Goes

Empty, stupid and depressing. Cat, the main character, is hateful. When she starts having suicidal thoughts, you wish she'd just do it already. Full of pseudo-spirituality and yawn-worthy "revelations," this book is the ultimate cure for a chick-lit addiction.

The main character of this book, Cat, is so incredibly stupid and boring that it made the rest of the book absolutely mundane. In a search for fulfillment in life, Cat goes on a spiritual search and divulges herself in the idea of karma. What is so absurd about this, however, is that while Cat is constantly in search of receiving favorable karmic retribution, she purposefully sleeps with attached men in hopes of breaking up their relationships, but at the same time seems to have NO clue whatsoever that karmic retribution in this case would turn around and burn her.
The remainder of the book is a bit boring, and I had trouble keeping track of the other characters because there was nothing defining about them that made them stick out in my mind. I would find myself flipping back to previous pages to jog my memory.
Do yourself a favor and read something with more substance to it.

My husband got a dog, I got Carew`s novel. I look happier... I won`t say "it`s a sizzling debut" or "I couldn`t put it down". Darn, I have. Well, it`s true. This is chicklit at its finest. Got man problems? Got boss problems? Look no further than "Goes Around..." If you believe that in the grand scheme of things one`s actions (good and bad) never go unaccounted for, this is the book for you. My fingers have severe paper cuts but I`m still looking forward to Carew`s second novel...

"Deadlock" offers an intriguing premise but fails because of Mapherson's weak storywriting and ignorant and offensive social assumptions about the Chinese community, both of which become irritating to a decent plot. A jury member is suspected to be the real killer. This is an engaging idea, but unfortunately Macpherson twists it between incredulous character relationships. San Francisco's Cardinal happens to be childhood friends with the richest and most famous senator and a supreme court judge -- all of whom are involved in unraveling the murder case. This would not be so annoying to read except for Macpherson's style of writing. To say the least, I expected some of the sentences and dialogues to have been penned by high school mystery writer, incorporating boyhood perceptions and fantasies about what the elite lifestyle might be like. Women are depicted in secondary roles throughout. By far, the most offensive trademark of "Deadlock" is Macpherson's grossly ignorant vision of the Chinese community in San Francisco. I have not read anything more offensive to the heart of anyone human -- something Macpherson seems to fear the Chinese actually are. His writing carries a fixation on the Chinese in the worst stereotypes. Macpherson denies the existence of any socially acceptable Chinese American in San Francisco. All Chinese characters are either hideously dissimilar, impossibly evil, purely corrupted, or demeaning to American society. I cannot fathom that anyone as ignorant about a segment of the population would dare to write about them, because to do so would be an incomplete and generally bad venture. But Macpherson achieves a most offensive piece of writing by doing this. Even in this story's most plot-intriguing moment, Macpherson writes in a staunch ignorance obvious to any reader aware of the Chinese as human as anyone else.

The synopsis sounded exciting enough but I was disappointed when I started reading it.Characters did not have much depth.The plot was fairly predictable after a while and all I wanted to do was to skim through the book to confirm my conclusion.I was also disappointed with the portrayal of the Chinese community in the book as its perception is that they are made up of gangs and thugs and Chinatown is a dangerous place to be in especially for a white person.As a Chinese,I was certainly unhappy with the unflattering image given to the Chinese characters in the book.

If you ever get a copy of this book, I believe that it is a must read. For ones who are narrow in your thinking, it will make you broader. For those who are prideful, it causes a humbling effect. It makes you take a different look at race relations and regional stereotypes.

The ending paralyzed me in my chair.

The author needs someone to explain to her that arguments develop not simply by stringing one sentence after another and expecting that with a little tape, good cheer, and hope, a coherent line of thought will emerge. Rather, arguments develop by actually rereading what you have written, revising it so as to clarify the connecting ideas, and making assertions that require some kind of evidence to defend them. A little reseach along the way wouldn't be a bad idea either. While the topics being discussed are certainly interesting, the result of this porridge-like prose (it's not at all clear that book represents sustained meditation), is a kind of mush capable of taking any of a number of shapes.

This book masters the art of doing politics and cultural critique at the same time and it does it with an honesty and pedagogical clarity I have never seen before. Ranging across archives from mass culture to political rhetoric, Berlant does the very hard work of thinking things through in all their complexity (things like the mutual imbrications of nationalism, gender, class, and race)and she does it with writing that has both the stunning beauty of the perfect description and the too-true turn of phrase and the cutting clarity of thoughts that reverberate through the everyday sensibilities of current life in the USA.

Berlant's book is a gem. It is brilliant, clarifying, fresh -- a real stand-out. I'm not an academic and not into theory tomes, but I picked this book up on a recommendation from a friend and was really surprised. This book explains how the right wing has privatized citizenship, systematically destroyed the value of government and how they have 'publicized' and universalized their warped morality. For any feminist, racial justice activist, queer activist or other politically engaged person, Berlant delivers truly original insights and wonderfully sharp analysis. The other thing I love about the book is its author is so clearly (and intelligently) a feminist -- how refreshing in this boring, misogynist era. Final advice: read the book as if you were having a conversation with someone, without being intimidated by its big theory packaging.

The latest Niven book 'The Burning City' looked interesting, and having heard that 'Magic..' was a prequel-of-sorts, I decided to read it first.

This was my first experience with Niven and if it's representative of his body-of-work as a whole, I can see why he regularly collaborates with others...he's not very talented with the written word.

Most of this book was stilted throughout. Topping that off, it's just not horribly interesting. Perhaps we can give Niven a little credit for being one of the forerunners of the modern fantasy boom, but calling this book a classic isn't something I'll ever do.

The fact that other reviewers have remarked on its similarities to a popular children's fantasy game speaks volumes.

Here's an overview: Four magicians and a Greek soldier combine forces to find new sources of mana. Mana is what allows magicians to perform magic but it is a resource in limited supply and magicians in the past have squandered the supply away. They use the last bit of mana they can find to travel to northern Europe to find the last living god and steal its mana.

I read this book a number of years ago when I was younger. I decided to read it again because my memory of it was good. I can't say the book was bad, but it wasn't great. There were some interesting ideas about magic and the scene of travelling on a cloud still gets me excited (it sounds like fun). If you're into fantasy and magic this book is for you. It's a quick read and the version I have has fantasy drawings on almost every other page. It's almost like a fantasy comic book.

Most of Larry Niven's considerable oeuvre takes the form of the Heroic Quest,but using the vocabulary of hard science fiction. In "The Magic Goes Away", he leaves the space ships and gravity generators on the shelf, and addresses the Quest directly.
In doing so, he reveals a level of poetry of language and sensitivity of characterization that is rare in any genre, and unheard of in science fiction. "The Magic Goes Away" is in a class with "The Circus of Doctor Lao" and "Green Mansions": Small, easily-read fantasy novels that will stay in your mind forever.

I was anxious to see the arrival of "The Play Goes On" as I had really enjoyed "Rewrites", but felt as though Simon had more to say, but hadn't been able to get to it in the first of this biographical series. However, this latest lacked the humor of "Rewrites" and I felt myself without much incentive to keep turning pages other than to get some insights to some of his lesser-known works.

"Rewrites" was better than this effort because Neil Simon shared more insights into his creative process than this volume. In "The Play Goes On," he concentrates on whining over the breakup of his serial marriages -- while asking us to believe that nobody was ever responsible for his string of divorces. His explanation? That there's some kind of genetic marker that determines how long people stay married. PLEASE!

Simon also spends a good deal of time asking us to believe other whoppers; that his plays are not all autobiographical (I guess this is true... most -- but not all -- of his plays are that way); and that he has no memory of writing most of his plays, that they just came out of him in some kind of auto-pilot-like trance.

Anyone wanting to learn about Simon and his creative process is better off studying his plays.

Neil Simon is best studied by reading and seeing interpretations of his plays, but since this book is an autobiography, it is interesting at the very least for seeing what the man's own perspective on his life has been. There are definitely some moments that appear repetitive and unnecessary, but as he says in the book, Mr. Simon was not keeping notes throughout his life with the knowledge that he would someday write a book. That means he and we are forced to rely on his memories and notions when they occur to him, which is why some of the book is out of sequence. I would have loved to have seen more insights into the plays and screenplays themselves, especially since he completely neglects to mention "Laughter On The 23rd Floor", which I saw twice on Broadway and laughed harder the second time than the first. He alludes to it once, but never says anything regarding the production even though he spends at least a few pages on some of his less-successful works. However, it's those exact pages on the lesser known stuff like "The Good Doctor", "Rumors", and "Jake's Women" that are so interesting.

Generally, I find it difficult to read biographies of people who are still with us, for the simple fact that that story can never be complete. One of the good things about the first volume of autobiography, Rewrites, was that it ended at a specific point in time with the death of Mr. Simon's first wife which represented the "end" of a chapter in his life and therefore lent itself to being presented as a complete story. I was impressed at how up to date The Play Goes On was, but how can even this be the definitive story of Neil Simon and his work unless he retires? Surely (and hopefully) Neil Simon has many more years and several plays ahead of him, so maybe he's just leaving open the option of doing a third book.

I enjoyed "Dreams of Trespass" the author tries to follow it up with a book written on her book tour. This ends up being a disaster, this is the writers first trip to the West, her history, and knowlegde of the West is zero. She spent her childhood school years just memorizing the Koran. Despite her degrees in history, her history of the West is very poor. When introduced to the writngs of Kant, she assumes that he is still a role model on the philosophy of women in the western world.
The saddest part is when she writes about her collegue Kemal, no matter how much he abuses her verbally, she always crawls back for his approval, while trying to tell us how liberated she is.
I feel sorry for all her fears, and she has many, having crossed roads, that thank god, I didn't have to cross.
So give this book a skip, hopefully the author made enough money on it to travel a bit more and read alot more before she writes another book about the West

I hope the author takes another, longer tour of the US. Most of her conclusions about the "harems" of "Western men" are only applicable to European men, far better educated and more culturally refined than us guys here. We surely do have or desire our harems today--a man's "stable" of pretty women who will let him get away with making the rounds as often as time and money allows. A huge issue she raises is control: how do guys keep their women? And how do those women, who at some level consent to being kept, fight back and control their man? What role does beauty play, what role intelligence, what about economic empowerment, and what about religious values? How does jealousy impact the decisions made by both the women and the man? And perhaps most importantly, is the US truly making progress toward women and men treating each other as equals? Or have we just found more sophisticated ways of manipulating each other? The author suggests Westerners should be much slower to criticize Islam, because we have our own problems that are as bad or worse. Very thought-provoking.

After reading a few other critiques on this title, a few reviewers may need to reconsider the intent of the text. Mernissi is hardly deliniating a definitive narrative on the sexual mentality of men/women or East/West; however, she provides a series of impressions that can create a complex, intriguing innerdialogue as well as spark useful discussion among adults interested in the related topic dynamics. Overall a wonderfully written book intermingling Mernissi's personal experiences, history, literature, and art. I highly endorse this book.

As a professional historian, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who want to critique historical movies, although I think that such critiques often fail to understand that "history" is only one way in which the "past" is used.

Roquemore's book, however, is a major failure. He writes engagingly enough, but his consistently right wing understanding of history gets in the way. Moreover, he is not even very good at digging out the historical errors. Let me expand.

Several other reviewers have noted a right-wing political agenda, but I would argue that something else is going on. At several points, Roquemore notes (sometimes justifiably) anti-Catholicism in movies. Elsewhere he cites the "Navarre Bible" as a useful resource. And in reviews of Spanish Civil war movies he is frankly pro-Franco. The "Navarre Bible Commentary" is a publication of the right wing and secretive Catholic group OPUS DEI, which prospered in Franco's Spain, and Roquemore's agenda looks very like the agenda of someone influenced by this group. He has certainly imbued much of its world view.

This in itself might not be a bad thing, but it means he does not, on occasion, actually expose what is false in a movie. He celebrates "A Man for All Seasons" for example (and it is indeed a great movie) but fails to point out the very cleaned up view of St. Thomas More the film presents.

Even where his agenda is not overt, he gets things wrong. He lauds "Braveheart's" historicity for example and does not mention the historical plot absurdities. In his review of "The War Lord," he accepts the historicity of the "right of first night." And so on.

He is not always wrong, and writes vigorously, but he is not reliable. In short, a veritable Rush Limbaugh of film criticism.

This has become one of my bedside books. I love not only the movie reviews themselves, but also the insightful summaries of the related historical events, sometimes rather obscure and difficult to find in mainstream history books.

I do disagree with Roquemore's judgement sometimes: for instance, he definitely did not do his homework as far as "Braveheart" is concerned, as I believe another reviewer has already noted. And I don't understand why he chose to review the 1934 "Cleopatra" rather than the far better known 1963 version - which is also better history, by the way, apart from the overly extravagant costumes and sets.

As for his supposed political biases: he obviously dislikes PC movies of the "Dances with Wolves" sort, and as far as the Spanish Civil War is concerned, he is skeptical of the Republic, which is very far from being pro-Franco. Finally, when reviewing Oliver Stone's "Nixon", he says something to the effect that, without exonerating Nixon, it is clear that everyone involved (including the press) behaved badly during the Watergate crisis - - this kind of thing.

As already mentioned, Roquemore tears to shreds Oliver Stone's movies (as far as their historical content is concerned) - rightly, in my opinion.

That is what leads some to regard his views as "right-wing". I consider this to be utter nonsense. Actually, I strongly suggest that those whose historical perception of the Kennedy - Nixon era has been formed by Stone's films would profit greatly by reading this book.

Believe the favorable reviews here; disregard the unfavorable. Roquemore's ratings don't trumpet one or the other sort of politics. Rather, the book focuses on historical accuracy-i.e., objective truth. Movies that are true to fact receive more stars than fictionalized "based ons." Yes, this penalizes Oliver Stone, but properly so.

That being said, Roquemore knows a good yarn when he sees it. For example, his review of Billy Wyler's "The Westerner" (three stars out of five) begins: "One of the finest westerns ever-and a hatful of hokum as historical biography." So Roquemore does acknowledge cases where history properly is sacrificed to drama.

One more point: Roquemore includes enough (lucid) historical background with each movie that the book is a great and informative read on its own.

My trips to the video store begin with a list from "History Goes to the Movies."

As a birthmother of a beautiful 6 month old daughter in a fully open adoption, I was sick to my stomach when I read this book. The only mention of either birthparent was the small reference adressing the birthmother as a "birthlady". I for one, as well as the many other corageous and wonderful woman I've met, who made the gut wrenching, and most selfless decison one could ever be asked to do, that is to place our child in a home we knew we could not provide, for the pure sake of our children's well being deserve more respect than one measly little sentance about our loss and decison whether the adoption is open or closed. I believe that children who are adopted are special gifts from God and that they were meant to be with their adoptive families, as the book addresses but to let your adopted child think that they were not born and that God just placed them here through the means of this middle man type figure, and that their "birthlady" has not suffered and missed them and thought about them everyday since,is not only confusing for a child, who may be unsure why he or she was adopted but could also make a child feel sad. I think that a book that addresses how much the adopted family loves each other and how they are meant to be together is great, but I think that one with a little more respect for birthparents, that mentions them as the real people that they are, not angels sent from God, would be a lot more appropriate.

My wife and I are practicing Christians and have two beautiful adopted daughters of African-American and Hispanic descent. We found that the book was too far out there in its use of a religious setting and we didn't like that all of the children are caucasian. Many adoptive parents have children who are not caucasian. Also, we felt that the birthmother was really disrespected by being called birthlady. Any woman who voluntarily puts their child up for adoption out of love for the child deserves to be called birthmother.

This is the best adoption book I've seen for explaining adoption to children! It focuses on the adoption being part of God's plan. It starts in heaven where baby angels are learning baby skills to earn their stars and be born. The Great Guardian Angel shows each child the parents "God wants YOU to have". The babies instantly love the parents they are shown. Amy, a soon to be adopted child, sees her parents and sees the "Light of Love" - shining from their hearts. Charlie, who will live with his biological parents, sees the Light of Love in his parents plus the "Glow of Life" in his mommy. Amy is sad because she does not think her parents are ready for her, as her mommy does not have the Glow of Life in her tummy. The Great Guardian explains that her parents have been praying for her arrival for a long time and are more than ready. Amy is also shown her birthmother, who is described as having ..."love so dear to do God's will for Amy here. She (birthmother) is God's messenger who will deliver you to your parents."

When Charlie is born, he goes to his parents by train. The Great Guardian Angel tells Amy she will arrive by boat. "I don't care how I get there. I just want to go HOME", replies Amy. When Amy is ready to be born the sailboat is surrounded by angels, which the Great Guardian Angel explains as angels wanting to "feel the special joy of your parents' love too." Amy falls asleep in the sailboat and wakes up with her adoptive parents.

I bought this book after seeing it listed on several "10 Best" lists. And the beginning certainly packs a punch. However, the excitement of the opening scenes is not sustained. The rest of the book drags. In addition, characters are introduced never to be heard or seen again, information is presented but nothing is ever done with it, you are never given anything more than a surface glance at these characters, and nothing is ever truly resolved.

Is the "big bad" of this novel worthy of our fear or our pity? And what about those that helped bring it about? The resolution shuffles to a finish, and is wrapped up in about 25 pages. The rest of the novel discusses plot points that either go nowhere or end up so lackluster that when you finally uncover the mystery it's more of an "oh" than a "oh wow!"

How exactly did the main family of this novel become what it is? There are hints on the book jacket that this family has a secret evil past, but it's never proven. Why exactly did this evil visit this family? It's explained in about two sentences. Those looking for a book with a big payoff should look elsewhere.

Farris' book of voodoo sorcery is an intricately weaved work of plot and subplot. Ostensibly about the cursed lineage of the Bradwins, this book takes you from the plantations of Virginia to the countryside of England to the colonial age jungles of the heart of Africa (places Joe Conrad would not have even stepped foot in). This range of settings, times, and characters, apparently disconnected yet insidiously linked by dark, ancient forces, gives this book an almost Lovecraftian feeling. It is as if these forces can and are affecting each and every individual on this planet, yet we are naively and mercifully unaware of these unseen powers. That is, until those powers wish to make themselves known. This virtual omnipresence is illustrated in one scene where the character of Early Boy is talking to the self confessed voodoo priest. The old man tells Early Boy that voodoo is not primitive superstition or nonsensical sorcery but a sophisticated and very ancient religion predating and even the basis of modern religions. He says that Moses himself learned magic from powerful voodoo masters in the African jungles and therefore pretty much all of Christianity and Judaism is based on voodoo.
Instead of giving us a simple "voodoo men raise demons and other boogeymen with curses" type plot, which is straight out of a B movie, Farris structures the story so that it is believable, frightening, sophisticated, and chilling in its insinuations. Nor is this the type of story that has a predictable plot. You never guess the horror of the first few pages and you will never see the ending coming. Farris also never fails to give us great action throughout the story. A character jumping out of a window sending shards of glass flying is just the norm in this story. And they do get cut. "What do you think this is, a western?" as Early Boy says. Farris not only gives us a masterfully woven plot, he also delievers great action, and a pretty good scary story.

I can't believe this book is out of print. And I can't believe it
hasn't been made into a movie. It's up there in the pantheon of the gods...Lovecraft, Blackwood. I believe I have glimpsed influences on Stephen King and Clive Barker...
esp. "It" and "Galilee."

It's a classic. A smart publisher will bring it back. The public deserves it. Great, great writing...poetry and magic and a riveting story with one of the greatest opening chapters in literature.

Raising respectful children is a difficult task. Many parents try hard, and pray hard, to see that their children learn good manners and a good attitude. Those are some of my parenting goals.

This is our first Froggy book - it was given to my daughter as a Christmas gift. It is certainly not a book I would have bought for her. Other reviewers have written about the disrespect the Froggy shows toward his mother - and it is prevalent in this story.

The other concern I have with this story is the fact that it teaches children a number of diversions to use when they don't want to go to bed. I'm pretty sure that children will learn many of these on their own, but why read them this story and teach them to:

hide their toothbrush in the cookie jar?
to eat after brushing their teeth for the night?
to demand so much from their mother before going to sleep?

No! These are certainly not things I will intentionally teach my daughter.

The story does beg one other question - Where is Froggy's father in all this?

If you want to speed your child on his or her way to being ill mannered and disrespectful, this is the book for you.

The only plus, in my opinion, is the artwork. The book is well illustrated.

When Froggy gets home from his friends house his mother tells him it's time for bed. He tells his mother he is not tired and is not ready yet. She asks him if he wants to take a bubble bath first and he agrees to take one. But before he gets in the bath tub he needs to find his toy boat. He looks every where for it and finally he finds it in the laundry bin. After the bath his mother tells him to put his p.j.s on. He said he would but first he has to find them. He finds them and puts them on. His mother tells him it's time to go to bed but he says he is hungry and wants a snack. He has a snack and he tells his mother he will go to sleep if he can have a drink. She brings him some water and he spills it and so she brings him some more. He asks his mother to read him a story and while she is reading it she falls asleep.

I was a little shocked to see the previous bad reviews of this book. Upon reading the concerns of parents I did come to see the observations they had made in a different light. Despite understanding how someone could conclude as they have, I personally must disagree. I don't expect this book to teach my child antics.

What my daughter (nearly 2 yrs old) has learned from this book is how to say "FROOOGGGYYY" when she sees the word. At her age, she enjoys helping me "find" things, and enjoys froggy's searches for lost items. She also identifies froggy's "brushing" in a positive tone, and "oops" with concern that froggy has spilled water. This story relates to her reality. And, above all, it is the first book she has tried to "read" on her own.

Nothing but positve results in my family! :)