William King Books

This book is an excellent book but now, is getting out of date with him getting much older and new things coming into his life....ex....no mention of diana's death in this book b/c it was made before her death.

Darcy*

Some facts are really interesting but some sounds to be copying the news from all magazines. Should be better if more research is done!

I felt like I was reading Tiger Beat or 16; one of those magazines that only glorify people because of how they look and encourage young girls to obsess and stalk the objects of their affection. If that's what you're looking for, then this is the book for you. Otherwise, if you want facts, real facts, and intelligent arguments about this remarkable boy's life, look elsewhere.

Of course, anything with even a picture of Willaim in it, has to be AT LEAST ok, but this book didn't go much past ok. The pictures were so old, and although it looked like a good book from it's cover, it wasn't all it's cracked up to be. The reading was slow, boring, and didn't have good information. Most of the facts I already knew from magazines and other books, but I will say there were a few new facts in it. There are much better Prince William books out there, so i don't reccomend buying this unless you collect books on him or something like that. Thanks for listening, and William, good luck because your going to need it!

It indicates that this is an unauthorized biography which was published two months before Prince William's mother's tragic death. I don't think William's father or mother or any member of the Royal Family would have authorized this book.

One does not give a chapter the title, "Birth and Circumstances," and then, ramble on for almost three pages about three good looking young teenagers - two brunettes and a blonde - walking along a street near Eton.

I did not see this book until I purchased several memorial books on Diana, Princess of Wales. If one has not kept up with Prince William or if one does not collect books about the Royal Family, this book is fair. Personally, I would NOT have bought it except for my collection.

The pictures are good, but old. This book is paperback and contains one hundred thirty-nine pages in addition to a two page genealogy of "The Royal Line from Queen Victoria to the Presnt? and a page which contains a record of Prince William's birth.

Miss Jane Porter wrote this book in 1809 but it is still an exciting and heroic story of The Scottish Chiefs, men and women, who attempted to drive the English occupying soldiers and their warrior king, Edward I of England, hero of the Crusades, out of Scotland. William Wallace, the valiant Murray, and many others and their deeds fill the pages. Wallace, who wants to free his country and wreak revenge on the English for the murder of his wife. OK, you've seen Braveheart and despite it's inaccuracies, it brought the story of Wallace, The Hero of Scotland, back into the public eye of the world. Now, read this book. No, it is not absolutely accurate either, but it's a wonderful read. Another OK, the cover is abysmal, a droopy male and female. Look for the Scribner's with the N.C. Wyeth illustrations. Dynamite, and in the right spirit!

This tale of Scots resistance against English King Edward is essential to those who grew up with "Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled" in their ears. Others may enjoy it more for its romance. What pleased me most was seeing the medieval (turn of 13th-14th century) history through the focus of the English author Jane Porter, whose text was published in 1809, and the 1921 edition's illustrations by N.C. Wyeth. Atheneum's reissue is well bound and printed; the book feels pleasant to the hand. Most of all, Porter's latinate sentences beg to be read aloud. Although sold for ages 9-12, the text would be difficult for many of my college freshmen. Lucky the child with a parent to read it aloud! Lucky the adult with a child to read it to, or, failing that, to have these 500+ pages on the bedside table to peruse at day's end.

This classic should be read by all. It is a story of great courage and conviction, a story in which good brave men fight the scoundrels, and sweet strong ladies stand by their men. There is so much to be drawn from a book like this. I intend to read it several more times before my life is over and make it required reading for my children one day. We need more men as William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, boys such as the faithful Edwin, wives and daughters such as Isabelle and Helen. If Scottish Patriots filled the pews of our churches, the Church would rise up in a great way.

I so enjoyed reading this book. It was beautifully written, although it took a little while to get used to the way they spoke then. It can not really be compared to the movie Braveheart, because although both the book and the movie are about William Wallace, the story line is different. This book is not just a quick way to learn the story line. You have to appreciate the old dialect, and the talent with which Jane Porter incorporated so much detail. This is truly a classic story and has become one of my favorite books.

I enjoyed Scottish Chiefs. The plot was interesting, and it certainly helped me really get to know William Wallace, the main character. The book was exciting and well-written. I would certainly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about William Wallace, the Bruces, and Edward I of England. But Jane Porter, the author, was not perfectly historically accurate. She added in some new characters that probably never existed--like Helen Mar, for example. This turned out okay, but readers should not assume that this is a perfect biography of Wallace. One thing I really did not like was the way all the women in the book were constantly fainting for no reason. I'm not sure if this was really the way people were than, but it annoys me. also, Porter portrayed Wallace as an extremely perfect person, more like an angel that a human, which was certainly wrong. The book is also very long, and sometimes hard to follw. But it was good overall. Also, my mother, who read it to me, my brother, and my sister as a part of our home education this past year, said thast it was a difficult book to read out loud, aned that it was not as accurate historically as it could have been.

This is an interesting read to say the least. William Gay's "Twilight" tells the story of a necrophiliac undertaker named Fenton Breece is using his position to take advantage of the town's dead. When two teenagers discover proof of Breece's perversion, he hires a local psychotic, Granville Sutter, to retrieve the proof from the teens. The two teens, Corrie and Kenneth Tyler, refuse to meet Sutter's demand which eventually ends up in tragedy and a chase along one of the most bizarre landscapes in recent literary history. I don't want to go into too much detail because that would spoil the fun.

Gay's novel may not be for every reader considering the main character has a fetish for the dead. However, those who aren't so squeamish might find this a fun, if not creepy read.

Now I have to admit I did consider the final act kind of a cheap shot. Sutter disguises himself as an elderly woman to trap Kenneth. The dialogue and the style of this scene reminded me of something out of an old Looney Tunes cartoon. Think Pete Puma dressed as the old lady trying to capture the little bunny rabbit.

Due to the subject matter this novel will likely never been made into a movie which is just as well. But were it to happen I would love to see Paul Giamatti as Fenton Breece. Despite the silly ending, this is a good read.

William Gay continues to uphold the tradition of Faulkner and O'Connor with this new story of cruel violence and perversion. There are moments where the reading invokes an experience of complete immersion in the events of the scene that has happened only rarely to me. The ending does seem a bit tacked on and predictable, but doesn't completely upend the effectiveness of the work.

I'm a fan of "literary genre fiction" - if that doesn't sound too much like a contradiction - and picked up William Gay's 'Twilight' after reading about it in one of Stephen King's Entertainment Weekly columns. It was one of his Best Of '07 books, and he compared it to Cormac McCarthy's work, which I hold in very high esteem, so I decided to read it.

In all honesty, it is very similar to McCarthy's works. Thematically, of course. The dark crevasses of humanity are well-lighted. Violence, bloodshed, necrophilia, and extortion abound in the first act of the book. It seems almost like a mixture of 'Child of God' and 'No Country for Old Men', if you ask me. I hate to compare the two authors so much as to draw confusion between them, but they have similar styles and thematic concerns. All apologies.

Oh, and is it oh so well-written. Gay's colloquial way of writing conversational prose is excellent, but he'll often drop beautifully rendered phrases and passages on you to show that he's the real deal when it comes to language.

The only problem is that I think the second act drags more than it should. For a short book, I shouldn't have to notice that, 'Oh man, they've been chasing each other for a long time.' And that's sort of what happens. Like the title of the review suggests, you almost think it's like a Mark Twain adventure in the woods of Tennessee.

The colorful secondary characters that pop up stave off the tedium of reading that second act, so it's not that bad. Overall. I think 'Twilight' is a book best suited for those who really like the Southern Gothic aesthetic and are looking for an author not afraid to break right through taboos.

An occasionally grisly Southern gothic novel, "Twilight" is intriguing throughout, but doesn't quite lead to the fireworks finale you'd expect.

First thing's first: When I started to read "Twilight," one thing caught my eye above all others, and that was author William Gay's staggering command of vocabulary and the English language. Stylistically, he knows how to construct sentences and paragraphs that leave the reader feeling almost unworthy in his presence.

Because of Gay's obvious literary talents, "Twilight" sort of feels like it is beneath him. The story proceeds down a typical genre path and, save for one particular scene involving necrophilia and another scene involving an old woman who isn't who she at first seems to be, there are few surprises throughout.

As teenage lead Kenneth Tyler journeys further and further into rural Tennessee's decomposing backwoods, chased by hired killer Granville Sutter, who wants to retrieve pictures Tyler has that incriminate mortician Fenton Breece in abhorrently criminal after-hours behavior, the book's interest lies in Gay's textural, atmospheric depiction of the one-of-a-kind setting and in the question of whether Sutter is going to catch Tyler. The latter point, however, is predictable, and the final pages elicit little more than a shrug, especially considering that Granville Sutter and Fenton Breece are potentially brilliant villains, horrifically conceived but not used to their fullest abilities.

"Twilight" is worth a read, indeed, but this is one case where the writing is superior to what is ultimately offered by the plot.

Called a `Southern Gothic' by critics and reviewers, I got interested in this dark tale by Stephen King. He has a column on the last page of Entertainment Weekly (someone gave me a gift subscription and admittedly I have enjoyed this guilty pleasure) He is in the there about once every 3rd week or so, and in this issue he had a year end `Best Of' list. TWILIGHT was his book of the year so I had to have it. Now after reading this excellent book, I respect Mr. King even more for his depth in reading. William Gay himself describes this story as a modern Hansel and Gretel...which it is, but no fairy tale, as horrifying as they could be, ever read like this. Gay has an eloquent writing style that wraps you in his world right off the bat. (I just ordered another book of his) This tale of good and evil turns into a lengthy cat and mouse chase thru the rural sticks of Tennessee in the 1950's, and we feel the adrenaline of one who is being chased for much of the book. The story deals with a brother and sister that find out some most disturbing facts about the local funeral director. They steal a briefcase from him and discover some incriminating photos which they try to blackmail him with. This backfires when he hires a monstrous ex-con to `take care' of his problem. No more from me. If you like an edge of your seat kind of read....then, by all means....scare yourself silly with this terrifying and beautifully written Southern Gothic.

I'm from England and I'm studying this play for A level (as a mature student - normally taken when aged 17) but although the UK is the home of 'The Bard' this item is not available in the UK! I'm very impressed with Amazon.com who delivered it quickly and cheaply!

The CD itself is great. It really helps to hear the play, as the intonation is correct, which is sometimes difficult to do when reading it yourself.

The actors' voices are clear and suit their parts perfectly. I'd definitely recommend it - and I will look out for more titles in this series when I've finished studying this one!

Although this play is not one of Shakespeare's better known plays, it is one of his very best. It is a tragicomedy suffused by gentle melancholy. Unreasonable and cruel jealousy are also portrayed. We also have two endearing young lovers to liven up the story. These characters are very well-drawn, and the story is quite beautiful.

I have always favoured the Oxford Shakespeare series over others (Folger, etc), and the Winter's Tale is no exception. It's translation notes and lexigraphical assistance makes reading a joy and brings out the true heart and soul of one of Shakespeare's commonly overlooked tragi-comedies.

As usual in Shakespearean plays, the language here is very prettily written. As usual in Shakespearean comedies, there are plot holes that one could easily drive a tank squadron through. But since this is not just a comedy, but a tragicomedy, in which the first part is a tragedy and the second a comedy, not everything comes out well in the end: some worthy characters die. Also, as is usual for Shakespeare, we have a morality play on the evils of jealousy and closed-mindedness. Really, though, other than the pretty Shakespearean turns of phrase, there isn't much to recommend this book.

Early compilers of Shakespeare's plays classified this a comedy, but there is much tragedy in it. Later it was called a romance. Through irrational jealousy a king is apparently responsible for the deaths of his entire family -- wife, son and daughter -- by mid-play. Time is a character in the play and at his one appearance summarizes the passage of sixteen years. If you have an overy high regard for realism, you may not much enjoy this play, but that will be true of more of Shakespeare than just this one tale. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I look forward to seeing it. I've ordered the BBC DVD and it's being performed at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 2006. These Cambridge School editions have the play's text on right-hand pages; they have summary, commentary and exercises, and vocabulary on the facing left-hand pages. As I read through the play, I'd read the summary, read the play text paying attention to vocabulary, and then read the commentary and exercises. Some additional, unusual vocabulary was only explained in the commentary. I felt I got a deeper understanding of the play than if I had just read the play proper.mmary, commentary and exercises, and vocabulary on the facing left-hand pages. As I read through the play, I'd read the summary, read the play text paying attention to vocabulary, and then read the commentary and exercises. Some additional, unusual vocabulary was only explained in the commentary. I felt I got a deeper understanding of the play than if I had just read the play proper.

THis is a book that I and my students thoroughly enjoyed. I love teh emphasis on hardwork and perseverance.Most children can relate to the notion of saving money to purchase something they really want to have. Written from the perspective of the child makes the story easy for children to identify with. The notion of harwork and perseverance is weaved through out the story. From the mother's long hours at the diner to the family's year of saving change in a jar. The Coldecott-winning illustrations allow the reader to feel the emotions the little girl is feeling and correspond beautifully with the text. The cover of the book is an outsiders view of the diner where the little girl's mother works. Ths vantage point lends to the perspective from which the story is told. I feel this is a story that can transcend time. There will always be the need for hard work and perseverance. There will always be hard times one has to overcome. The notion of earning and valuing material pocessions can cross all cultures.

i bought this for my neice over the summer. i was a big reading rainbow fan as a kid. now as an adult i can appreciate this book and its illustrations even more.this is a must read for all little girls!!

This, along with Something Special for Me have been top picks for our 3 1/2 year old for the last few months. She asks for them over and over. I love how this book tells a simple story yet illustrates wonderful family values without being preachy. I imagine this will be in the regular rotation at our house for years to come.

A beautiful book, visually and story-wise. My children loved it, I loved it and now the grandchildren love it. It has drama and kindness and an appreciation for small things that make life rich.

Some children's books speak to our lives in special ways.

I'm stepping away from a teacher voice to a "person teaching" talking tonight, it isn't the same exactly. Pretty close. I came from my personal past into this life, so my valuing, my struggles are mine, and I look from those eyes on what happens in my present life. It's a book that allows me to talk about how important I find it for us to use books to let children share from their lives, as they really can be, like this one. I find this isn't a homogenized world told about as our mandated basal portrays it.
This is "About the fire that burned away the things a family loved". Where I teach, in poverty, many things are burning all the time. Things included. My kids know words, even at six, not all children know: eviction, landlord, payments, lay-away, pawn shop. Last year I almost cried at how a child brightened hearing pawn shop to tell me of what of hers was staying there. And so we got her toys back. That little girl now in 5th grade has not missed a morning working in my room before school.
Do you know Elizabeth Cotton? Do you know the tune Shake Sugaree, try these two versions with kids:

Shake Sugaree

Shake Sugaree: Taj Mahal Sings And Plays For Children


They connect to our experiences in my classroom, as literature allows, validates. It doesn't say "think positive" or that your struggles bore me, or that you need to speak happy tales to me, no, it tells a child they are valid because they speak. For me to believe in anyone I want to know who they really are. This book says you are more than the sum of the parts shaped in an imperfect world, you are a blessed child. In the arts we celebrate your struggles. We will know the " you."

My now 18 year old daughter introduced me to the Vera B. Williams books.
She never let us down. Sylvia was extraordinary reading Cherries and Cherry Pits as a very young 4 year old to her new kindergarten class. It's a bit of a marvelous read. But this lovely one she shared with me after taking it out from the library. That's where we found these Vera B. Williams books in Monterey, but as the years went by I got those I could find for my classes of 1st graders.

So let me tell you about this. I don't want to be misunderstood, it is a story that spoke to me, as me. A book about the idealized notions of momma. My mom is having her birthday in a few days, a milestone birthday, so she would not appreciate my posting her near centurion date but I want to remember a little story I tell the children at some point. With some editing I'll not do today. I don't tell as much as I'll put here. She's sitting looking at TV perched on the corner of the arm of a chair. This Momma doesn't sit.

We watch the Grammy's and feel really disconnected from "music today." But we like Tina Turner and Aretha. Do you remember the Grammy awards when Paul Simon sang about 50 ways To Leave Your Lover? I do. And I think My Little Town at another. Dave Grohl Foo Fighters, I'm waiting for the 2nd coming. it's different to me. And what did they do to Alicia Keyes? Produced it I guess. But at least we heard Hancock on Gershwin. And that lovely humble Amy Winehouse give her tribute to the Queen's English and the rehabilitation that will certainly fail her.

This is a child's story about a family that lives barely making ends meet. Told from the perspective of a young child, in their voice. Vera B. Williams often narrates in child voice,
wonderfully so. It's so powerful and dear and in many ways teaches a child they can narrate their own story. Among the many things needed for a child to write is the "sound of that writing." This is a model for that.
This family had their home devastated by fire. It isn't unknown in the classes I teach. Apartment fires happen quite a bit more than I ever knew. This is the story of saving into a big glass jar all the coins for a very long, long time to go get their dear Momma a new chair. What holds the readers is the love of the mother, the tenderness of acknowledging her struggle to make ends meet, and the feelings of how hard she works to have anything, and replace things after the fire.

Listen to the text:

"When we can't get a single other coin into the jar, we are going to take out all the money and go and buy a chair. Yes, a chair. A wonderful, beautiful, fat, soft armchair. we will get one covered in velvet with roses all over it. We are going to get the best chair in the whole world. That is because our old chairs burned up. There was a big fire in our house. all our chairs burned. So did our sofa and so did everything else. That wasn't such a long time ago. My mother and I were coming home from buying new shoes. I had new sandals. She had new pumps. We were walking to our house from the bus. We were looking at everyone's tulips. she was saying she liked red tulips and I was saying I liked yellow ones. Then we came to our block. Right outside our house stood two big fire engines. I could see lots of smoke. Tall orange flames came out of the roof. all the neighbors stood in a bunch across the street. Mama grabbed my hand and we ran. My uncle Sandy saw us and ran to us. Mama yelled, "Where's Mother?" I yelled, "Where's my grandma?" My aunt Ida waved and shouted, "She's here, she's here. She's O.K. Don't worry." Grandma was all right. our cat was safe too, though it took a while to find her. But everything else in our whole house was spoiled.


I knew those shoes. My family grew up much richer than my grandparents who lived in a hand built cabin with no plumbing, but my life wasn't easy.
I actually did get a pair of shoes a year. Had two or three toys at Christmases. This in my case was compounded by a monster father, professor, that wanted the love of others and resented his obligations at home. He raged all the time and made the life of a mom with her own issues so difficult she broke when I was in my teens. After he left to father another child with a girl my age ( all of this is the part I omit for kids of course) and contribute about $100 a month to our survival monthly my mom was in pieces. So it is. Off he went not really looking back except to lie/rage some more. But she had a tiny house, mortgage still to be paid, and troubles because we had no dishwasher, broken oven, furniture from my babyhood. It was all very hard and unnecessarily depressing as my father was out buying himself his well deserved life.
She called me one day from town having taken a second mortgage. I was upset really to deal with this, it indebted me to more work, but met her at the furniture store walking the 6 miles to get to her. we never had a car. Took an hour or so. She was so happy as I went in to find out what on earth was going on, sitting in this enormous shaggy bright orange chair. She wanted me to sign so that we would buy this huge burnt orange sofa and chair set. Huge pieces. I had to pay $50 to get it to the house. And so into our tiny split level with my grand mom dying of Alzheimer's and all the issues of those times, we were swallowed up in the biggest brightest couch and chair I ever saw. Dad never let us change the carpet or improve anything, so the floor in our home was this slightly sour light tan stained nightmare it just swallowed up any aesthetic with the paneling of thin cabin wood. But I never woke up and walked out in our main room I didn't from then on think, can that really be in this room? Is it really this bright. It couldn't be hidden under any afghan I made. And my grand mom poured a gallon of milk on the chair one midnight as she wandered about a month new. I found orange hard to decorate around. We ended up painting what we had orange.

Now how does this possibly relate to this Williams story?
This is a story about the feeling I had then. I wanted my mom to have what she liked.
I've never seen my mom sit in a chair in her life, except that day I went into the furniture store and saw her wrap it around her injured heart trying to stop the bleeding from the years of pain, dad's rejection and the damage all of it did to her. She had this smile that day like a little lost puppy child, like she might be worth a big burnt orange chair.
She said that she had never chosen a piece of the furniture she'd lived with for 28 years.
I can't forget that.

Williams captures in this book the vulnerability and the reality of being poor.
In her beautiful, beautiful watercolors.
Of having to save pennies and change in a jar for a very long time to get your mom her chair. She does this without pity or pleas for someone to save them. No one will.
She just presents and honors the life that is led everyday by many faceless, voiceless people. Ones that are damaged by hurricanes, fires, heart breaks with nothing left to do but struggle to go on. They aren't the ones jumping around tonight on the Grammy's on high wires doing whatever that is to sing a so called tribute to the Beatles or in some black light costumes in some Pyramid rapping in some weird-o tribute to the song of this year. They are probably working the diner many blocks down. Long ago they gave us our music.

Anyway it talks about what is lost in a fire. Possessions. It talks to children that know about these things. So it does fit my Sheltered Immersion 1st grade place teaching in my neighborhood. One of my little boys crying recently all morning, all morning, inconsolable but not talking for so long until I was breaking... over the car stolen from his family over the weekend. It speaks to these kids that save and save for what they have. Or know it in their families.

One of teachers, after I read it to her class years ago told me her story. She saved and saved for new furniture buying a set for a couple thousand. This meant everything to her, her life harder by far than mine. And the company the next day went into bankruptcy so she lost her money, got nothing due to leins on the stock of the store. And she had saved years and years.
No one to shed a tear. It just is, she said to me, looking broken, looking lost a few seconds. Needing the care of someone.

Vera B. Williams writes stories that honor the beauty and fragility of human life. Our pennies collect into our jars as we reaching deep inside try to find ways to give our mommas a big chair for a little rest. Rest from their burdens. Days that bring us up on their laps for time to share our stories.

I like to read this at Mom's day and then the children enjoy conducting a Mom's Day Tea. You have the children pick and learn very well a poem. They can even write it about their mom's, grandmums, about you if you stand in as I have done for children left alone. Each child says their poetry. It can be filmed and played. It can be acted out or sung. It can be songs. Then they serve tea in pretty little cups you have been collecting all year from yard sales and junk shops in your town, (absent that bring in some china) if you yard sale they keep them to remember. In our town the stores for various charities have the things to get plus you are giving them business. After the tea and cookies then it's time to take Mom in arms for a little waltz to a nice tune. I like the Circle Game: Folk Music for Kids, by Joni Mitchell. Send everybody home with a box of tissues. It will be worth all the trouble.

Happy Birthday Mum. Your life was not an easy one. I do owe you my life.

This book is a nice translation from Shakespeare's language in Macbeth to the modern easy to read language of today. As a student myself, I recommend this book to other students studying Macbeth, if they feel they do not understand exact phrases from the play. If you are already good at 'translating' the lines from the play i do not recommend this book as strongly...... but still........ it helped me a great deal with my assignments.

I won't even attempt to critique Shakespeare's work, as some have done here. I'm not reviewing MacBeth, but this particular version of it. As a homeschooling Mom with three highschool students, the only way we could get through Shakespeare's works is by having a copy of Shakespeare Made Easy on hand. As it is, we completed 5 plays this year - all done orally, with each of us taking several parts. While I think it's important that my kids read Shakespeare in it's original format (and they did), I had the Shakespeare Made Easy translation handy so that I could give simple, concise explanations whenever they just didn't "get it". I recommend these books for that purpose - not for the watered down versions of these classics, but to make them understandable to the average student who might otherwise find Shakespeare's works boring and a waste of time (as many students do).

Very helpful, affordable, and clear. Helped in more ways than I thought.

My World Literature professor suggested the "Shakespeare Made Easy" series after I told her that I would have difficulty understanding the Bard. I not only (finally!) understood what was happening but, in the future, will buy the other books in the series to do some serious catching up on Shakespeare.

The translation was in Modern English but what will surprise the reader is that many things haven't changed from Olde English. As you're reading the Modern English version, take the few seconds to look at the corresponding Olde English (on the left) and see how much you can understand.

In any case, the price is just right for this book and you'll come away with a deeper knowledge and much appreciation for Shakespeare after you're done. - Donna Di Giacomo

This version is horrible. I was looking for one of those Shakespeare versions that footnoted the words and phrases you didn't understand, so you could piece together the meaning yourself. Instead, this version gives you very a very simplistic interpretation of the text, every step of the way. I wouldn't recommend this edition to anyone.

"A Cast of Killers" holds a number of surprises. A true murder mystery that blends silent film stars,corrupt law enforcement,and sensational journalism into a unique cocktail of intrigue and deception. For plot it ranks with the best of classic mysteries and proves the cliche that "fact is truely stranger than fiction. A must read for film and mystery fans.

This book reads like an exciting Hollywood murder mystery (which it is), but after reading Robert Giroux's version (Deed of Death), I am inclined to believe that Kirkpatrick's version (based on research by Hollywood director King Vidor) has taken a few liberties and definitely put more weight in some of the juicy (but not necessarily true) anecdotes. Still, if you want a "can't put-down" book that talks about Hollywood of the Silent Era, you won't go wrong with this one. The subplot about Mary Miles Minter and her family is a little creepy, and at the end, somewhat sad as well.

A Cast of Killers is a fascinating account of the murder of William Desmond Taylor and a sleuthing director King Vidor on the trail of who murdered him. Vidor wants to make a film about the Hollywood scandal which turned up no results and left an open case for the police. Along with Colleen Moore, lover and business partner, Vidor researches a case filled with contradictions and cover-ups.

This book's print is rather large, and it makes the 300 pages go back rapidly with aid from the intriguing story. It is also highly suspenseful and entertaining. Even if the reader has no idea who William Desmond Taylor, Mabel Normand, Mary Miles Minter, or King Vidor are, he or she will still most likely enjoy the book.

The afterward is outdated by now because the book was published in 1986. All of the Hollywood names mentioned are no longer living, and it is doubtful that any of the others are alive anymore.

Even under the assumption that the story is true, one finds it hard to believe because of the format of this book. It reads like a fiction mystery novel or an episode of the popular television show Law and Order. However, this book is hardly credible. The "facts" in it are said to be from private papers King Vidor had together that were set aside for his film project. These documents consist of transcripts illegally obtained from the police and interviews from witnesses or friends to witnesses that are not deceased. None of these documents are properly cited; there is a lack of a bibliography or an appendix. The only citation states that the information was received from Vidor's son who made his father's notes available to the author. The claims the author makes about this book being the "true story of Hollywood's most scandalous murder" seem strange considering how much effort Vidor put into attempting to prove his theory. Kirpatrick seems to have made no such effort.

Other questions come to mind when regarding the validity of this book. How did Kirpatrick come across the information that Vidor knew who killed Taylor and why were the findings so easily given to him after Vidor decided NOT to publish the information in fear of hurting people? And if the book were published because the author felt that no one alive who remembered or was attributed to the case would be negatively affected, why then did the police department not confirm the accusations in the book as being valid and close the case?

This book is controversial, even today. If it were less sloppy, it could have been a major breakthrough in the case of William Desmond Taylor. As it is, A Cast of Killers is a highly entertaining and enjoyable work of fiction. Taken literally, it is only comparable to such trash as Hollywood Babylon.

A Cast of Killers is a once-in-a-lifetime read: a nonfiction tale told in the style of the best detective fiction, based on the memoir kept by the "private eye", moviemaker King Vidor, discovered by would-be Vidor biographer Sidney Kirkpatrick. Vidor didn't make the film he wanted to, based on the facts he uncovered and the conclusions to which they led, because some of the principals in the case were still around, and could have been hurt by the revelations (they also could have sued, forcing him to prove the allegations in the now forever-unmade film in court).

But Kirkpatrick wasn't under that kind of threat in 1986, and he told the story in book form much as I think Vidor might have told it on film--except that Vidor would have set the film in the 1920s when it all took place. The book follows Vidor's own investigation, undertaken in the late 1960s, and offers the conclusion he arrived at, not as the final word forever, but as the only possible conclusion given the information he'd uncovered.

The murder of prominent film director William Desmond Taylor in 1922 nearly destroyed Hollywood--or, at least, the resulting scandal nearly did. Two prominent stars, Mary Miles Minter and Mabel Normand, did have their already star-crossed careers destroyed by the revelations that came about as a result of the murder. Vidor's investigation gives reason to doubt some of those revelations, if not all of them.

What is obvious is that a murder investigation was tampered with, and quite possibly severely, by a number of the principals in the story, with the hoped-for (by the tamperers) result that the truth was never known, the most likely suspect never brought to trial. The way this all happened, as revealed by Kirkpatrick in true detective fiction style, is fascinating reading.

Then there is the matter of the movie studios' (specifically Paramount's) desperate need to do "damage control" after Taylor's murder to keep even bigger scandals from emerging, the kind that would have condemned the movie business for sure in the moral atmosphere of the 1920s, in which such a "sin" as drinking alcohol was forbidden by law. How and by what means this "damage control" was accomplished is another fascinating aspect of the story.

There have been and will be those who carp at the conclusions King Vidor (and Kirkpatrick) have reached as to the identity of William Desmond Taylor's murderer and said murderer's motive, citing this possible discrepancy and that not-fully-proven assertion. The credo of a great detective of popular fiction asserted: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

To accomplish this, you have to be in possession of a great deal of information about the crime, and about everyone even only peripherally involved, as well as the intelligence to sort it all out. Vidor had this uniquely complete perspective, knew many of the people involved, and most importantly knew the Hollywood of the era in which it all happened.

I don't think we will ever get a better, or more surprising, or more satisfying take on one of the great unsolved crimes of the early 20th century. I'm personally sold on Vidor's conclusions. I wish he'd made it into the good film he'd have been capable of doing, though his reasons for not doing so are clear and compelling.

Most importantly for those who love detective stories, fiction or fact, this is a "fireplace and hot chocolate" kind of book, guaranteed to provide great recreation and something to think about. I loved it, I've read it through six times, I'll probably read it a few more!

While "A Cast of Killers" makes for an entertaining read, rest assured that that's all it is - entertainment. To be blunt, not only is the book full of errors, but it reads as either the hokiest mystery ever written, or at a failed attempt at irony, the irony being that it plays out like a Hollywood murder mystery.

The biggest problem with this book is that one never knows whose research the book is relying on - Vidor's or Kirkpatrick's. There are holes in this story big enough to throw a cat through - if they are holes left by Vidor, then Kirkpatrick should have filled them. If they are holes left by Kirkpatrick....ahem.

While the books does most certainly invoke the Hollywood of the 1920s, when the movies were in their infancy, it ultimately fails to either, A. shed a great deal of light on just who William Desmond Taylor was, or B. even plausibly solve the mystery of his death. I.e., most of the information about William Desmond Taylor in this book is either assumed or inferred - with little evidence to corroborate it.

SPOILER ALERT:
And as for the facts surrounding the murder that Vidor and/or Kirkpatrick present... to say that most of them conflict or simply do not compute is an understatement. For example - apparently Paramount wanted to hide the fact that Taylor was a homosexual, and sent in a team of studio employees to scour his bungalow in the hours after his death. Vidor/Kirkpatrick's evidence for this assertion is what Vidor (or was it Kirkpatrick?) apparently read through the lines of the police reports, and the insinuations of a not-so reliable associate of Taylors. Yet, after we are supposed to be convinced that Taylor was a homosexual, we are then asked to believe that Mary Miles Minter's mother killed Taylor because she thought he was going to run off with MMM. And considering that part of the evidence for this solution to the mystery is calls back and forth between WDT and MMM around the time of the murder, with WDT encouraging MMM to leave her mother and come live with him, and MMM's belief that he wanted to marry her... well, you get the picture. One doesn't know what version of WDT to believe, which ultimately hurts the book.

And, to sum it all up, in his acknowledgements, Kirkpatrick mentions Bruce Long, whose Taylorology website/newsletter provides more intelligent insight into the WDT murder than Kirkpatrick or Vidor ever imagined, calling Long a "fan" of the murder. A FAN for the love of God! Kirkpatrick would have been wise to heed this FAN'S counsel. Maybe the book would have been better.

Merlin, working through and with Arthur has managed to establish
Camelot, and end the wars for conquest of Britain. He now sits as a
counsellor for Arthur.

He is aging, and his powers leaving him, so he decides to train a
successor. Arthur's relatives in the north have different ambitions to
Arthur and Camelot.

Mary Stewart's rendition of this legend is my favorite by far. I take the time to read the set every year. Wore my old copy out. Thanks seller for the great experience.

Anybody who loves tales of Merlin and King Arthur will love this book! This is the third book in Mary Stewart's Arthurian Saga, written from the viewpoint of Merlin, it tells the tale of how Arthur came to be the legend that everyone has heard of.

Unlike many tales of Merlin it is not a fairy tale of unbelievable magic rather it is a brilliantly written story of a man who is extremely powerful, intelligent and gifted, who has a vision of a united Britain and has found the one person who can fulfill this dream, Arthur.

Based on the Legend of Arthur it is rich in detail both of character and landscape, and genuinely takes the reader back in time to the days of chivalry and Camelot!

Arthur is now firmly on the thrown, but his worries are not over. Treachery is around him and within his own family, with the plotting of his sister Morgause and the bearing of his illegitimate son Mordred, the series continues to entertain.
The Series is completed with the next novel The Wicked Day (The Arthurian Saga, Book 4)

Compared to the first two volumes of the "Merlin" trilogy, this concluding volume is a bit weak -- but it's still far ahead of most romantic historical novels. Perhaps it's because, by the nature of the narrative, Merlin must now take a back seat to the adult Arthur, the High King and a growing legend to his people. The enchanter is also growing older, the power of the gods is leaving him bit by bit, and he's relegated to undercover espionage work in the north of the country, spying on Arthur's treacherous half-sister, Morgause. Stewart does a good job of re-interpreting the legend of Merlin being shut up alive ("waiting") in his cave in the hollow hill, and, as throughout the 900 pages of the trilogy, the author displays amazing powers of description, both of the characters and of their surroundings. Give it ten years to settle into my unconscious and I shall be re-reading this marvelous epic yet again.

I wanted to read a copy of the Ramayana for a long time now, even though I was already told and was familiar with many of the stories from my parents. I am a Hindu, and was looking forward to read this.

However, I had to stop on page 16 or so. It provided descriptions of Rama being born with forty teeth, green skin, hair and eyes. It also told Bharata of being born with red skin, hair and eyes. Nowhere in the world except for this book will you find descriptions like these. If you want the true essence and factually certainty of the Ramayana, pick up another translation.

This is an incredibly poetic and beautifully told story.

It is easy to forget the story is ancient because its themes are so human - love, loyalty, greed and jealousy - and insightful.

Also, an understanding of Indian culture or religion, even limited, is not necessary to enjoy it because it is wonderfully imaginative.

My favorite character is Ravana, the best bad guy I've come across yet - a devilishly handsome ten-headed demon who strokes his black moustaches.

I like to think fiction itself sprang from stories like these.

Although the book is sufficiently detailed it is very easy to read. Humorous at times and marvelously poetic it is expertly adapted for a Western reader. The old epic of Rama's life explores one's imagination with vivid pictures af far as the reader is ready to go.

On reading this book I was disappointed. The author has changed and omitted some fundamental parts of the Ramayana. For example, in the original text when Rama saves Sita from Ravana, Rama initially rejects her because he questions her fidelity, although this was all part of a divine scheme to ultimately show her greatness - but these important events are recounted rather differently in this book. Buck has not really understood Rama, in my opinion, and he certainly does not show him to be an incarnation of the Supreme Godhead, one of the main aims of the original text. He thus fails to convey the book's spiritual import and message. He also omits many other details which tends to make the narrative hard to follow. He seems to have gone more for poetic effect than clarity in many places. The language is simple and it reads more like a fairy tale than a great epic. Good for beginners, otherwise only average. Find another edition if you want the complete story presented in the mood of the original.

I was enthralled with this story years ago and continue to be. This condensed translation I think is excellent because it allows those who don't want to read an exhaustively long original version to experience this masterpiece of mythology. As an influencial piece in Hindu culture, understanding this writing is crucial for understanding human nature.
But I am appalled by the writer from October 2003 who ignorantly trashes the Ramayana and in doing so the whole Hindu culture. Sure there are parts of the Hindu culture that are hard to understand--but must I point out the Christianity is not the easiest to understand? A culture that promotes peace and loving thy brother only if they are Christian--if not kill them--is not one I find any easier to understand than culture that promotes turning away from a raped woman.
Oh, and let's not forget the Crusades. Christianity is chock-full of war, rape, and killing--it is called the Old Testament.
Importantly, if some readers are constantly turning their mind to their own lives while reading a delicious piece of historical art such as the Ramayana, maybe they should open their minds, realize that these were tales told to teach and build morals (like don't rape women or bad things will happen), and try to learn from other cultures--not to criticize everything your close mind cannot comprehend.
So, pick up a copy of this classic for a cultural experience that you'll be thinking about long after you have finished it.

For better or worse, Richard III's enduring image of the cunning, hunchbacked usurper, more monster than man, is immortalized in Will's tragic history of his bloody rise and fall. This version contains good notes, a superb intro, and even illustrations to liven the text!

King Richard III is my favourite historical play, but it ranks up there with my all-time favourites of Shakespeare. I read this play for the first time quite a while after I had read some of his better-known comedies and tragedies, but I absolutely love it. I have seen it performed outside under the stars and the theatre was an outdoor park filled with ruins. The play was held in different places throughout the park. It was absolutely breathtaking and something that I will never forget. Richard III is one of the most fascinating villains of history and in literature. Shakespeare's genius portrays Richard III in a way that shows the playgoers his physical deformity, but we also see that he possesses great charm and wit. He is the ultimate manipulator and is totally ruthless in the pursuit of his goals. Shakespeare's has written this play through the mind and actions of his hero, Richard III, so the audience is aware at all times what he is doing and trying to achieve. We see all his deviousness and manipulation. A truly wonderful play about a very memorable man.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

This historical drama, not exactly accurate for all I know (but who cares, it's Billy) depicts one of the best bad guys in all literature, to the point of caricature (and this rhymes!). Richard III is the impersonation of ugliness and pure evil: he is a man both morally and physically malformed, who gives everything for the sake of a vain and insignificant moment of power. He is pure rancour enveloped in hypocrisy and treason. He kills his relatives, including his two child nephews, then he marries his rival's widow, and finally he gets what he deserves screaming: "A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

"Richard III" is a wonderful satire; as always with WS, the dialogues are perfect and the action supreme. It is not intended to be real history, but a satire of ambition run amok, of the lonely obsession for power and of the depths of evil which humans can reach. It has humorous moments and it was, in its times, good politics, since Richard belonged to the predecessors in power of Queen Elizabeth's family . Another masterpiece by the Bard.

Having never read Richard III, I knew that I would be in for a treat, but nothing quite THIS good. Originally labeled as The Tragedy of Richard III by Shakespeare, one can see, upon reading this enthralling play, why this history/tragedy firmly entrenched itself as one of The Bard's most prolifically performed plays with almost unrivaled longevity due to its immense popularity among the genteel and yeomen alike.

Although the much-maligned humpback King Richard was by no means a saint by any stretch, he was not, however, as wretchedly insidious as Shakespeare might have us believe. In an effort to pander to Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare cast perhaps an overly morose shadow over the House of York. The play itself, interestingly enough, focuses not so much on the bloody ending of The War of Roses and the ascension to the throne of Henry VII(the grandfather of Elizabeth) as it does on the uncannily cunning connivances of Richard III. Richard's dastardly deeds, the sordid means to his end of usurping the crown, know no limits as he murders any and all who dare get in his way - and even those that don't(I suppose they're guilty by association).

Inextricably, although I by no means empathize with him even remotely, Richard somehow, despite his inordinately decadent reprobate ploys, coupled with his twisted soliloquies pleading to the audience his hopeless case, make him one entirely enigmatic, yet entirely captivating, antagonist that makes this play enticingly enjoyable -- in a most devilish kind of way.

"O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"