perplexing events.

For readers who have thought previously about the various shades of madness and those who find themselves afflicted (Robert Persig's 'Lila' as an example) and for readers who have spent any time reflecting on the inexcapable impact of the Holocaust on survivors and their next generation...then 'Twilight' is a mystical and brutally real novel depicting the terror of just one family out of the countless thousands.

All reliable evidence indicates Sacco and Vanzetti are emblematic of rather low-level, low-life anti-intellectual types. They were clearly guilty but unfortunately (for them) they committed their vile murder in a time when decency still reigned (even in Massachusetts) and fair trials were still the norm of the day. Lost in all of this is the name of the poor victim. You can read entire essays railing against the evils of racism,etc. and not find the name of the victim. The poor fellow is lost in the fray of leftist babble. In the end, justice was served and the two immigrant anarchists who, after all, sought the destruction of American society were put to death for their evil actions. Still, reading this compilation of their letters serves several useful purposes: 1) it clearly indicates how stupid they were; 2) it reminds one that even evil nuts have families whom they care about (can one imagine reading the prison letters of Dr. Joseph Goebells "I love you, deary and the little kidders too."); it demonstrates once and for all the boorish mentality of the nutcase (admittedly a redundant phrase)leftwing; 4) it demonstrates that liberals have always been stupid.

Polenberg of Cornell University The introduction to The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (Penguin Books 1997) by Professor Richard Polenberg is richly informative. The publication is timely and useful. Readers must ask whether these letters offer a clue to the moral character of convicted murderers Sacco and Vanzetti. John Nicholas Beffel, radical journalist who roomed with chief defense counsel Fred Moore during the Dedham trial, declared in “The New Republic,” December 29, 1920, that Vanzetti was a “philosophical anarchist.” In “The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti” (March 1927), Harvard Law School Professor Felix Frankfurter called Vanzetti “a dreamy fish peddler” (p. 101). Bruce Bliven, “managing editor of the liberal New Republic” (a phrase from American National Biography), wrote of Sacco and Vanzetti: “Their faith is philosophical anarchism.” See TNR: June 22, 1927, p. 121. When an unknown reviewer in the April 1929 issue of the anarchist journal “The Road to Freedom” argued that Upton Sinclair’s novel “Boston” was the work of an unfit historian, Sinclair replied angrily in the June issue: “It is a fact that Sacco was a ‘Militant Anarchist.’” Anarchist editor Hippolyte Havel agreed. In the August 1929 issue of “Lantern” Walter Lippmann wrote: “By every test that I know of for judging character, these are the letters [The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti] of innocent men.” Note: The brackets are by Lippmann Frederick Allen (Only Yesterday, 1931) said Vanzetti was “clearly a remarkable man--an intellectual of noble character, a philosophical anarchist of a type which it seemed impossible to associate with a pay-roll murder.” Alfred Jules Ayer, Professor of Logic at Oxford, reviewing Francis Russell’s 1962 book on Sacco and Vanzetti, wrote: “Both men were active anarchists of an idealistic kind.” Ayer said the letters of Vanzetti revealed “a man of great swetnesss and nobility of character.” See New Statesman: 5 July 1963. Sacco-Vanzetti scholars who met at the Boston Public Library on October 26 and 27, 1979, reminded readers that time is a great corrective. Professor Nunzio Pernicone, on the second conference day said: “ . . . these men [Sacco and Vanzetti] were not philosophical anarchists; they were genuine, militant revolutionaries.” See “Sacco-Vanzetti: Developments and Reconsiderations--1979,” the 1982 publication by Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. In “Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background,” a 1991 publication by Princeton University Press, Professor Paul Avrich wrote: “Both [Sacco and Vanzetti] were ultra-militants, . . .” See p. 161 for Avrich’s citation to Sinclair’s letters that acknowledge the militancy of Sacco and Vanzetti. On page xxxix of his Introduction, Polenberg calls Edmund M. Morgan a historian. In fact, Morgan is called Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University on the back cover of the 1978 reprint of “The Legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti,” that 1948 book by Joughin and Morgan that Tom O’Connorr said had educated a generation of college students and professors. Polenberg’s assertion (p. xxxix) that Joughin and Morgan, . . .believed Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, . . .” must be severely qualified. Morgan said Ehrmann’s book, “The Untried Case: The Sacco-Vanzetti Case and the Morelli Gang,” failed to convince him that the Morelli gang, not Sacco and Vanzetti, had committed the crime at South Braintree. Morgan also said that if Sacco and Vanzetti “were alive today [1934] and were to be tried again, . . . and if a verdict were returned, it could not be set aside as contrary to the weight of evidence, at least against Sacco.” See Harvard Law Review, January 1934. Morgan has more telling concessions in the book he and Joughin published in 1948. On pp. 55-56 he calls Vanzetti’s Plymouth trial fair, the verdict just. On p. 46 Morgan writes: “ . . . this cross-examination, taken alone,

tends strongly to show that a group of Italians had framed an alibi for Vanzetti and had coached this bright youngster [Beltrado Brini] to tell his story with details which would tie in with the incidents related by other witnesses.” On pages 48-49 Morgan says Vanzetti’s statements on the Plymouth trial are suspect. A handbook on the two disputed trials is “Kill Now, Talk Forever: Debating Sacco and Vanzetti,” an ebook by 1stBooks Library. Soft cover issue will be available before the end of summer....

This is the most important testament to a now largely forgotten tragedy of American politics. Sacco and Vanzetti were essentially convicted and executed for being unpatriotic foreigners, regardless of the crime they were accused of [for which no specific evidence was presented against them]. They waited for seven years in prison before their execution, during which time they wrote these letters. Their English, though it improved through the years, was never fully accomplished. But the results are extraordinary. The letters express ideas about life, society, faith, politics and human feelings, and the often clumsy and misused language actually makes the expression more lucid and more beautiful. The path of trial, appeal and final sentencing runs through clearly, and as the end approaches the letters are inexpressibly heartbreaking, as when Sacco asks his wife to tell his daughter "that I love her so much, and again, so much." This book has been in and out of print since the late 1920's, and is often unavailable in libraries because patrons steal it. It is a blessing that Penguin has brought it back.

The material covered is on the ATI TEAS entrance exam, however, it is presented in a different text style. There are no critical thinking or reasoning questions for you to practice. Science and math need those sections added to this book. If you are rusty on all areas of math, science & reading it will help refresh you. Depending on the type of test you have to take, I would consider additional or another source of help.

... I want the best. This book, although they were not involved in the test that we took had me reviewing for stuff that had nothing to do with what I was taking. Which is why I give it the stars I did. However, check out the certain aspects of this book, and get other sources if you wish to ace this test. Call me a person who definitely learned from experience.

There were two reasons I didn't give this book 5 stars. First off I took the NET test, this book seems to be geared more towards the more extensive ACT type tests. The NET mostly focuses on fractions, decimals and precents. This book went from theses basic math problems to trig. so it was a bit overkill for the net test. The other reason I didnt give it 5 stars...there were about a half a dozen mistakes in the book but they are obvious and wont lead you astray.

Sometime in the future, the human race realizes how much the population is outgrowing the planet and decides to train people to go explore the galaxy to look for other inhabitable planets. The trainees are chosen for their intelligence at a very young age, then spend their entire childhood learning a skill such as medicine, engineering, physics, etc. When they reach adulthood, the best six of them are sent off to other star systems to spend the rest of their lives searching for a place that may be hospitable to humans. This is the story of one such group.

The premise is good, but I think this story had more potential than it lived up to. Too many details seemed unbelievable and the characters remained undeveloped. Better written novels by Marion Zimmer Bradley include The Mists of Avalon and The House Between the Worlds.

The book was okay but the pictures were not that great. I read it when I was 12 and it seems to have alot of bad things in it for young adults. There is too much phornography. Other than that it is a good book

Excellent character study of three gals and three guys (covering the gamut of sexual orientation) locked aboard space ship headed for nowhere. Death is certain--but when? The head game going on was why any of the six were picked from a class of forty. Group psychology and future sociology study of humans cut off from mankind. Only the outer space setting qualifies story to be labeled sci-fi. Good read.

Marion has ripped me off again. I'll get my hands on him one day

the classical dynamics course is very good one , however it needs a srtong background in calculus , the textbook focuses more on the mathematical point of vew rather than the theuretical consepts

It's good for those who have no idea to start the calculation.

If you love feminist philosophy, and you don't mind all the impractical ideas and flawed logic, then this is your book. I cannot stand these things, so I found this book to be a waste of trees.

It's tempting to write an essay detailing exactly how politics as a rationale for a system of justice must fail, and indeed should fail, but I don't want to waste my time or yours because this book isn't worth it. To make a long story short, Young's thesis is that in order for justice to be met in our patriarchal, racist, classist society guilt and punishment should be measured by the relative "power" of the people involved. Thus a white man should be punished more than a white woman for the same crime. Not only that, but if a white man were to murder, for example, another white man his punishment should be lighter than if he murdered a black man. Is this justice or an attempt to apply notions of group justice to what must be a system that addresses guilt or innocence on an individual basis? Young actually creates criteria to define exactly how oppressed you are so that through her system you can get what's coming to you.

Perhaps the most ironic part of her diatribe is that she uses her criteria and argues that women are historically more oppressed than blacks. This one example destroys her argument for justice based on politics. As a feminist "philosopher" she deconstructs her argument by tipping the scales to suit her needs, thus oppressing blacks still more.

I've written more than I wanted to, but there you have it in a nutshell. If you think justice is best served through politics then buy this book. If you believe, as I do, in justice as a set of principles to be applied fairly to each person as is their due, then run, don't walk, away from this book.

(Since I wrote this review I came to realize that anybody looking for a book such as this would probably not have the qualms I do regarding misplaced social justice. Nonetheless, if this book jibes with your worldview, so be it. You're welcome to it.)

Young's clasic book is most often read in seminars on social criticism and/or feminist studies. This is as it should be, for Young's work brilliantly illuminates the direction debates about justice and oppressed groups must go. However, I read the book from the point of view of the work of Warnke, Habermas, and Gadamer, more along the lines of hermeneutics and ideology critique. What I found was an absolutely riviting account of how we define the groups to which we belong, how we believe those groups interact with each other, and the way that the competing demands of these groups are met and dealt with. As Warnke does, Young realigns the concept of justice along a communitarian axis rather than an individualistic axis, proposing that we look at justice in terms of communitites than individuals. Only in this way will the individuals within those communities be able to come to the table with their respective concerns. Like Habermas, she investigates the rhetoric of power that underlies old ways of discussing justice in terms of distribution, denying that justice is a finite commodity that must be rationed. And like Gadamer, Young stresses the need for an understanding of presuppositions in developing theories of history and interpretation. After all, how we define "our" group in great part determines how we define "others".

I found her turn from a rural to an urban paradigm of community to be nothing short of revolutionary. She develops an idea of community-oriented justice that revolves not around the model of self-suffient hamlets, but around the interlocking and often messy communities that exist side-by-side (though often in isolation from each other) in cities. Showing that the idea of self-sufficiency is unworkable in the curent context, Young holds out hope that these interconnected yet distinct communities will show us the way to not only survive but flourish in the postmodern world. Justice does not compete with difference; it grows out of it.

An excellent study, it should be read by any and all, though the jargon cannot help but be technical at times. I agree with the previous reviewer, a good second-year book for students of social work, religion, philosophy, education, or politics, and a great any-time book for anyone concerned with issues of justice in the world today.

Devlin and Emmerich are decent filmmakers, but their writing ability leaves a lot to be desired. The publisher bears the responsibility, however. The book has numerous typos and the kind of word and continuity errors that a good editor should have caught. During a critical moment, I wasn't anxious for the characters, but laughing. A character "collapsed like a sack of steak knives." Steak knives! And a character who dies on one page is back again 15 pages later. Still, the book is interesting for the background, the revelation of character and for the inherent vision--the images of light, shape and sound--that a good filmmaker must have. Please, D&E, at least hire an editor, since Signet can't be depended on.

I loved teh movie Stargate, and it's spin-off series Stargate SG1, yet this book was a terrible disappointment. Filled with continuancy errors (i.e. there is a creature that is male for most of the book, then it becomes female, a bomb countdown gets mixed up), I found reading this book a painful experience, and when I finished it, I planned to write the publisher and complain. If you want to read this book, get it from a library, and watch for the continuancy errors; it's not often that you see errors this bad in a published book.

"The passage to discovery is about to be entered..."
It all began in North Africa 8000 B.C. when a young boy walks into a dazzling beam of light in the sky. Egypt 1928, on the Giza plateau near a great pyramid, a mysterious object shaped like a giant ring is discovered, baffling scientists and archaeologists. In 1994, the U.S. government with the help of Egyptologist Daniel Jackson discovers that this mysterious object is a Stargate. In other words, a device able to create a passage through space. And now, a special team of scientists and soldiers is going to be sent through the Stargate to an unknown destination. With no idea what they will find and absolutely no clue if they can return, the team is going to have the ultimate adventure of their lives...

I first saw the movie "Stargate" (1994) before reading this book. After watching the movie and instantly finding it a terrific film, I knew I would really like to read the novelization. And I must say, I totally enjoyed reading it though I do have my complaints about it. Here is a brief descriptions of the two main characters:
Daniel Jackson: A brilliant young genius, Daniel though is scorned by the scientific community. From the first moment you read about him, I assure you that you'll find him a likable guy. Daniel is very witty and I love it when he gives his speech in the beginning of the story.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Jack is a retired operative of the U.S. special forces. Though tough and in every way a soldier, he also has a troubled past. Can't help but love him, I love his outward facade of being the 'perfect commander'. :)
Another of my favorite characters is Lieutenant Colonel Adam Kawalsky. The banter between him and Daniel is great and I also like the tension between him and Colonel O'Neill.

THE GOOD: First I'll give you the good. The book is well-written by authors Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich. It flows very well and it's a pretty easy read. The characters are very likable, one of the most important elements of a great book. It's sometimes so terribly disappointing when you read novelizations from your favorite movies to find that your favorite characters are so dislikable when you read about them. The action and suspense is strongly given off the reader, definitely a page-turner at some points in the plot, making the book hard to put down. But most of all, some parts in the story is just totally HILARIOUS! Like there's the one instance where the people of the mysterious planet give Daniel and the soldiers a feast. That part just had me cracking up!

THE BAD: But unfortunately, there's also the bad. The publisher and editor of the book should be very ashamed of themselves as some other reviewers have states. Besides having lots of misspells and typos, there's also plot errors! There's a place where it is clearly stated that someone dies, then later on at one point he's alive and helping out a fellow soldier! Tsk, tsk, tsk!

On the overall, the book is a terrific one to read, though I recommend you read after watching the movie. Since the movie is rated PG-13, I guess I will rate the book the same. There is no sex though there is one instant which adults will definitely not want their children to read. Plus, the language is also pretty bad throughout the book. Best for kids 15 or older in my opinion though I would strongly suggest parents to look through the book before letting their children read.