I bought this coloring book so I can have some pictures for an upcomming event I was involved in based on the movie Prince of Egypt. The pictures in the coloring book were scenes from the movie. I liked how there were some larger pictures for younger kids to color but also some more complicated pictures for the older kids. There was also there was some verbage written to tell the condensed version of the story making this a coloring book and a reading book.

Emma Lathan's Thatcher novels may be the only mysteries I enjoy for their documentary value. Tautly plotted, apparently well researched, and an amusing departure from the lean and desperate detectives who populate much of the mystery genre. Worth a read.

The language in this book is incredible-- the metaphors perfectly capture the essence of what they describe, and the melodic rise and fall of the sentences mirrors the tragic (but in the end uplifting) plot into which the reader is drawn. As I read the book, I felt I was becoming an active participant in it, taking part in the story and not just observing it, and it was so hard to put the book down when I didn't know how things would turn out!

The elegant simplicity of the solutions presented to the seemingly complex problems that face the characters is a biting comment on our own society's predilection for grinding out the answer to everything, when in reality what we need when confronting humanity's great issues is a sense of perspective.

However, I found the characters somewhat flat. Why, for example, does the set N choose to define himself in such narrow terms? Has he no dreams, no fantasies, no weaknesses, nothing but a recursive definition? Many of the characters had similar problems; I had difficulty relating to the motives behind some of their self-simplifying actions.

Overall, though, this is a brilliant social commentary and a heartrending story. It is truly a new American classic in the tradition of Pynchon, Vonnegut, and Faulkner.

I've read many books about the great aviatrix, Amelia Earhart. This one tells of Amelia's role in an already failed marriage, much like our country has given us the personal failures of our own President. Although the connection to Amelia is the lure of the book, the story is based more on the author's free-will interpretations of her grandmother's diaries -- what she must have thought, reacted, felt. The entries, in Dorothy's voice, seem distorted with many episodes, imagined. Should everyone's diary be at the mercy of their relative's own interpretations after their death? If the grandmother had written from memory, exactly how it was, would the story change? Dorothy's diary held the details of a troubled life (for a woman of privilege), still (without her input) and the author's self-promoting connection as a the distant "step-great-granddaughter" is hardly the stuff of interesting literature. I would recommend readers acquire actual biographical books to satisfy real curiosity about the lives of deceased heroes.

This is the story of the Putnam family and Amelia Earhart. George Putnam eventually married Amelia, but prior to that was her publicity director and writer of her adventures. Also interesting to learn is the Putnam family was huge in the publishing industry back then but also have a part in the invention of Crayola crayons. Much of the book is Dorothy's diary, which makes it kindof a slow read.

The time and research it must have taken to write this book is commendable. We have a read so much about Amelia but to hear about Dorothy and the incredible life that she lead was truley facinating. I would highly reccomend reading this book.

I have to admit I slight bias in favor of this book as I attended a publication party for it at Dallas's Club Dada a few years back. It was a great party -- one of the highlights of the '90s for me -- and as a result, I had very warm feelings towards this book for nearly a year before I actually bothered to sit down and read it. Upon reading it, I found myself both pleased and disappointed by the final product. Its an uneven book and its written for a very narrowly defined audience but that doesn't necessarily mean that its the great artistic fiasco that so many critics seem to believe it to be.

Anyway, it tells the story of social dropout Frank Mann who cynically navigates the New York performance art scene and, in order to win his dream girl, becomes a performance artist himself and descends into a world of increasing weirdness. Much of the book's humor does tend to fall flat and sometimes the plot's deliberate attempts to be quirky can leave the reader a bit weary. Its not a perfect book by any means. But it still presents a finely drawn portrait of a very insular world that will be familiar to anyone who has ever gotten involved with any local metropolitan arts scene. While many reviewers found the performance artists satirized within the book to be shallow stick figures, they are actually very accurately drawn portraits of the type of poseurs who have managed to infiltrate and, all too many times, dominate many otherwise idealistic artistic communities. If the book at times seems to be superficial, it should be remembered that Black is deliberately trying to expose just how superficial much of modern-day intellectual life has become as of late. So, in short, an uneven book but still one that many readers will find very worthwhile.

i don't understand the sniping evident in the above 'editorial reviews' (way to be impartial, there, guys). the characters here portrayed aren't well-rounded, the guy from kirkus says. well, of COURSE they aren't well-rounded. that's the whole point. these people (and i've known people just like them, far too many people, in fact) are portrayed in didactic terms because that's how many of the ones i've met live their lives- everything is a struggle and a sacrifice for art, lookie here, i've made a sculpture out of my own feces, isn't this design great? look at the typography, it's stellar! don't you think frank black the one from the pixies is really into dadaesque poetry because he smells like he is to me- i've heard all of these things. and i've only been to art college. god only knows what actually gets bandied about when these performance artists get together and throw ideas around. i'm a firm believer in the concept of everything deserving a voice, no matter how banal or seemingly ridiculous, but i don't believe that something is art just because it's presented as such (witness jeff koons, for example). and so of course these people are silhouettes. of course this book snipes. how can you not? rational discussion of the cons of sitting naked in a tub of macaroni to protest the war in kosovo gets you nowhere, dismissed as a cynic or soulless and 'well you wouldn't understand anyway'. is this discussion open-ended? only if you've never had one. frank's decision is to crucify himself for art, ostensibly, but what i get from it at root is that he's pushed himself as far as one can go in order to refute the artistic drivel that swirls around him. how much farther can you go, not only to make a statement of purpose but one also of denial, than being nailed to a cross in public? here it is, you fools, do something with it. the only thing that keeps this book from eternal classic status is the curiously toothless ending. however, the book of frank is indeed a holy book. it nourishes and sustains. get it however you can. i've read mine five times. and sometimes, i've got to admit, crucifying myself seems not so outlandish, when i'm forced to listen to somebody, yet again, detailing the 'artistic struggle' and 'how much i care, i'm a pumpkin!' and 'lo, i am an orange and why must you prod me?'

the book of frank is a work that should be on everyone's must read list. frank is the epitome of the classic alienated, existential "everyman". i strongly recommend that this book become required reading for the masses.

There is so much boring detail that I could hardly finish this book. Ever since Lathen turned John Thatcher into a minor character in this series, the books have been dull.

The latest John Putnam Thatcher book continues the trend of focusing less on Thatcher and his fellow bank associates, and more on third party participants in the murder and mayhem going on around Thatcher. The European locale adds flavor to the plot; the internal politics of a unified western Europe organization makes for interesting reading. Readers know what to expect from Ms. Lathen, and will not be dissapointed. Hopefully the series will continue despite the death of one of the two co-authors using the Emma Lathen pseudonym.

An environmental disaster has struck Germany^Rs Kiel Canal whena fogcauses numerous collisions and oil spills. Due to the accident and the high degree of shipping through the canal, the German government is thinking of taking out a loan to rebuild and widen the canal. The myriad of insurance claims that follow the aftermath and the potential German project are both being handled through the Baltic Area Development Association (BADA). Wall Street, ever interested in a good deal, dispatches John Putnam Thatcher to Gdansk, Poland to learn whether it pays to invest in the canal renovation deal.

However, the simple business transaction takes a nasty turn when a BADA official claims to have uncovered fraud within the organization. Immediately after the announcement, the official^Rs battered corpse is found and the murder of his lover shortly follows. The Polish police officer Oblonski turns to Thatcher to help him muddle through the world of international finance to uncover the identity of a fiscal murderer.

A SHARK OUT OF WATER is the twenty-third book in the Thatcher series and surprisingly with all of those novels, the current story is a refreshing tale. Thatcher is a great character and the story line is filled with self deprecating irony as Emma Lathen laughs at the slapstick efforts of governments and international corporations capitalization of the former Soviet Union. The who-done-it is well written, but it is the intricate glimpses into the wacky, weird, almost mystical, world of international finance that turns this into another great Thatcher novel. Harriet Klausner

Many tables are presented that demonstrate that confidence in public institutions, especially in the executive and legislative branches of government, has declined in varying amounts in the trilateral countries, the US, Japan, and Europe, over the last 25 years. The conclusions seem to be that this trend is based on the public's perception that the performance of these institutions has deteriorated. But little insight is offered behind the numbers. The following are minimally addressed if at all.

In the first place, little mention is made of exactly what performance is lacking. Presumably the authors are after something greater than disaffection over episodes of scandal or corruption. There are some vague references to globalization but no evidence is presented that the public is disaffected over that matter.

Little is made of the impact of the extreme right-wing rhetoric that denounces government as an impediment to the free-market. Does that not pander to and reinforce the historical wariness that one author mentions of Americans towards government?

If government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, why does government not correspond to what is wanted by the majority? One author does raise the issue of the general competency of the citizenry to understand governmental workings and to choose a sensible course of action.

The authors do not address the massive consolidation over the last two decades of the entertainment and news media and the ramifications for a democracy. Any number of books demonstrate that delivering audience levels for advertisers supercedes wide-ranging or controversial political information. Personalities and day-by-day polling numbers are safe ways of covering politics. Is the minimalist "information" that the public gets adequate for an active, informed role in government? One author, interestingly enough, contends that the effects of the media are benign.

One author acknowledges that the business community is generally hostile towards government. What is not discussed is the infiltration and control of government by business. The massive funding of candidates' political campaigns by business PACs is not mentioned. Despite their hostility, businesses have the leverage to ensure that governments make decisions on such matters as deregulation or free trade that benefit the business community far more than the general public. But would government or business shoulder the blame for any adverse consequences for those policies on the public? Does the corporate media accurately report on the inner workings of government?

The book is unsatisfactory because it does not really attempt to discover what is behind the public's growing disaffection with government. The points listed above would undoubtedly be relevant in trying to grasp the public's views concerning government, but they are essentially ignored by the authors in this book. I would like to see this book reviewed by others to see if I have missed the basis of the public's disaffection with democracy as presented by the authors.

Are the trilateral democratic nations threatened by a steady disintegration of their social capital? Are individual citizens less trusting of their political institutions and even of each other? These are the central themes probed by the contributors of this collection of essays. This book represents a reassessment of an earlier study "The Crisis of Democracy" completed twenty five years ago by the Trilateral Commission. I found the central premise of the current study, though, to be highly suspect. After all, these same countries now experience vastly improved economic conditions, and perhaps more importantly---are less likely to declare war on each other. Could it be that some of the contributors fail to see the proverbial forest because the trees are in the way? It is admittedly an unhealthy state of affairs when people are hostile towards their government. Nevertheless, isn't a more pessimistic and realistic understanding of what is to be expected from the political sector to be applauded? Prudence is not cynicism. Governments are innately limited in responding to the total needs of the individual. Why be shy in conceding this fact?

Is there such a thing as too much social capital? The Japanese kamikaze pilots, regardless of how perverted it may seem to us, were splendid example of intense social bonding. Also, the trust and fellowship of ethnic Germans during that time period were at a very high level. A decreased interest in preserving social capital might indeed discourage bigotry. Might a society be overly worried about sustaining the social bonds of its dominant group? Couldn't this concern hinder the practical decisions required in the everyday business world? In the not too distant past, employers often indulged in the self defeating practice of hiring lesser talented members of their own immediate social group instead of more qualified outsiders. Those once perceived as alien and repugnant are now at least tolerated, if not eagerly recruited. Lifetime guaranteed employment and other projectionist measures underpinning an earlier interpretation of social cohesiveness resulted in weaker economic conditions. Contributor, Russell Hardin, perspicuously points out that the economic theories of F.A. Hayek and others of the Austrian school were not able to be empirically studied in the past, but now appear "to be acquitting themselves very well." Hardin's essay "The Public Trust" alone justifies seeking out this book.

Why remain in a bad marriage or job if we don't have to? New disruptive technological advances like the Internet are diminishing the importance of relationships premised primarily upon physical proximity. We often barely say hello to our next door neighbors. Increasingly, many of us form viable relationships with people on the other side of the globe. I seriously doubt , for instance, that I will ever personally meet most of the individuals who communicate with me on a regular basis. Relatively inexpensive means of transportation and communications make it easier to form and dissolve relationships. Nonetheless, my chosen role as something of a devil's advocate should not be interpreted as a lack of respect towards these scholars. Robert Putnam, Susan Pharr, and their fellow cohorts are onto something. Discussing these issues is not a luxury, but a mandatory necessity. We should not hesitate to join the conversation. Putnam even actively encourages the participation of non specialists. He believes the matter is too urgent for the hoi polloi to remain on the sidelines. A companion study "Bowling Alone" by the same Professor Putnam should also be added to your reading list.

Having read three Gibson books before - Neuromancer and its two follow-ups - and having loved the first of these, quite liked the second and found myself bored and disappointed by the third, I borrowed this book from a friend with some apprehension. While it suffers from some of Gibson's problems - the predictable, almost mechanic structure of the plot into n subplots that have to be brought together somewhere in the last third - it is a fascinating thought experiment on our emotional connection to artificial constructs. The superstars in 'Idoru' exist mainly as pop video visuals, and their 'reality' is just as ephemeral as that of computer-created Idoru . Perhaps even more, as the digi-girl might exist forever, while LoRez as physical human beings will die. The audience's hunger for constructed people they can project their emotions onto - it's already reality, in my opinion. People watch their idols on television, on movie screens; they don't care about the real person behind, because they are in love with their own made-up constructs, aided by the media. Why else did so many people mourn when Lady Di died? She was a media construct, and practically none of the mourners will have known her real persona - but that's beside the point. Perhaps we want to create our ideals, we want to believe in them, whether they're flesh and blood, computer-generated, or characters in a book. Their reality exists mainly in our minds.

I didn't find Idoru awful, or bad, in fact for the most part its typical Gibson. The ending in this one is what disappointed me. I hate to write that as I know others may be just like me---reading along just fine, enjoying things, and then you start to notice that there aren't that many pages left, how is he going to wrap all this up?

Well, he really doesn't sorry to say. And I love the Gibson I have read so far, unlike some of the reviewers I have seen post negative reviews in every Gibson book on this site (easy to spot due to the fact they say the same things). I have not read Burning Chrome yet, nor The Difference Engine, but I thoroughly enjoyed Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Virtual Light.

And I even really enjoyed this one...until the end.

Now, when I have finally finished the future I will certainly live in, it seems to me as one of the best book I've ever read. (The last of the best books being 'Burning Chrome', which, in it's short-story-esque way, seems to tell the truth better and with stonger emotions than any novel could.) 'Idoru' is deep, virtual/real, and it's firmly intertwined with my own ideas of our near-future.

I remember taking it up about six hours ago and reading the first page, and realizing that I'm back in the Realm of Gibson, in the realm of highly crafted sentences, in the realm of subtle references, in the realm of true feelings hidden between the black&white lines on the paper... I recognized almost instantly the branches that the sprouts of our modern technology had become. Recognized the things I will be able to do in the Net in the future that are currently merely suggested by the last reformations. Recognized the origins of idoru as a healthy motley of holograms, AI, and Ananova.com.

Gibson seems to dissect all aspects of our present-day pop culture in this book. He probes the artificial minds of tomorrow's computers to find evidences of humanity. He burrows deeply into various layers of stardom in search for the hustling power behind it, never underestimating the force of contemporary fan-base. He understands completely the multicultural society we're becoming. And he seems to place all the right details to where they belong, no matter how remote.

After reading 'Idoru' it hit me that I had actually seen and felt it all in the Sony ad-mag I flipped through the other day, in the first big-credit anime 'Ghost in the Shell', in the last Wired issue in my inbox... And I knew that reading the lines on the paper was more visual than 'Matrix' ever would.

P.S. It still amazes me, though, how Gibson managed to overlook the doubel n in Tallinn in his constant drive towards accuracy.

This book uses the Diary of Jack Dorrance as the principle (and only) truth. The amazing thing is this diary was NOT released to the public until 1989, just after Fritz Wiessner passed away in 1988. Coincidence? Or assurance that Jack's diary wouldn't be challenged?

This book tries to pass the blame from Dorrance to others, including Fritz for the tragedy, based solely on the diary. The authors state that the Diary showed that Dorrance was sane of mind in those critical days on Everest, yet how do the authors know this was indeed written on Everest and not written at some later date by Dorrance to defend himself? Yes handwriting analysis does show that Dorrance wrote it, but WHEN did he write it? Where's the proof to that?

The authors wave off the note that Fritz says he received from Dorrance based on the fact that no one else says they saw the note. (Which Fritz says he turned in to the American Alpine Club and never got back from them.) Yet they believe this diary that surfaced 50 years later which has only been seen by Dorrance, is true.

The authors are both past high ranking members of the American Alpine Club (past president and past vice president) who wrongly blamed Fritz for the Tragedy back in 1939... coincidence? Makes me wonder...

If you want an unbiased account of the events of K2 in 1939, look elsewhere. "High : Stories of Survival from Everest and K2 (Extreme Adventure)by Clint Willis" includes this K2 story from another viewpoint, check that out first.

If however you are a Jack Dorrance fan and are looking to erase blame from him and pass more of it to Fritz Wiessner, this is the book for you.

This book has an agenda: to once and for all clear the name of team member Jack Durrance of any negligence for the disastrous results of this expedition. Briefly stated, leader Fritz Wiessner was the only member of this six-man team who had any business setting foot on savage, unforgiving, unrelenting K-2. Yet Wiessner handpicked the team himself, except for one-Jack Durrance, who was a last-minute replacement. That is the crux of the controversy. Wiessner, who never admitted mistakes, was all too willing to make Durrance the fall guy. The odd part is with the exception of Wiessner; Durrance had the most mountaineering ability. The other members either had no experience, or only had climbed with the assistance of guides. After enjoying unusually good weather, Wiessner and the doomed Dudley Wolfe were within 800 meters of the summit. The mystery was why with two men at this level, were all the camps below stripped of tents and all equipment, leaving them totally exposed on the descent? Why did Wiessner leave the helpless Wolfe alone and unattended? Why were three Sherpas the only ones to attempt Wolfe's rescue? What happened to the four of them who were never seen again?

The book has some excellent photos depicting the team in their suits and ties, a luncheon served with great elegance in the heart of the Himalayas, and some very clear pictures of their primitive climbing equipment and clothing. It truly makes you realize what odds they overcame to be so high with leaky boots, soggy woolens, and waterlogged tents.

The authors have the advantage of Jack Durrance's diary, heretofore unseen and unknown. This is also a disadvantage because the Kaufman & Putnam seem to rely entirely on the veracity of this diary. It is given far too much weight in making their conclusions.

The book is maddeningly repetitious. Whenever Wiessner is faulted, the authors assure you (in detail) what a fine mountaineer Wiessner was---over and over again. Though the authors are not shy about projecting psychological insights onto the team members, they make no efforts to explore and recreate the violent disagreements that took place. Wiessner and first assistant Eaton (Tony) Cromwell started out as the best of friends. Yet in the aftermath of the climb, Cromwell bitterly attacks Wiessner as a "murderer." Why? What happened to the four men who disappeared? Were they ever found?

The book has merit for it's strong descriptions of the personalities involved and being able to interview living men. However, the style is stilted and the impartiality suspect. Recommended for die-hard mountaineering fans only.

This book shows general psychological insight, doing real justice to the personal complexities of Wiessner, Durrance, and other members of the expedition. The speculations as to what must have been going through Wolfe's mind about his wasted life as he sat alone in the tent high on the mountain are marked by an especial brilliance, even if mixed with a touch of (literarily necessary) cruelty. The authors also do a nice job painting a portrait of the rather different conditions of mountaineering prevailing in 1939. Finally, they seem to have done their research homework with more than usual thoroughness.

I have two criticisms to make of the book. The first is that the style is not especially lucid. It might seem unfair to compare this 1992 book to Krakauer's later _Into Thin Air_ (much of whose drama comes from the 1st person presence of the author). But the reason other readers have drawn this unfavorable comparison is because it illuminates so well the direction in which the present book could have been improved. The material is already there to make it happen-- the disappearance of Wolfe and the Sherpas in the mists surrounding Camp VI, as well as the two explosive scenes between Wiessner and Cromwell (in Base Camp and again at Srinagar). But these scenes are depicted very sketchily; at these moments, the reader feels almost like he is reading an outline rather than a finished book. In particular, the long march from K2 back to Srinagar must have been a devastating period for the survivors, but the reader is led to feel very little of their anguish on a withering retreat that ought to have been drawn out longer in the narrative. Perhaps the documentation from this period is sparse, but the authors could have put their speculative talents to excellent use, as they did when imagining Wolfe's lonely reveries before death.

Finally, I share some of the concerns about the objectivity of the book. The diary of Durrance is the smoking gun of this particular volume, and it would have been more reassuring to see the authors carefully reflect on the strange withholding of the diary for so long, as well as Durrance's long public silence. They seem a bit too comfortable with the idea that he simply put the diary on his bookshelf for decades, being too big-souled a man to be drawn into the muck of the public furor between Cromwell and Wiessner. Maybe so, but other lingering suspicions are possible as well, and this book seems too eager from the start to paint Durrance as a heroic figure.

No specific advice here, very bland and ineffective. Glossy puff piece, nothing here to help the average investor make $$$. Buy Sy Harding's "Riding the Bear" (which predicted the current bear market a year before it happened and helps one understand the market and its history), then, get Charles Caes' excellent "Tools of the Bear" which helps investors make $$$ in both bear and bull markets.

In terms of investment and financial planning advice, well it is a bunch of useless fluff like most of its peers. However as an introduction to political economy and economic history (which most of the book is devoted to) I think that it is top notch in its concise and direct description of public policy choices, their first principle foundations, how they have played out in the past, and how they might develop in the future.

This book is geared to the those with a beginner to intermediate level of financial planning knowledge. It is very thorough, insightfull, and touches on many areas that other basic financial planning works lacked (Such as how lower tax rates will affect muni bond performances, UTMA's & UGMA's, finding the right financial advisor, etc). It is divided into 3 parts:

The first is an overview of economics and the economic philosophies that have guided the US market since World War 2. This is very concise and simple without being simplistic.

The next section is an excellent overview of the basic concepts of financial planning and investment vehicles.

Finally, the third part goes into how to apply it to your personal situation and goals. It sums up 10 principles for building wealth.

As I am self-employed, I have several books on financial planning to prepare for the financial future of my family. This is my favorite for the basics. Good companions that deal more with the inner psychological aspects would be "The 9 Steps To Financial Freedom" by Suze Orman, and "The Energy of Money" by Marcia Emory.