John Noble Books

Just used this book for a trip in November and was not impressed. LP covers tons of podunk towns and then has very little coverage of tourism hubs, like Salvador. Basically they covered one neighborhood in Salvador. I also found a lot of their information to be out of date (not surprising, since the book came out in 2002, which means the information is probably from 2001) and just plain WRONG. For instance, they made a huge deal about how touristy Porto Seguro is and we saw a total of about 10 tourists there. We almost didn't go because LP made it sound so overrun with tourists. And LP didn't give us any heads up that the beautiful beaches are about 2 hours away from Porto Seguro via ferry and truck, so you should stay near Arrial d'Ajuda or in Trancoso instead. They make it sound like it's super-easy to hop back and forth. Then there was the ridiculous note about the "constant noise of tractors" in Morro de Sao Paulo, which also made me think twice about going. I'm glad I ignored LP, since M de SP was the highlight of my trip. (And I saw a total of 2 tractors in 3 days, and they did not, as LP claimed "disturb the peace considerably.") Skip this guidebook. Rough Guide was better (but still didn't have good info on Porto Seguro). Heck, Fodor's was better. But the LP Rio city guide does rock.

On a three month research trip to Brazil, my husband and I began a letter to Lonely Planet detailing every mistake, omission, and out-of-date reference we could remember. Sometimes we just couldn't write fast enough! Many of the maps were virtually useless (particularly the one of Salvador, we thought). Prices were vastly different and inaccurate (and not due only to changes in the exchange rate). At the end of three months, our letter was in excess of 7 single spaced typed pages! And we certainly didn't go everywhere.

I never viewed Lonely Planet as one-size answer to all your travels: along with brilliant LP guides to strange and not-so-strange destinations (West Africa and Canary Islands are just two big success stories) there are sad failures (Iceland & Greenland, Bolivia and anything else penned by Deanna Swaney), marred with self-important ideological preaching, poor research and lack of any writing skills.

Brazil is somewhere in between. The book does not suffer from excessive ideologization and does not fancy itself as a latter-day Marxist's political history handbook. America-bashing was kept to a minimum. This is refreshing.

There is fairly good amount of practical info (some of it is out of date), although nothing has been done to address the chronic ailment of Lonely Planet: shameless recycling of "general info", which in most cases is either misleading or simply insults your intelligence. The guide, as before, has no idea how most people book ticket these days; and nuggets of deep knowledge and inside advice like "your camera can get damaged, lost or stolen" (you don't say - how many years of travel experience helped you acquire this rare insight?) makes you wish you could have your money back.

However, useless passages are essentially harmless (apart from making the guide thicker than it needs be). More regrettable is the stuff that's MISSING: that is, focus and helpful informed opinion. It seems that, once a traveller got to Brazil, got a place to stay and figured out the cheapest way to get around, he's not entirely sure why he is there in the first place. Descriptions of the places to see are lazy, unenthusiastic and uninspired. The authors seem to have been going through the motions.

With abundance of books on Brazil on the market, there is no compelling reason to stick with this one other than brand loyalty.

There is no other option than to agree with the other reviewers. the language section is bad (how do you call a waiter? how do you ask for the bill? basics that are not deemed important by the writers). The descriptions are sometimes uninspired..but most importantly...the information on Brazil's most important city, Sao Paulo, The city that is most difficult to find your way in, but that has far more to offer than Rio is limited to just 15 pages!

Some of the other criticisms here seem petty (e.g., the changing cost of visas, changes in costs due to unstable currency, the screed about the Carmen Miranda museum which isn't difficult to find, yammering about the fairly moderate politics). Indeed, some seem typical of the reviews of travel guides one expects from people with unrealistic expectations of a guidebook and limited travel experience. That said, this is definitely one of LP's weaker efforts. I found numerous errors on maps and in descriptions of locations, important enough that one can miss important places (like hotels or laundries--which can be few). There are significant areas of neglect, e.g., the book doesn't mention that Itacare is an international surfing center, although this is evident pretty quickly. People looking for quiet beach town will be disappointed. My guess is that the next revision needs much more care. Unfortunately, the alternative is the "Footprints" guide which has some gaping holes (e.g., few descriptions of tours and jungle lodging in the Amazon) and the Rough Guide which also has significant weaknesses.

It needs to be made clear in the description that this book is written in Spanish - just saying "Spanish Guides" isn't enough. I had to return it and pay shipping twice because of this error.

A very good book in general, especially as tour guides in Spanish go. The price is a little steep, but worth it.

Amazon, please make it clearer that this is the Spanish version. I need to return this and get the English version. The cover shot you show is of the English version, not the Spanish version with the accent over the e. Thank you!

If you want a good history of this era, this is not it - unless you are an economist. Only then could you want all of the transactions that occurred in the history of French economics and that is what this book gives you. Everything is told in terms of taxes, fees, and more taxes.
I am currently reading "The Course of French History," by Pierre Goubert. It is much more enlightening!

The book should be called "from the Middle Ages, skimming lightly over the Renaissance to absolutism". There was a lot on the period of the 2-3 kings just prior to Francois I. Then the book glosses over Francois I through Henri III and fast forwards to Henri IV. Most of the book is not on the Renaissance period per se (which arguably started with Francois I). The Wars of religion are almost ignored... This book is of a type currently in vogue with academic historians: there is much statistical analysis of government data, e.g. 2 of 5 people in 1585 did blah-blah. A little dry for my taste. Also, terms are not well defined prior to use. Not a book for the beginner, but, in all fairness, I believe this book was written to be an academic text, not for mass consumption.

First, let me start off my saying that this is a bargain book. So don't except too much from it and you won't be disappointed. Very simple. This book provides a good overview and introduction to warfare in the Classical (read Greek and Roman) Age. Warry has done a great job incorporating literary element into description of Greek Phalanxes and Roman Legions. He combines these with historical documents to interpret -although briefly- what a Greek, Roman, or Trojan army may have donned into battle.

There are some faults to the work. The first and foremost is that there are no illustrations or maps. Even two or three general visual aids (a diagram of armor parts for example) would have been incredibly helpful. Alas, there are no pictures to be found. The lack of an expansive bibliography is forgivable in that searching amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or even Google provide a wealth of information on the subject.

So take this book for what it is, a bargain introduction and overview of warfare in the Classical World. If you can understand the book's shortcomings you won't be disappointed.

This is a book that is interesting to read and appears to be well-researched (more on that later) but it is also disappointing because it could have been so much more.

The main reasons I bought this book are because I wanted to learn more about western martial arts and Classical-era history in general. It was definitely informative with regards to martial history, detailing the rise and fall of a number of different Greek & Roman empires and rulers and the significance of key battles and campaigns.

From a western martial arts view, it was more disappointing. It had details about battlefield tactics and unit divisions. It had some detail about arms and armor, although more would have been nice. However, the periods it describes ARE quite a long time ago, so it is entirely possible the information is just not available.

Where I absolutely find fault with the book is in a distinct lack of guidance for those who would like to do more research.
- There is no bibliography.
- There are sparse chapter end-notes, usually about technical details that didn't really have a place in the text. In a few cases, a sub-section will state which ancient author or authors in particular are the source for that particular subsection. But generally, there is no way to tell which particular statements are based on which particular sources.
- Sources for each major section are named at the beginning of that major section, along with information about whether the source had first-hand experience of what he wrote, what his background was, and whether he seemed to be relatively even-handed or definitely biased towards a certain viewpoint. Also included is information about which ancient authors have works that are still extant and which authors' works are lost to us and known only through intermediate authors and secondary sources. But many times the ancient authors are mentioned only by name and the titles of their relevant works are not included. There is also no information about which particular authors & works have been translated and published in English.

So, for example, if I want to know more about Athenian light-armed troops in the time of the Peloponnesian war (mentioned in the last paragraph of "The Athenian Army" in the section titled "The Peloponnesian War"), there is very little information to go on. The beginning of the section on the Peloponnesian war mentions Thucydides, Xenophon's "Hellenica", "other historians . . . of whose works only fragments survive", Plutarch, Theopompos, Ephorus, Cratippus, and a 900-line fragment from an Egyptian papyrus manuscript which may or may not be a continuation of Thucydides. Besides "Hellenica", do any of these other works have formal titles? Are any available in English translations? Which are available to the public, either through reprints that can be purchased or through public libraries, and which are only held in private or institutional collections? And which, if any, of these were used specifically for the paragraph on Athenian light-armed troops and therefore might have more information on those troops? You won't find any of those answers in the book.

Also, there are NO illustrations or maps and the book could have benefited GREATLY from these.

Finally, I was APPALLED at the number of spelling and grammar errors. Does the author not proof-read his work? Does the publisher not have a copy editor?

In all, a decent introduction and overview, but this book could have been SO much better with some more time put into it.

The main theme in this book is that Hitler told everybody exactly what he was going to do prior to his selection as Chancellor. Therefore it is no surprise when he instigated his murderous policies of war and genocide. When the German people said they didn't know, Laffin states without hesitation that the majority of people knew exactly what Hitler was going to do. When the countries which eventually fought Hitler stated they didn't know, Laffin states they should have known because of all his stated goals in speeches and his book. If they didn't know, then they weren't listening.
Laffin's book takes photos from a 1936 German publication, and then explains the text. He also uses a chapter about a British soldier watching the rearming of Germany and explains the warning signals. There are a lot of pictures in this book, and they are quite interesting. The writing could be better, but the message is quite true. The German people and the Allies decived themselves about Hitler's intentions.

If you are looking for a piece of work that breaks new ground, takes a fresh look at the political intricacies of National Socialism, examines the cultural roots of Nazi philosophy or examines the personalities of the Third Reich...this book is not for you! John Laffin has written (or should I say re-written) a piece of work that is both mundane and utterly unoriginal. It's amazing that Brassey's, the publishing house that released "Hitler Warned Us" let this one slip out the door. Brassey's is a small publishing house, but they are usually known for their quality work. The aim of "Hitler Warned Us" is to expose, through quotes and clever historical footnotes, the fact that the Nazis laid out their global plan of conquest for the whole world to see years before WWII started. Presumably pre-war Europe should not have been surprised in 1939 when Hitler dragged the world into war...but the scary part is, they were. The problem: this subject matter has been explored before. Exhaustive amounts of serious research have been done trying to discover exactly why and how the rest of the West could have made such a grave, unforgivable blunder. John Laffin does not even bother to hypothesize a reason in "Hitler Warned Us". Instead we are left with an endless string of quotes from Mein Kampf and an assortment of photographs of top nazis that surely the average WWII historical reader has seen many, many times before. What little research and writing the author did put into the book is an absolute re-hash of EVERYTHING you've ever read concerning this subject matter. Reading this book was an exercise in tedium.

This book was particularly disturbing to me (hence my long review) because it really degrades and cheapens the subject matter. This book has the look and feel of something thrown onto the market to capitalize on the genre. The book clocks in at 160 pages, and with the large text and multitude of pictures, you'll walk away feeling like you've read nothing at all. It's almost insulting.

Amazon offers quite a bit of other books on this subject matter that are worth looking into. Most notably by authors like Eleanor H. Ayer, Paul Madden, David Irving, etc.

Though it may be considered a classic novel, timeless and forever enchanting, I found myself angered as I was forced to read this book for my english class. I can understand why many rave about Twain...he captured a popular American literature style for the time period. I, however, am not a supporter of his simple vocabulary and sentence structure. Twain avoided "flowery" words, instead using words that an elementary student would use. I also understood how he wrote using a character's dialogue,but I still detested every moment of it. Reading Jim's part was like wading through quicksand, and sometimes I found myself sinking to a point I never thought I would get out of.


Also, I found myself disliking the popular character Tom Sawyer. I didn't find him the least bit charming, and I really felt that he was quite the illogical, egotistical little prat. I can say that I did quite like Huck Finn, even if reading his narration was barely short of torture.

I often enjoy classic novels, but I can assure you that I will never read a Twain novel again. The only reason I gave this book as much as two stars was simply because I almost enjoyed hating it, because some of it humored me so.

I was very disappointed. My copy is certainly titled, "Best Of Weird Tales" edited by John Betancourt but the stories are all by modern authors such as Brian Lumley, Ramsey Campbell and Thomas Ligootti. NOT AUTHENTIC Weird Tales. If you like modern horror fiction fine, but if you want some real Lovecraft era fiction from the original Weird Tales magazine, keep looking. (Like I am going to go do now.) I wouldn't be mad but the description of the book is quite other than it really is.

John Henriksen's "JH" Reader's Companion to David McCullough's "DM" John Adams, a mere 59 pages in length, would be more appropriately titled, "The Faults of John Adams, Repeated Ad Nauseam without Footnotes." Henriksen mentions Adams' flaws excessively; of his appearance (p 12) "was comical rather than formidable, with his huge belly and small head" (p 13) "dumpy and bald" and (p 23) "short, fat, bald" of his personality (p 6) "wishy-washy and indecisive" (p 7) "anxious and unschooled in human nature" (p 9) "fretful" and (p 32) "excessive self-regard." Again, in his comments about Adams unsuccessful bid for a second term as president, he overemphasizes the negative (p 41), "Adams was the first incumbent president to lose in the history of America." He tends to revisit situations in which Adams makes poor choices. The fact that John Adams "JA" did not purchase government securities at the suggestion of his wife, Abigail, is mentioned thrice by JH (pp 12, 16, 31), while both his non-opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts (pp 7, 35, 36, 39, 41) and Adams' suggestion to address the president as "His Majesty" are mentioned a whopping five times (pp 7, 17, 19, 21, 33). He provides his own conclusions about Adams' actions as statements of fact, in some cases misrepresenting McCullough's handling of same, as in the case of farmer John Fries and two others who "appealed to the President for a pardon" having been "found guilty of treason and sentenced to hang" after an armed uprising (p 540). Henriksen refers to the case four times (pp 8, 9, 25, 37, 39) and proclaims (pp 8,9) that Adams pardoned Fries "on the official grounds that the insurrection had no calamitous consequences" noting the "real" reason as, "Fries had become a symbol of rural America" and "Adams hoped that a pardon would help heal the rift between urban power centers and the frontier regions." David McCullough said no such thing, but instead that when John Adams concluded his review of the case, he determined simply that Fries had, "led a riot, not an insurrection, and was therefore not guilty of treason." On the issue of compensation for government leaders, JH states that Adams believed that public officials should receive salaries (p 4) because, "the presidency was a job like any other and that it should be compensated accordingly, "while DM states (p 400) that Adams did not want the rich to monopolize the offices, "the poor and middling ranks would be excluded and an aristocratic despotism would immediately follow." Eventually (in paragraph two but not three of page 20) JH's account agrees with DM's. In Henriksen's discussion of the troubles of Adams' children (p 5) who "were responsible for giving him gray hair," he inexplicably fails to mention at all Thomas, who certainly contributed his share to the gray (DM p 634) "...son Thomas, who, having failed at the law, was drinking heavily..." Later, in providing a present day example of the feelings of betrayal felt by the Federalists upon learning that Adams had reversed his pro-war stance and chosen to send an envoy to France to work for peace (successfully achieved), JH seems to be saying that Republicans (as opposed to Democrats) are warmongers by stating (p 25), "We might imagine a similar scenario today if a Republican president heavily in favor of war with a country suddenly retreated and became a pacifist." Additionally, although he contends (p 17) that "John Adams is sometimes referred to as revisionist history" due to DM's negative portrayal of Benjamin Franklin, he fails to include in his Other Books of Interest section, one could support the "negative portrayal" contention, The First American by H.W. Brands, which portrays Franklin very favorably; yet includes The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal by Virginius Dabney. In his many comparisons of Adams and Jefferson, he does not include the fact (DM p 648) that "John Adam's net worth at death was approximately $100,000...Jefferson, by sad contrast, had died with debts exceeding $100,000." Granted, the eloquent Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and granted, Adams was opposed to the inclusion of one of its most famous lines, "All men are created equal..." (although for reasons unrelated to slavery), but of the two, John Adams was arguably the better man, if for no other reason than that from the top of his (bald) head to the tips of his (undoubtedly unattractive) toes, he, DM (p 116) "abhorred" the idea of slavery "all his life." Lastly, of all of the information that Henriksen writes about John Adams, true, false, repetitive, negative or otherwise, not a single reference to David McCullough's John Adams by page number is provided. A wealth of information about John Adams, the book and the man, as well as David McCullough, the amazingly talented author who so skillfully brought him to life, can certainly be found on the world wide web, saving the reader the cost and disappointment of this sometimes incomplete, repetitive, overly-negative take on John Adams.

I was really looking forward to reading this book but I am very disappointed after doing so. Not only is the book riddled with errors, but the writing style is childish, to put it mildly, and very irritating. I find it hard to believe that Matera has actually written other books! Most annoying is Matera's constant use of clichés. If a high school freshman had written this book as a term paper, it would come back to him marked up with so much red that you wouldn't be able to see what he had written. On top of that, Matera's incorrect use of words is actually pathetic and his attempt to sound "hip" is not only corny but it's also not appropriate for the time period he is describing. The book is also loaded with so many factual errors that it loses all credibility.

I will try an experiment to prove this point. I am going to randomly open the book and see what I come up with.....O.K.- on page 46, Matera mentions a Kroger store robbed by Dillinger and his gang. Matera says that Kroger was a department store and that it was the precursor to K-Mart. Not so! Kroger IS a grocery store and it has absolutely nothing to do with K-Mart. In fact, a quick check of the facts reveals that Kroger is 125 years old and it is the third largest retailer in the United States after Walmart and Home Depot. It still exists and is thriving. Not only is it NOT a precursor to K-Mart, but it isn't even in the same business!

Every page filled with such errors. I really got a kick out of the quotes supposedly made by Dillinger's father. If you have seen old film clips of Dillinger's father, you know that he was a simple, uneducated farmer. But the quotes attributed to him by Matera sound as if they were made by a PhD!

Apparently, the publishers never bothered to even proof-read this book because it is filled with spelling errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors. That may not matter to some readers but it indicates a carelessness that permeates this book. This is an example of very poor writing. I cannot recommend this book. There are much better books on the subject.

For the most part, the author seems to have pretty good information for the time of the book's printing, but for anyone who wants to read this book on purely scientific terms, be warned; there are several places where the book goes awry, for example: the author states that tracks of tyrranosaurus indicate that it was a solitary animal, occasionally hunting in pairs. Problem: no tracks of a t. rex have been discovered to date, a decade and a half after the writing. Aside from that and a few other points, though, the book is good reading.