John Heard Books

THis book have you heard about Elizabeth is really fun to read. It helps you think about how to solve teenage promblems. THen you can alwas read over and over. This kind of books are also addicting to read. Once you read one you have to read the rest.
THis book that I am reading is now is called Sweet Valley university have you heard about Elizabeht? It is a bout Jessica and her sister ELizabeth. THey are having some trouble with realationships . Jessica has a boyfriend named Nick . He does not want her to be in Bobby Hornets contest. It is a Bathing suit contest and nick disagrees because she wants to go on a date with Bobby Hornet. Later nick get drunk and does not know what to do. That is the only thing that he could think of to do.
That's enough about Jessica . LEts talk about Elizabeth. SHE is going through a tuff time in her life because she caught her boyfriend TOm kissing Dana. She saw with her own eyes so she had to break up with him. Elizabeth knows inside that she loves tomm but she can't express it when she see's Dana she starts to cry. Rumor says that Elizabeth is leaving Sweet Valley to get rid of seeing tom, but Elizabeth says no. WIll tom express to Elizabeth that he still loves her? Will Elizabeth stay in Sweet Valley.

I just hope Liz had checked 'NO' 'cause Sweet Valley just won't be same with her in Denver!!!!
I always have thought she was kind of a bore, but that doesn't mean she is not my fave twin.....
The reason I gave 3 stars is 'cause I don't like Scott or Tom Watts!!!
Scott Slimeball- as Tom put him, I don't think he is kind of person Liz will go out with......
I think it's just because her terrible break-up with Tom had caused her to do uncharacteristic things and that is why she is going out with Scott...(I think..)

But anyway,I recommend this book to you, but when you read it over and over again it could easily get you to SLEEP!!!

I'D GIVE IT 5 OUT OF TEN! Really, Francine- for some serious rommance, you need to make Scott come on stronger. It was OK, but borrow it from a friend, or the library before going out and buying it- even if you do own every Sweet Valley Book ever published.

Much as I love Liz and Tom, I just wish that they would use their B-R-A-I-N-S and T-A-L-K with each other. It's so annoying that they cannot have an adult conversation without resorting to silly insults. And what is it with Dana and Scott? Can't Liz and Tom (two intelligent beings - supposedly) see what manipulative creeps they are? Especially Dana, I mean, if she loves Tom so much - why is she hiding things from him? Scott is just a jerk, it's so obvious that he's just using Liz as a trophy rather than a girlfriend. Jessica should just wake up from La-La land, I mean, what is she on? Police work is certainly not fun - not if someone has a gun to your head. But, I do think that Nick is good for her maybe he'll calm her down a bit. Overall, I do reccommend it, even if the Liz and Tom thing does tend to irritate.

This book was ok, but I concentrated too much on Elizabeth likes Tom, Tom likes Elizabeth, Scott likes Elizabeth, and Dana likes Tom. Scott and Dana are big sleazes, and I still can't believe that Dana hid the letter from Tom to Elizabeth. But I think that Elizabeth and Tom are too obsessive when they're together, so they hopefully won't get back together. And they need to stop feeling so guilty about not being with eachother. If they hate each other, then why do they keep thinking of eachother? I think that this book was sorriest of all the SVU books.

Somewhat like Freud, La Rochefoucauld had an elevated view of his introspective objectivity. Also like Freud, he offers a number of ideas that provoke thought if only because they so loudly demand refutation. Between the pompous and the annoying, La Rochefoucauld offers quips and observations that would leave Ambrose Bierce quiet for at least a moment or two.

"It takes a better man to bear good luck than bad." Oh, how true - ease can be so much more seductively destructive than hardship, that defending against it takes more than many have.

"Quarrels would be short lived, were all the wrong on one." He said all there is to say - bruised ego, face-saving, chest-thumping, and willful disregard for the other, and contention where there is no reason for it. La Rochefoucauld caught it all, and more, in one compact phrase. I blush in shame, even though I know that every thinking reader is doing the same.

"A mind of mediocre attainments condemns everything beyond its scope." Oh, how true. How painfully true. This one has cost me more, and in more different ways, than I choose to tell the world. The devil of it is that the mediocre mind might never be able to perceive the damage it causes.

"Virtue would be shorter lived, were vanity not its companion." Companion and sometimes conjoined twin, the balance of show and truth can never be known except in the first person, and not often then.

"We should be more ashamed to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them." Deception hurts, as I know too well, but there's something about that bond that makes the risk worthwhile - and something very sad and lonely when distrust barricades some avenue that once carried deception into our sanctum. I know that sadness, too, and I can't say that I'm sure which is worse in every case.

This belongs on any shelf that holds both the Devil's Dictionary and the Tao Te Ching - it combines some of the Lao Tse's clear-eyed view of when to struggle or submit with a sour mouthful of Bierce's cynical wit. I can offer you no finer enticement than La Rochefoulcald's own words.

-- wiredweird

I loved Life of Pi and simply had to read something else by the author. These short stories did not compare to the majesty of that book but was a good read. My favorite story was the titular one. It brought back the same story-telling genius that is exhibited in Pi, although with a muted tone. If it was simply the first two stories, I would have given this a higher rating. However, the last two were not nearly up to par and really demonstrated that these were early works of a budding writer. Overall, I still would recommend this to any fan of Martel, if only for the beauty of the Roccamatio story.

These four stories are so different it's hard to believe they were all penned by the same author. All are absorbing and memorable, however, the prize goes to the title story. I laughed and cried my way through the Facts Behind the Helsinki Roccamatios. It was worth getting the entire set for this story alone. The other 3 stories then become bonuses in a most worthwhile collection!

I think this is what you might call Metafiction. And I never met a fiction I didn't like.

I think martel's introduction to this collection of essays is perfect. It talks about how he loved the themes of these stories and is proud of his early works. i liked the Helsinki Roccamatios--sad and well worded.
the other stories lost me. I think i know where he wanted to go with these, but I feel only the author could understand the real motivation.

This is a collection of a novella and three short stories. The novella is about a college student dying of AIDS who is attended to by his roommate. To pass the time, they invent stories about world events and an Italian family in Helsinki. We learn very little about the family and nothing about Helsinki. It is a good refresher course in 20th century events as well as the process of slowly dying, but it is surprisingly flat emotionally. I loved the second story, about a fellow visiting Washington, D.C. and happening on the premiere of a string concerto by a Vietnam veteran. The third story is nine versions of a letter sent by a prison warden to a mother describing the last hours in the life of her son. It exposes a range of possibilities as to how people might face their execution. I am drawing a blank on the final story after only two weeks, if that tells you something. Read the second story, period

The text, as a whole, was interesting reading but I felt the authors left out some much needed historical items for discussion. Throughout the entire book there is no mention of the early practices of the Christian Church with regard to Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor. 15:29) which was a common practice to recitfy this problem. Why the authors chose to exclude the ancient church Fathers and their teachings on this "lost" practice was baffling to me and would have saved a lot of ink and paper.

Paul taught the doctrine, the early Christian Church practiced it, and those who did not hear the Word were given a chance to accept Christ vicarously through it. These baptismal fonts are still visable in the city of Rome, today. San Clemente Church is one of the best excavated examples dating back to the first century. While the authors discussions are not without their own merits, further reading and research is needed if the reader wants to enhance their learning on this exciting doctrine.

I Havent finished the book yet but it does talk about the 3 different views in detail without pulling any punches. Its a good book for the topic it discusses.

Three differing views of the fate of those who experience physical death without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is fascinating, but limited. Again, as it seems to be, not all Christian views are presented.

Certainly, we who hold the Lutheran confession would side with Nash, who easily out of the three represented does the most exemplary job of using God's Word correctly. Nash is correct in his chastisement of his two opponents for not lack of good exegesis of the Bible. It is truly sad but commonplace to find such poor, hurried exegeis as exemplified by Sanders and Fackre.

It would have been good to have one argue: univesal grace, grace alone, the means of grace, and the mystery of why some saved and others not? This would have given the complete Biblical picture. This is not demonstrated by any of the three in this book.

However, as exemplary as Nash is with his defense of restrictivism by not only showing the proper exegesis and hermeneutic of the other two sides, he has some glaring weaknesses himself. As those of the Reformed are bent to do, they always want to let logic and reason dominate, rather than letting God's Word suffice.

Or as Luther would say, "What is not spoken of in God's Word must be left to the heavenly academy for resolution." We do not have all the answers to all mysteries in God's Word!" As Moses said so profoundly on his deathbed, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." (Deut. 29:29)

Nash suffers, as Sanders catches him, on Double Predestination. Calvinists cannot say that Christ died for all, but only for the elect. This is the classic error of Calvin. As well, they hedge the truth of God's Scriptures of the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Sanders does not confess the B.C. Means of Grace as St. Paul does in 1 Cor. 10:1-11, that Christ was present with them, but most did not have faith and were disallowed into Promised Land. This typology extends throughout OT, allowing OT saints the same (Romans 4) as we NT saints, faith in Promised Messiah (Christ).

However, to deny infant sin (Age of Accountability) that Nash puts forth is unbiblical (Ps. 51:5) Furthermore, Nash is wise to attack inclusivism on premise that grace is with all until rejection of Christ and Gospel, and he shows forth Biblical attack to destory this false teaching.

Nash certainly is far and away the more faithful Biblical presenter, aside from the errors already identified. Further, he does not profess Christ's descent into hell as for what it was: Christ's victorious announcement of victory over the demon angels, nor is he correct is declaring Luke 16:19ff as being a parable. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as parabolic, see Art Just's Commentary, Volume II, pg. 630ff.

Cudos to Nash for calling the other two's hand for not showing the Biblical evidence for their positions, while discounting his opponents Biblical proofs and offering restrictivist passages, Nash has provided the debate with the sure foundation of what God says about this controversial topic.

Contrary to Sanders and Fackre, Nash did an excellent job refuting both inclusivism and PME, and presented his case for restrictivism well. Though I don't agree totally with Nash's restrictivism (since I hold to unlimited atonement), he does a good job presenting a very persuasive case for the traditional evangelical understanding of the destinies of the unevangelized. Sanders' inclusivism leads to the heresy of works-salvation (unbelievers who positively respond to God's light and walk in His ways will be saved even without knowledge of Christ). Such heresy leads to another heresy: that Christians also must do good works to earn or maintain their salvation. His interpretation of Romans 2 on pp. 46-7 is horrible (he follows the interpretation of the "new perspective" that Paul was not opposing Jewish works-salvation but Jewish nationalism). ... Overall, a good book for those who want to be convinced of the truthfulness of restrictivism.

Most christians have developped the traditional theological concept that salvation is only possible if you have faith in Jesus, for after all, the exclusivity of Christ is much insisted upon in the bible and it is the teaching of most church circles. But is this the only conclusion that we can get from scriptures? Some respected authors argue otherwise.

"What about those who have never heard" was written by three authors (Fackre, Nash, Sanders) who each holds to a different scheme for grasping salvation. But what is important, is that all three agree on the authority of the scripture and on the fact that anyone who is saved is so because of Jesus's ultimate sacrifice; without Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, all humanity is doomed. What they disagree upon, is the degree of knowledge one should have about this great atonement event and the timing of this awareness.

John Sanders argues for Inclusivism meaning that God saves people only through the work of Jesus, but some may be saved even if they have never heard about Christ. The importance is not the degree of "knowledge" about Christ, but the "faith in God" as it was revealed to the person. So, according to this view, responding positively to the light and the law written in their heart will be viewed as righteous and thus, the work of christ will be counted on their behalf. Romans 2 is given as a basis.

Gabriel Fackre argues that receptive knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation, but that this knowledge is not restricted to this lifetime. Non-christian believers will get the chance to hear the gospel post-mortem and decide whether they accept it or not. Fackre calls it "divine perseverance", meaning that death will not stop God from allowing us to know the true gospel. Fackre relies mainly on Peter 3:19 and 4:6.

As for Nash, he strongly attacks the other views and argues for Restrictivism: receptive knowledge of Christ in this lifetime is a must for salvation. He builds his case by showing the multitude of loopholes and mistakes in the previous two views, and cites many bible passage to support his stand(1Jn 5:12, Jn 1:12, Jn 20:30, ...)

Each author presents his idea in a chapter, then the others are given each a space to respond; so a total of 3 presentations and 6 refutations. This make the book a very thought provoking and not one sided discussion. I loved this approach!

As much as i deeply want to believe in a wider hope, restrictivism sounded the most biblicaly based. The other two concepts have serious mistakes that Nash quickly points out. One frustrating thing, is that Nash doesn't build a structured positive case for restrictivism, but concentrates on "bringing down" the other views.

Reading this book will NOT convince you of any of them, since each has a scriptural case, but when you take the whole scripture in perspective, i think you will tend to lean more towards the restrictivist (although, inclusivism sounds the most "logical": for example, a few days after jesus death and resurrection, only a handful of people are believers in the atonement. Does this mean, that the rest of the planet in billions was doomed? The message didnt have time to reach them yet..hmmm)

Although the book quickly mentions it in the introduction, i had wished the ''universal opportunity'' concept was developped in its own chapter, since i believe it is also quite biblical: receptive knowledge of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but any sincere lover of God (as he knows him) is given a chance to hear the gospel. Look at the story of Cornelius (Acts 10): he is a believer in the God he knows, so GOD sent him an angel to direct him to Peter so he hears the gospel!

To conclude, the book is an excellent introduction to the subject, which give you different angles to look at. Although it is incomplete and although restrictivism isnt presented in a positive case (after lashing out at the other views, which leave you a bit in the unknown), the book will make every single neuron of yours fire up. At the end, neither of the three concepts 100% convinced me, but i sure learned a lot. Recommended!

This book, though very informative, is taken from so many other already available sources that it reads more like some student's book report. The most inaccurate passage being that Jeff in "The Killer" wears white gloves like Jeff in "Le Samourai". I own "The Killer" and do not remember seeing him wearing gloves. Also, Christopher Heard claims that some scenes from "The Killer" match "Le Samourai" shot for shot. That is completely untrue. Obviously Mr. Heard has not done his homework and thoroughly researched his subject matter. All in all, it is an interesting read if you are unfamiliar from where some of the material is plagerized.

And for the author to come onto this site to defend his malodorous slapped together quickie bio is contemptible. Heard, the author, "takes offense" and makes claims of having spoken extensively with mssrs. Woo and Chow, and yet these "talks" are not included in the book. All we get are the same story beats featured in mainstream magazines such as People and Time. Anyone who buys this odious ripoff will, in fact, receive nothing but quotes featured in articles posted on www.chowyunfat.com, or www.johnwoo.com, or bullet in the web or any number of other sites available by typing the words 'John Woo' into any search engine. Available for free, mind you. Christopher Heard, unfortunately, is a hack who did not put in the necessary legwork, and who now feels the need to attack his critics and defend his own deficiencies as a writer and "reporter." For all the "authoritative posturing," where is the interview with Kenneth Tsang, who has starred in almost every post ABT Woo work (including Chow's American debut The Replacement Killers)? the detailed examination of Woo's work (how the two-gun stance was swiped specifically from The Shootist and Taxi Driver)? details about his gun-happy works before 1986's A Better Tomorrow? Why didn't Ti Lung become Woo's leading man? why Chow? and who is Ti Lung anyway? and what about the many other projects Woo was supposed to do once he got to America? Band of Assassins? Full Circle? Tears of the Sun? Metal Machine? the sequel to Hard Boiled? Who wrote these? How did they come to Woo's attention? Christoper Heard doesn't know any of this because he didn't know what questions to ask Woo (or Chow). He focused solely on the well known movies, as opposed to the person behind the typewriter and camera. Where was the discussion about how Woo (and later Chow's) work suffered once they reached America? Why is this happening? These answers are not in this "book." This slapped together quickie's contents can be found, free of charge, on the aforementioned sites, where ironically, amateur webmasters offer more answers than this so-called biography. Don't bother with Heard's hackwork. He didn't bother trying to write a real book; he slapped other peoples' quotes together and called it his own work.

Think of this book as a really extensive magazine article. If you're looking for some behind-the-scenes information on the second half of John Woo's career, look no further. However, if you're a film student looking for a complete in-depth critique of John Woo as an artist and director from both a technical and biographical perspective, this book will leave you a little hungry.

For weeks I have heard about this book from friends, publications, as well as the internet. Being a John Woo fan, I planned to purchase the title from the first time I heard it was coming out. So when I recently saw it sitting on a shelf of a book store, I immediately purchased it. It was read and completed within a few hours. Not because the book is very short, but because it was so interesting to read for me.
For John Woo fans, this is a book that definately should be looked into. From the monent I started chapter one I did not want to put the book down. To see how my favorite director came to be the man he is was very interesting, and though I had already known much of the information contained in the book from previous visits to the internet, I did not mind reading about them again.
I, like the author of the book, started my admiration of John Woo after first viewing a Better Tomorrow movie (the first film, in my case). I was browsing a store, looking for an action film to watch for the evening when I saw the Better Tomorrow DVD, sitting there, with Chow Yun Fat smiling on the cover. I bought it, went home, and watched it. Within that week I had the Better Tommorrow trilogy all on DVD, as well as a half dozen other films by John Woo and/or Tsui Hark. That is how I became a fan. So when I started this John Woo book, and learned that the author became a fan in a similiar fashion, I think it made the book a little more enjoyable to read and relate to.
For those who are more of the "casual fan" or John Woo, who have simply viewed a few of his movies and don't know much about him, this is a good book to begin learning. The writing is clear, easy to read, and really seems to be written by a real big John Woo fan. Though I would have appreciated some pictures and the asian names included in the filmography section, this book is good enough such that you won't care about those details as you read through the chapters discussing the times of one of the greatest action directors ever.

And for the author to come onto this site to defend his malodorous slapped together quickie bio is contemptible. Heard, the author, "takes offense" and makes claims of having spoken extensively with mssrs. Woo and Chow, and yet these "talks" are not included in the book. All we get are the same story beats featured in mainstream magazines such as People and Time. Anyone who buys this odious ripoff will, in fact, receive nothing but quotes featured in articles posted on www.chowyunfat.com, or www.johnwoo.com, or bullet in the web or any number of other sites available by typing the words 'John Woo' into any search engine. Available for free, mind you. Christopher Heard, unfortunately, is a hack who did not put in the necessary legwork, and who now feels the need to attack his critics and defend his own deficiencies as a writer and "reporter." For all the "authoritative posturing," where is the interview with Kenneth Tsang, who has starred in almost every post ABT Woo work (including Chow's American debut The Replacement Killers)? the detailed examination of Woo's work (how the two-gun stance was swiped specifically from The Shootist and Taxi Driver)? details about his gun-happy works before 1986's A Better Tomorrow? Why didn't Ti Lung become Woo's leading man? why Chow? and who is Ti Lung anyway? and what about the many other projects Woo was supposed to do once he got to America? Band of Assassins? Full Circle? Tears of the Sun? Metal Machine? the sequel to Hard Boiled? Who wrote these? How did they come to Woo's attention? Christoper Heard doesn't know any of this because he didn't know what questions to ask Woo (or Chow). He focused solely on the well known movies, as opposed to the person behind the typewriter and camera. Where was the discussion about how Woo (and later Chow's) work suffered once they reached America? Why is this happening? These answers are not in this "book." This slapped together quickie's contents can be found, free of charge, on the aforementioned sites, where ironically, amateur webmasters offer more answers than this so-called biography. Don't bother with Heard's hackwork. He didn't bother trying to write a real book; he slapped other peoples' quotes together and called it his own work. Don't bother buying it. A better book has yet to be written on John Woo.

Despite the claims made for this biography there is hardly any new material in it. It is based mainly on the memoir of Moore by his brother, the 1923 edition of Moore's letters, and the 1904 edition of his Journal (i.e. not the original documents).

It is chock-full of inaccuracies, right from Page 2 where the author confuses Moore's father with his grandfather. Some are small - a sloop is called a frigate, a wainscot wall is described as "lath and plaster" and so on. But others are serious, such as the author's assertion (a key point in his assessment of Moore's character) that Moore may never have killed anyone himself. This is nonsense; both Moore's diary and his brother's memoir describe him doing just that. Day also describes an occasion when Moore's ship was attacked by a privateer, which he says had "most of its crew shot to pieces" as Moore's shipmates fought back. But the source says clearly that the privateer didn't attack but sailed away instead. The stirring battle Day describes is wholly imaginary.

The book is full of passages in quotation marks, but many are inaccurate, some of them so much so that they are only paraphrases of the original quotations.

Weirdest of all - although the author and the publisher's blurb both stress Moore's importance as a trainer of troops - his most important contribution to British military history, the creation of the British Light Infantry arm at Shorncliffe, just isn't in the book at all. The book simply leaves out the years in which Moore worked on his greatest achievement, skipping without comment straight from November 1802 to August 1806. So if you don't already know why Moore is important to the British Army, you won't find out from this book. Bizarre.

This new title by Roger Day, `The Life of Sir John Moore' provides the reader with an interesting view of a man who the author categorizes as "the classic tragic British hero". This is the first biography I have read of Sir John Moore although I have come across him in many previous books. The author's view of Sir John Moore differs from many other accounts, the most recent being in `The Peninsular War' by Charles Esdaile.

Regardless of these differences I found that the author's biography of Sir John Moore was well presented and a delight to read. His campaigns were covered in enough detail to allow the reader to form an opinion on the man and his achievements. The narrative runs to only 220 pages so it could not be considered an exhaustive study but more of a general overview of the man and his times. According to the publishers much of the primary research material has previously not been utilized.

Upon finishing the book I felt that Sir John Moore was a brave man who actually felt some responsibility towards his troops welfare and did all in his power as a leader to ensure that they were well looked after and used in an intelligent manner. At times it appeared that these concerns and his forward thinking, taking in the `bigger picture', did not sit well with both his superiors and politicians in London nor with some of his subordinates.

Once again I was amazed and disgusted to read of the political backstabbing and cover-ups conducted by some of the politicians at the time. This appears to be a constant thread throughout history, the soldiers doing the dirty work while the politicians find some way of appearing to be squeaky clean when things go wrong. Overall this is an enjoyable book and should find acceptance with those who have read little on the subject, a good primer for further reading.

The book was not a reprint but a disappointing photocopy. The copy was dark and somewhat difficult to read. Some pages were printed twice, and some pages were missing. I vow to never buy a book from these publishers again.