William King Books

You can pick up this book and start reading at the beginning, middle or end. Whether you read it for five minutes or five hours it's enjoyable and provides valuable insights.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, has many authors. They range from the famous to the infamous. From high-profile attorneys to everyday hoodlums. Together, they provide a fascinating compendium of what is required to prove a defendant guilty before a jury. A brief biography of each author is presented along with their opinion. Some positions reflect on years of careful thought and introspection. Other opinions are shot from the hip.

The book deals with the criminal and the civil justice systems. A good case is made that the civil system is arbitrary because right and wrong have lost their meaning. Examples are provided for medical malpractice, business ethics and contracts. The state of the criminal justice system is more ambiguous. Strong arguments are made for both the equity and inequity of criminal justice.

All of the information provided is valuable to anyone who may be called to jury duty. Selected information can be used to bolster just about any bias one may have regarding our justice system. The range of authors and the fact that they are kept to just a few hundred words, make for entertaining reading.

Excellent, interesting and informative reading. Most of these essays/chapters are very thought provoking.

This book deals with a number of topics and has 85 contributors. An important topic is jury nullification. This is the case where a jury decides, quite legally, to let a guilty person go free. A jury can also intentionally convict an innocent person, but that can often be appealed. I'm against jury nullification. Many years ago, some students were unhappy about the fact that secret (and highly inaccurate) files were being kept on them by their university. They protested, but they could get nowhere because the existence of these files was denied! Finally, some of them broke into a dean's office, restrained the dean (that's a crime; it's called "kidnapping"), opened his file cabinet, and removed the secret files (that's also a crime).

Although the criminals accomplished something positive by their crimes, I felt the criminals needed to be punished in accordance with the law. They weren't, and as a result, numerous destructive "copycat" crimes followed which did no one any good.

Of course, in this country, jury nullification has an even more annoying aspect. In the case that I cited, the issue of "reasonable doubt" did not come up. But sometimes it does, such as in the OJ Simpson case. Here, "reasonable doubt" was used as an excuse for jury nullification. That makes me wonder about the entire idea of using juries as determiners of fact. I think if we want to allow a jury to let a guilty person go free, we should first make sure the accused is actually guilty! And that means letting some folks other than the nullifiers determine the facts.

In this book, Philip Howard points out that the role of a jury is to inform the Court of the facts. Of course, he's right. And he is discussing the contrast with the role of the judge, which is to answer questions of law. But my point is that we won't have a justice system at all unless questions of fact are resolved, and that jury nullification forces us to skip this step. I was hoping to see more comments on this point in the book.

Howard did at least make the point that we need to stop juries from making whimsical decisions on matters of law as well.

The first section of the book deals with the concept of "reasonable doubt" specifically. Next is a section on "equal justice." And after that, there's a section called "quest for truth." There's plenty of interesting material here. But I wanted to see far more on ideas to get truth to play a much bigger role in our legal system. After all, without truth, there can't be justice! Some of the contributors did not mind the fact that OJ Simpson got away with murder, reasoning that a system that would convict him would also convict some innocent people. I think those contributors are totally wrong. OJ Simpson went free because the system was no good; I think such a bad system will generally convict more, not fewer, innocent people.

There is also a section on the media and the justice system. And there's a section on protecting victims. Following that is a section called "punishment in America."

The penultimate section deals with some rather serious crimes, such as the Armenian genocide and Serbian crimes against Bosnia. Again, I want to see more emphasis on truth here. For example, although I see a need for justice in such crimes, I am strongly against any international criminal tribunals. I believe such tribunals tend to degenerate into kangaroo courts that ignore the guilty while trying and punishing the innocent. If there were more value placed on truth, along with some checks and balances to prevent such perversions of justice, I would be less leery of such courts.

I enjoyed this book even though I strongly disagreed with a great deal of what the contributors had to say. It addresses a wide range of important issues. But it should have given more advice on how to make truth a more important aspect of legal decisions, and I'm deducting a star for that.

Its a great overview, but definitely not detailed enough for the SHELF exam. Read it before you actually begin studying.

I am a 3rd year med student on rotations. This book was extremely helpful during my family med rotation! I will also use it to study for my 2nd series of board exams! Quick, concise, easy read, good reference material!

This book rocks! It covers the most common ailments seen in family medicine and concisely describes the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, differential diagnoses, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment for each one. Studying from this book helps you put everything together before the family medicine shelf exam by giving you all the essential information with 50 sample questions at the end. It's an excellent review and a great reference to have for the clinical years.

Trowbridge's Kong poems are great examples of the relevancy and potential of contemporary poetry. Although Kong's power as a cultural icon is basically antique, Trowbridge creates a fresh and complex personality who tells the story of his Hollywood lifestyle in the form of poetry vignettes. The book almost reads like a comedic novel.

There are many hilarious moments in the collection, including Kongs power lunch with Godzilla and his try-out for the Chicago Bears. But the book is more than a few good laughs. Each poem reveals more of the persona Trowbridge has created within his simple, effective verse. It's like a clebrity bio without all the whining and impossibility of authenticity. Kong represents the American idea machine at its biggest, and Trowbridge knows just how to manipulate the figure to teach and entertain.

Also available in a hardcover edition, The Complete Book Of Kong by William Trowbridge is a unique and highly recommended collection of poetry celebrating that famous giant ape of the silver screen, King Kong. Trowbridge presents a varied and lyrical depiction of this fearsome beast and the forces he symbolizes, in a reader engaging and refreshingly adventurous series of imaginative verse. Kong's Crush On Madonna: It was that steel/brassiere, leveled/at my heart. Cupid's/twin warheads,/heat seeking,/armor piercing.//Her eyes locked on./She counted down./I had ignition,/lift off.

The life and fate of the Eighth Wonder of the World is the playful and poignant subject of Trowbridge's latest collection. Each of the poems is written from the point of view of Kong (the gritty 1933 version, not the fluffy, disco Kong of 1976). Kong takes mambo lessons, tries video dating, meets Godzilla in the commisary (''I felt this could be/ a big step for me, though at first/ he just sat there drumming his talons,/ nursing a vat of Courvoisier''), all attempts to get his life in order after Fay. (Sadly, no mention is made of MechaniKong.) The jokes are there (many riffing on Kong's size and strength), but Trowbridge takes the conceit to surprisingly serious and sad places. When Kong competes on Let's Makes a Deal, Trowbridge writes, ''the great door opened/ to reveal a big TV with a La-Z-Boy recliner/ and a woman dressed, I think, for mating./ Cheers swarmed like biplanes. 'Am I human now?'/ I asked, feeling bare, and somewhat smaller.'' Altogether, Trowbridge puts the big oaf of an ape in perspective and paints a picture of a melancholy titan just as vulnerable as the rest of us.

Masterful, excellent history and analysis of republican (with a small r!) government. Makes clear exactly why "democratic" gov't and "republican" gov't are not the same, a point even scholars are missing. Opens my eyes and mind to what this country is about and exactly what we have been, are, and should be fighting to maintain. Makes me realize that the biggest danger of our modern "pop" culture is precisely its profound ignorance of this point. Highly recommended for all who are now confused about the meaning and worth of America. Read it, wake up, and start reading more about republican government, and maybe even get involved. Otherwise, we'll soon be in deep trouble as a culture, as far as I can see.

After reading this book, you will have an entirely new appreciation for the republican system. Note that "republican" does not refer to the political party.

Everdell explains why a republic is the most just and fit governmental system for humanity. He also relates the traits of republicanism and signs of its demise. It's definitely worthwhile reading, but be aware that the language is very dense. You really need to be interested in the topic to get through it.

Without "The End of Kings," which I read around 1990, I would have been lost in my understanding of the single most important concept in American politics. Mr. Everdell tells us, in clear understandable language, with many examples from history, what is it precisely that makes a republic a republic. It is not "representative government," as Madison--in an unfortunate lapse which has distorted all discussions about this topic ever since--once wrote. As Mr. Everdell points out, the model of all republics, the Roman republic, did not have representative institutions; all the citizens were members of the People's Assembly (though only a small fraction showed up at any one time).

The way to understand a republic is, first, that it is not a monarchy. Monarchy means rule by one. Therefore republic means rule by more than one. It means that sovereign power instead of being vested in one center of power--a king, a caudillo, a Jacobin-style National Assembly--is distributed among several centers of power, each of which limits the others. Thus the Roman republic had the Senate in which sat the leading men of the state, and the People's Assembly, in which all citizens were members, and which limited the power of the Senate, and a Tribune elected by the People's Assembly whose person was inviolable, and a host of other bodies and offices. In the United States, the greatest modern republic, or, rather, federal republic, we have the three branches of government exercising different powers and balancing each other, as well as the separation of powers between the federal government and the state governments. Of course over the last century much of our republican character has been lost as power has become more and more consolidated and all three branches of the federal government increasingly operate outside their constitutional limits. The End of Kings gives us the best insight into what we were and what we are supposed to be, and what we have lost.

In any case, it is republican government--separation of powers with checks and balances preventing power from being concentrated in any one body or person--that is the key to liberty. Democracy, as Mr. Everdell's discussion illuminates, is not the key to liberty and in fact can destroy liberty. All that democracy means is that the people rule. The concept of democracy does not contain within itself any notion of separation of powers and limitation of powers. You could have a one-body legislature, elected by a majority of the people, exercising dictatorial power over a minority, and that would be a democracy. In a Shi'ite majority country such as Iraq, you could have a democratically elected government enforcing the totalitarian sharia law. So our cult of democracy, which now controls American political discourse, is a terrible and tragic mistake. Our ideal should not be democracy but republicanism, or, if you like, democratic republicanism. Democratic elections are an important part of republican government, as it means that the ultimate source of sovereignty is the people and that the people are the ultimate check on the usurpations of the government. But in the correct view of things, democracy would be seen as one aspect of our form of government--"a democratic republic"--rather than the essence of our form of government--"a democracy." In other words, we ought to use democracy as an adjective rather than as a noun.

While Madison's incorrect definition of a republic as representative government has played a key role in our faulty understanding of republicanism, it should be noted that Madison also used republic in the correct sense. In Federalist No. 51 he wrote: "In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments." Yet Madison's incorrect definition of republic as government by representatives, rather than his correct definition of republic as separation of powers, has won the day. This is probably because of the pro-democratic bias in America that seeks to reduce all political questions to questions of "democracy." That tendency reached its delusory high point in President Bush's notion that we could create a "democracy" in the Islamic, tribally divided country of Iraq, simply by holding an election and writing a constitution.

The End of Kings leads us out of the morass of mental confusion created by our uncritical use of the word "democracy." It ought to be required reading for every American.

The three books that cover the life Henry VI are each masterpieces in their own right. They are each important parts of the multi-facted life of Henry VI. Wonderful history lesson.

This is not quite as good as 1 or 2, but it is still excellent! Shakespeare grabs us with the dispute between Henry VI and York. While it seems to end peacefully it does not, and the war goes on! York's death in 1.4 is another landmark in Shakespeare's writing. The scene (2.5) where Henry finds true terror is horror, sorrow, and yet beauty and yet another moving part of the play. (The son that hath killed his father and the father that hath killed his son.) The war pauses in disaster for Henry and some comic relief is offered. But the horror starts all over again when Edward IV and Warwick have a falling out. The war starts over again, and the King of France gets involved! The scene where King Henry VI is reinstated is a scene of beauty and hope. While all of this is happening, Shakespeare carefully prepares the monstrously satanic character of Richard III. From here, the play just gets more and more bloody. A final moment of horror is offered when the eventual Richard III proudly compares himself to the one who betrayed Christ. In part 4 "Richard III," the real terror begins!

This was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays. (possibly his third) Yet, there is nothing to indicate he was only starting out. Right away he grabs our attention with the funeral of King Henry V. Henry V's brothers Bedford and Gloucester help us to see the virtues and strengths of the deceased king. The Bishop of Winchester is well drawn as a comical villain who plots and plans, but never succeeds in doing any real damage. (Not until the next play anyway.) Talbot is memorable as the selfless hero of the play. York is memorable as the hero who defeats Joan of Arc. King Henry VI himself is interesting. First we see him as a helpless infant. By the third act, we see that he has both strengths and weaknesses. He makes the mistake of dividing the command between the rivals Somerset and York. But also, we see that he does not tolerate treason or neglect of duty. There are also many memorable scenes. The garden scene that foreshadows the War of the Roses is well drawn. The scene where York comforts his dying uncle is tragic beauty. Bedford's death in 3.2 has almost a divine tone. The death of Talbot and his son is very lamentable. York's sudden rise to power is captivating. Perhaps Shakespeare's greatest achievement in this play is that he simultaneously shows us England's war with France and the dissension with England itself.

Christopher Clark's remarkably concise biography of Wilhelm II, one of the more controversial figures of German history, very ably presents the last Kaiser in the context of his times and his political position. It is a well written work of political science and history, with incisive analysis of how the Kaiser operated within the constraints of the powers he enjoyed as emperor.

Since this is a volume in a series entitled "Profiles in Power," it is perhaps not surprising that its focus is primarily the 30 years in which Wilhelm reigned: 1888-1918. Because of this, as a biography, the book is somewhat less satisfying, in that it gives relatively limited attention to the first 29 years of his life and to the last 23 years of his life (a chapter each for these two periods as compared to 6 chapters for the period of his reign and a summary chapter). The book presents a relatively limited portrait of Wilhelm as an individual, except insofar as his personal strengths and weaknesses affected his role as monarch. Because his personality affected his rule so greatly, this seems a greater deficit here than in other political biographies.

Nonetheless, the book presents a great deal of information in a relatively short scope-261 pages, including footnotes. Among the topics the book explores: Wilhelm's difficult relations with his father and his closer relationship to his grandfather, Wilhelm I; the challenges posed by his dual role as German Kaiser and King of Prussia; his difficult position between the Reichstag and Cabinet, on one hand, and the German military, on the other; the divide between the early years of his reign, when he chose to intervene more often in politics and governance of Germany, and the latter years, when a combination of World War I and his seeming reduced interest seemed to lessen his interventions; his role as Commander in Chief of the German army; and, of course, the question of his culpability for the First World War, which Clark handles especially well. He also addresses the issue of whether Wilhelm's reign was, as many historians claim, largely a personalized exercise of power. Many of these topics are presented with alternate interpretations by other historians, and the author's synthesis or conclusions. This is certainly one of the most balanced portrayals of Wilhelm I have read.

This biography is bound to appeal to aficionados of German and modern European history as well as those interested in the causes of World War I. It both was quite informative and held my interest throughout.

I just finished this book, and found it very interesting and useful. It is not intended as a "life" of the Kaiser, but only as an analysis of his rule. I was looking for this kind of focus, so was happy with the book. The author's main thesis is that under the German constitution in effect at the time, the Kaiser had little actual power. While able to influence events, he could not control them. Only in the German shipbuilding plan did the Kaiser play a leading role. The author feels that Wilhelm sincerely wanted to avoid war in 1914. Actually, most of the book is not about the war years, giving the reader a more balanced overview of the reign. It is suggested that Wilhelm was one of the first "media" personalities, partly because of his penchant of making off-the-cuff remarks that continually got him bad publicity. The author discusses these various remarks based on the context in which they were made and the audience they were intended for, in a partially sucessful attempt to show they were not so outrageous as usually presented. While the book is not a whitewash of the Kaiser, the author does try to show he was not the arch-fiend of Allied propaganda. Since this is my personal view, I was in sympathy with the author's approach.

Cambridge historian Christopher Clarkýs 2000 study of the Kaiser is, despite its brevity, a concise and balanced account of Wilhelmýs life into which he incorporates much recent historiography of Wilhelmine Germany. Clark paints a picture of an emperor whose power and influence gradually weakened over time. By the late 1890s, he argues, Wilhelm had ýemerged as a significant factor in high politics, launching ambitious (if often doomed) legislative schemes, intriguing with individual ministers, and gradually hollowing out the authority of the chancellor.ý (117) In the realm of foreign policy, however, Clark argues that Wilhelm became increasingly ýmarginalýto the real centers of policy making,ý particularly after several notable blunders including the Zabern incident and the Daily Telegraph affair, both of which witnessed his impetuous and ýundiplomaticý style, to the horror of professional diplomats.
With regard to the outbreak of war in 1914, however, Clark argues that while Helmuth von Moltke, chief of the German General Staff, ýpressed his sovereignýat crucial momentsý in the months leading to war, at no point did the monarch ýsurrender the power of decision to the military.ý (215) Far from being a warmonger, Clark asserts, Wilhelm was ýreluctant to entangle Germany in a continental war,ý (214) and maintained ýhis own outlook on policy [that] differed in crucial ways from that of the military leadership.ý (216) He never supported the ýpreventive warý strategy espoused by top army officials, nor did he regard mobilization as irreversible. Clark points to Wilhelmýs attempts to mediate between Serbia and Austria-Hungary as evidence of his ýreluctance to allow Germany to be sucked into a Balkan engagementý in 1914. (218) This initiative was ýoverridden by the chancellor,ý Clark notes, which provides further proof of the Kaiserýs declining stature in affairs of the stateýaffairs he could ýinfluenceýbut did not control.ý (218)
What of Wilhelmýs involvement in the prosecution of and involvement in the Great War? Clark concludes that the Kaiserýs ýcapacity to exercise a command function was narrowly circumscribed,ý which considerably diluted his influence among Germanyýs military leaders. Furthermore, he ýlacked an overview of strategic planningý leading up to and including the early stages of the war because, Clark maintains, the general staff regarded him as a security risk and refused to take him in to their confidence. As a result, he was displaced from the center of military affairs, shielded from much bad news from the front, and ýwas excluded from the sphere of operational command of the land forcesýthough he did exercise a more directýinfluence on the wartime operations of the German navy.ý (227) Clark warns that one should not push the argument that the Kaiser was marginal too far. ýBy virtue of his position,ý he writes, Wilhelm was a ýfigure of crucial importance,ý namely for his authority to ýappoint and dismiss ýhisý officers and officials.ý (228) He concludes that although he was not vital militarily to the day to day running of the war, the emperor was a central figure in the ýprocesses by which some of the most central policy issues of the war years were resolved.ý (244)

This is a great, short study for the student and buff.

Reading Shakespeare in class is drearily routine. The teacher picks on some students, they monotone through it, class is over, the students retain nothing and go read Sparknotes. Or she would rent a made-for-cable version for the class to fall asleep while appearing to watch.

Reading King Lear by yourself is hardly any easier, as almost every character is named for some English province and the sisters have male names (Regan is an American President and Goneril sounds like a Mesopotamian demon-god, so only Cordelia is recognizably female.)

Enter Pollock. His scratchy cartooons of almost Peanuts-ian simplisity succeed in getting across the basic picture: We have Fat Balding King Guy (Lear) Tall King Guy (Albany) and his Short Queen (Goneril), Short King Guy (Cornwall) and his Tall Queen (Regan), some guy in an unmistakable Clown Costume (Fool) and finally our Vampire-esque Villan (Edmund). The sisters have big lips and even bigger hair, making up for the masculine names. At times, it just looks like talking heads spouting jibberish at each other, but every production of Shakespeare is guilty of this to some extent. Besides, most students read Lear for the plot, and the handy preface explains most of that motif/characterization/deeper meaning stuff they need for the essay. Plus, which would you rather sit down with, a comic book or a study guide?

In translating Shakespeare to comic book form Ian Pollock must interpet stage direction and consider character development as a director might. To read Shakespeare is to miss both the aural experience and the visual, and necessaraly each players interpretation of his/her role. This comic book format helps replace some of that which is lost. Pollock's interpretation is excellent, and his illustrative style captures the ugliness of Lear very well. One does long for beauty in his illustrations from time to time, but on the whole his interpretation works. What is most facinating perhaps is pollock's appeal to children. The visual ellement helps illucidate the text and make difficult scenes intelligable to children. Middle School aged children will have little difficulty understanding and being facinated by this rich and wonderful play

I am a theatre arts instructor and I feel that this book is an excellent introduction to Shakespeare's plays. I feel, as do many other people in my field, that the plays of William Shakespeare are meant to be seen as opposed to read. The comic book format gives you the best of both worlds. I have given this book to students who claim not to be able to understand Shakespeare and they literally tear through this book. Very high marks as far as this Professor is concerned!!!

This very readable novel offers an inventive answer to the old mystery of Who Killed William II? None of the previous works of historical fiction I have encounted dealt with this particular time in English history, namely the reign of William Rufus, homosexual son of William the Conqueror, who assumed the crown on his father's death. The author has deftly interwoven story lines of numerous persons, fictional and historical, who had motive to do in Rufus. Her solution to this historical whodunit is quite original as well as feasible. Anand's investigation of the ancient pagan rites of Beltane and the "King of the Wood" is fascinating and meshes seamlessly with the factual part of her narrative. Rich in historical and cultural detail, this is a quick read which gets better and better as the tale unfolds. The multitude of personalities in play is initially a bit confusing, but who's who becomes clearer as the story progresses. Well written, original and fast-paced, this is a great choice for lovers of historical fiction.

Ralph de Aix is a younger son who strikes out from Normandy to England with hopes of better advancement in his talents as a huntsman and horseman. Eventually Ralph attracts the attention of William Rufus, King of England, and Ralph is willing to use that attraction to advance his prospects as a courtier. I do give the author credit for tactfully handling Rufus' unusual "activities" in the bedroom, and Ralph's mixed feelings about his relationship with Rufus and his relief when he is freed from it and able to return to more normal relationships with women.

Eventually William gives Ralph some land at Chenna's Tun in the New Forest, and he brings his young bride Sybil to live with him there. Ralph is quickly drawn in to his Saxon tenant's ancient worship in the forest, and William's ambitious younger brother uses his knowledge of Ralph's activities to force him into committing a heinous deed.

This is top rate, well written historical fiction. The author does take her time in building her characters, and things really didn't start cooking until about page 300 or so as Ralph realizes that Herne, the ancient God of the Wood has chosen the ultimate sacrifice to The King of The Wood. Some readers who need action packed excitement on every page might find some of this book a bit dull, but I loved every minute of it, especially involving "The King of the Wood" in the still mysterious death of William Rufus. Five stars.

This is the tale of Ralph de Aix of Normandy and of William Rufus-King of England. Ralph is a huntsman who desires knighthood and eventually lands of his own. He finds he cannot achieve his goal anytime soon in Normandy with his present lord and decides to look elsewhere for advancement. Advancement comes in the shape and guise of William Rufus, son of William the Bastard of Normandy. Ralph really cares about Rufus, on a genuine level of friendship, but is willing to do what it takes to succeed at court. Rufus, not known for normal "appetites" is attracted to Ralph and their strange relationship begins. Ralph endures Rufus in the hope of being granted lands after knighthood.

A run down Chenna's Tun is his "reward" for "services rendered." However, he tries to make a go of it and with current knowledge of the god Herne, becomes involved in the Saxon cult where he becomes a "lord" in his own right. There is much action and mystery involved in his life but not much money. He wants a wife and in time finds one who is, in the beginning, reluctant to leave her childhood home. As time goes on, things do not improve. Weather and health disasters are a never ending concern and many people hunt the "royal deer" in order not to starve. This brings about the most important role Ralph will ever play in his life, starring Rufus and Rufus' younger brother Count Henry, soon to become King Henry I of England.

Medieval life is brought realistically back to life as is a lessor known religious cult. Anand's style of writing keeps the reader emeshed in a life of intrigue, mystery, danger, and scandal, in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Many of her novels are out-of-print but are well worth the search! They transport the reader back into time.

Students of Dr. Moore have eagerly awaited this part of his continuing series that explores the mapping of the human personality. The complete series with even my partial understanding of theory has illuminated my reading of classical text, theology and brought an understanding of modern events. Dr. Moore's work is not for the casual psycho pop fan and critical to the serious student of personality and faith.

When this book was first published in 1992, I admired it, and I also admired the four other books by Moore and Gillette that came out about the same time. If you have not already read it, it is worth the time to read, as are the other four books by the co-authors.

However, I am disappointed by the 2007 edition. To be sure, it includes many more graphics. But so what? In my estimate, this book would be improved by the deletion of all the graphics. What the book needs are detailed discussions of a few concrete examples. The authors might even start such a discussion of concrete examples by discussing themselves to a certain extent.

The authors profess to admire Erik Erikson's work. Fine. Erikson wrote a short book entitled _Young Man Luther_ and then a longer book entitled _Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence_. By studying two historical personages in detail, Erikson enabled us to see how his ideas about personal development could be used to help us understand two historical figures.

Now, could the ideas developed by Moore and Gillette help us understand certain historical figures? Perhaps they could. But Moore and Gillette have not undertaken to study any historical figures in depth. As a result of the lack of detailed discussions of actual historical figures, their ideas seem rather abstract and visionary and utopian. If convincing examples of the positive versions of the masculine archetypes of maturity can be found no place in this world, then the visions of the positive forms are utopian (Greek u = no, topos = place).

The authors dedicate this particular book to King David. However, when David's son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar, King David does not punish Amnon, even though David's job as king involves upholding the law and punishing offenders. To his credit, David was angry about what Amnon did. But his anger did not move him to take any action against Amnon. This example and other examples from the biblical account of King David suggest that he embodies the "shadow" form of the King archetype that Moore and Gillette refer to as the Weakling King, not the positive form. So why dedicate the book to a "shadow" form of the King archetype?

In the United States, the president comes close to being an elected king for four years or whatever the length of his or her term in office. I've read enough now about John F. Kennedy to think that he came close to embodying the positive form of the king archetype of maturity, despite his illicit sexual escapades (which manifested the "shadow" form of the lover archetype discussed by Moore and Gillette). David Talbot's book _Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years_ (2007) brings home certain qualities of JFK that I find deeply admirably.

On a more personal level, I recently reread the newspaper story that my mother clipped and saved about her uncle that was published at the time of his death in 1970. He was born on July 4, 1885, and he became a millionaire in the construction business during the Great Depression. Even though the newspaper story described his business sucess, the story detailed his generosity to charities and an honor he had received from the Vatican. He was very kind to me with his time and attention when I was a young boy growing up, and I would consider him an example of masculine maturity.

Because there are numerous other examples of masculine maturity in the history of this country, I would urge Moore and Gillette to found the American Hall of Fame of Mature Men who deserve to be remembered and honored.

--Thomas J. Farrell, author of Walter Ong's Contributions to Cultural Studies: The Phenomenology of the Word and I-Thou Communication (Media Ecology)

Robert Moore and Doug Gillette published 5 books (that I know of) on their theory of 4 male archetypes. The first is an overview entitled: "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover." They followed up this fine introductory work with a book on each of the 4 archetypes. This one is, of course, on the King Archetype. Each of the 4 books has a completely redundant section (worth reading once, anyway), but also has much material on the particular, titled, archetype. The names of the archetypes are defined a bit differently than society might define them--moving the descriptions into the worlds of psychology and mythology which the two authors are well-versed in. If you read one, you "should" (I dislike that word, but what can you do?) read all of them. Otherwise, you get a skewed view of the archetypes, the authors' works, and the theory they propose. I like "The King Within" very much. It provides not only description of the archetype but some ramifications and ideas as to how to implement or invoke it. I found the book uplifting and see the glass as half full. The authors provided the rationale and some means of implementation of the Mens' Movement. Not only are these books valuable to men, but they are, perhaps, even more valuable to women who wish to interact and support men. They are a wonderful addition to the literature and to humans understanding themselves and each other.

I must admit that I am drawn to musty, old books like a moth to a flame. I hapharzardly ran across a 1929 hardcover edition of Seabrook's "Magic Island" and was immediately struck by the dark and brooding illustrations as well as the marvelous old black & white photos within its yellowed leaves. A brief thumbing through the chapter listings announced its topic to me: voodoo and black magic in Haiti.

Seabrook was a well-travelled journalist and author of numerous newspaper articles, short stories, and books. "Magic Island" finds him living in turn of the century Haiti and takes you deep into his search for information about voodoo and black magic as practiced among the locals. You are not only stepping back into early 1900's society and ways, but into the unspoken underbelly of Haiti that few "white" men were ever allowed to see.

This book is simply fascinating from front to back, but best to take into consideration the time period this was written and do not expect a rip-roaring-Indiana-Jones-style adventure that Hollywood has seemed to fill the current public's minds with. The book is indeed slow, as much of Seabrook's writing is of his conversations and meetings that ultimately lead him to the secret society and its practices. Have patience, though, and you will arrive to the "juicy" center and the voodoo rites Seabrook was allowed to witness and sometimes even participate in as an initiate.

I would suggest getting an early edition of this wonderful book as I did. By literally holding in your hands something that is as old as the story itself, it seems to somehow bring you a sense of proper time displacement and aids with the immersion into Seabrook's journey.

I look forward to reading other books by Seabrook as his life was as fascinating as it was sordid: author, world traveller, acquaintence of Aleister Crowley, chronic alcoholic, cannibalist, sexual sadist & masochist, and finally an institutionalized patient of the Rockland State Hospital up until his untimely suicide by an overdose of sleeping pills.

Perhaps his quests into the "other" side of human nature were merely a preamble to the bigger question of his ownself and his many demons that followed him. Regardless, you'll have fun going along for the ride.

Interesting country. Seabrook gives some background to the original American invasion and considers the effects of the continued American presence. It's divided into 4 sections: The Voodoo Rites, Black Sorcery, The Tragic Comedy and Trails Winding. There are several pages of fascinating photographs. Seabrook gets to the truth of the zombie myth by including Article 249 of the Haiti Criminal Code, which refers to substances producing a prolonged lethargic coma. His autobiography, No Hiding Place, is equally enthralling.

If you know Seabrook, and if you're halfway interested in magic, you should, you know how really well he writes. Most people are going to be interested primarily in the first section, which deals with "voodoo." He was much more open than most people of his era, and took as fair an approach to "voodoo" as was possible for a white man. If it doesn't look much like modern descriptions, that's because the religion is evolving.

Of real interest was his observation of the administration of Haiti. I was fascinated.

If they ever, ever reissue his "Witchcraft," snatch it up. I have an old copy, and it's wonderful.