William King Books

What he found is chilling and disturbing, and should make us wonder what happened to our "democracy": The government of the United States, among others, was deeply involved in the killing. And in a testament to Dr. Pepper's tenacity and skill as an investigative journalist, many of those responsible for King's political murder have actually admitted their complicity in the book (These facts do not 'give away' the plot, since this information is contained on the outside back of the book and because it takes a book of over 500 pages like this one to fully explain the enormity of the event it describes).

In fact, one of the men implicated in the assassination, witnessed the shooting himself and names the individual who actually fired the bullet that killed Dr. King (Hint: it is not James Earl Ray). Of course, this individual named names only after being assured by Dr. Pepper that he would be immune from prosecution for his role in the killing.

Dr. Pepper, through sheer persistence, an iron will, and a burning desire for the truth, has written a book that will grab the reader from page one, and not let go until the bitter (very) end.

The tale it so skillfully tells is a tragic one and is of epic proportions. But it is a tale that must be told, for if truth is to prevail in this world, as I believe it must, then books like this one must be written. I cannot recommend a book more highly than I recommend this one. Read it and prepare to be disgusted, frightened, saddened, and in the end, amazed and hopefully glad that the truth has finally prevailed.

The fact that the government has not allowed an independent lab to test the rifle supposedly used by Ray, or that Ray was never granted a "fair trial" are viable questions that are raised. "Orders to Kill" offers an insight not found in other books in this category. If you want to believe that only "one gunman" killed JFK, then "Case Closed" is the perfect read. "Pepper offers a rare glimpse of reality, not often seen in these times of governmental deception!"

Briefly put, the story this time out seems very drawn out and not that interesting. Unlike the previous books in the series which I could not keep myself from reading page after page, at some points in this book I found it an effort to keep going.

Over half the book seems devoted to an overly lengthy account of the pursuit of the villain. Also, I am not sure exactly what the problem is, but King does not seem that comfortable writing the character of the Vampire, and the genres of Horror and Fantasy do not achieve a very satisfying blend in this book. The overall result ends up coming off as rather bland.

Gotrek doesn't get much action in this one, and there seems to be too much weight given to introspection, as the narrative moves from one character's inner thoughts to the next to the next without sufficient events or action in between to add a bit of colour and interest.

As a huge fan myself, I can only recommend this one to the really die-hard fans of this series who just can't get enough of Gotrek & Felix.

Williams combines an ultimately serious theme with high poetry, good plot and characters, and his highly individual treatment of the supernatural and mysticism for a very satisfying read (and re-read).

Contrary to popular belief, I'm fast coming round to the idea that Williams was a *philosophical* writer rather than a *religious* writer. And not only because he himself described his seven novels as "metaphysical thrillers".

Unlike "Descent into Hell" - which is quite frankly an overwrought gothic monstrosity - "Many Dimensions" is a 'typical' Williams story, with standard English prose (standard for the 1930s, that is), a straightforward plotline and plenty of pace. In fact you could put "Many Dimensions" up against later fiction of a similar tone - like Dennis Wheatley, for example (not very well-known now, but immensely popular in the 50s and 60s) - and be hard put to pick a winner.

So where does the philosophy come in?
Primarily in the form of a series of very basic, but also very important, questions that lie just below the surface of the story - and sometimes not even below the surface.

Questions like: "If you can restore all of the people in group A to health, but in the process throw at least an equal number of people in group B out of work - at a time when work isn't that easy to come by in the first place - which group should take priority?"

This question, and others closely related, run all through the story yet, due to Williams' writing skill, they do nothing to impede the plot unless the reader actively chooses to think them through.

The final answer Williams gives, I *think*, is that there is no *easy* answer. Only he frames his conclusion far more lucid and impactful manner than that last observation might suggest.

In short, this writing has the power to enthrall and satisfy a wide range of readers.
The only reason I don't give it five stars is because the literary style is typical of British writing in the 1930s, which I guess won't necessarily be to everyone's taste.
Having said which, I really do recommend the majority of Williams' novels as a taste worth acquiring.

Oh yes, why did I give this review the title "Does God Play Dice?"? When you read the book I think you'll know exactly why.
Good reading!

One needs to understand this is written from a very pro Scots point of view, and tends to see Scots as the good guys and English as the bad ones, with few areas of grey. But taken on a whole, with most of the works on Wallace stemming from English records, it gives a balanced picture in studying Wallace.

Viewers of "Braveheart" also tend to come away with the impression that Wallace was a Highlander leading clansmen into battle - which certainly cannot be supported by Harry's references to Wallace's supporters. In fact in this edition of "Wallace" (on page 225) a very interesting map of 'Wallace place names' suggests that the hero's support was in the South and North-East (of Scotland)- not in the North and West where the great clans were located. There are often such (major) problems when books (like this) are 'adapted' to be popular movies, and these each reader may enjoyably discover for himself.

It is only fair to add, however, that the movie could also be seen as a corrective to the book. Randall Wallace's script does warn us (at least twice) of the hyperbole that results when verbal anecdotes of historical and legendary figures are passed on, and there is clearly a great deal of this reflected in Harry's epic (since he relied partly on just such anecdotal evidence). Moreover the film-script (understandably because of the sensibilities of a modern audience)is not so shockingly racially-prejudiced as "Wallace".

I had the impression (reading the bard) of alternating between the 'Declaration of Independence' and 'Mein Kampf'. The "blood untainted" of Harry's Scots (such references begin on page 1 of the book)is, of course, nonsense, as I think is his demonisation of the "Picts, Danes and Saxons" that the 'Scots' historically fought. To the knowledgable, Harry's 'English' were simply a combination of Gaelic and Germanic elements (quite like the Scots themselves) mustered by descendants of their Norman conquerors (Scotland itself was filled with many Norman aristocrats and was to be ruled by a largely Norman dynasty in the person of Bruce and his descendants).

The introduction to this edition of "Wallace" perhaps fittingly holds the key to Harry's racial preferences. Page xvii reveals that Harry's chief patron was the Scottish king himself - descendant of the Norman royal house of Scotland. Obviously the poet could not have included Normans in his enumeration of Scotland's enemies (as a Saxon might have done) - but the 'English' (his and Scotland's historic rivals) were fair game. Burning thousands of 'English' alive (see, for example, page 90) in retaliation for the perfidy of England's alien rulers seems not a little unfair (though Harry interestingly indicates that the nascent Commons of England actually acted as a restraint on 'Longshanks'). It also takes away the impact of Wallace's own horrible death which Harry (at least consistently) does not dwell upon.

Since there is a dearth of early historic sources for Wallace's life this is certainly worth a careful read. I devoured greedily many details that seemed to me to be authentic. It may be at least as accurate a portrayal of a part of early Scottish history as Shakespeare's Macbeth, and certainly illuminates the author and his audience. In short I concluded that Randall Wallace and Blind Harry had both dramatic virtues and vices; consequently "Wallace" was both better and worse than "Braveheart".

One note of critique would be that, though it is obvious that he has a commanding knowledge of film, it would be beneficial to explore other popular artforms and give current expamples. Along the same lines, the examples that he used to prove some critical comments directed to the evangelical Christian popular art (particularly the Christian Contemporary Music) community were a bit dated.

But overall, this is a book that I have and will continue to use in a classroom and small group setting because it packs a punch in a small space.

I can see how Eldar players may be dissapointed, there role in the novel is distant. This works only to serve the Eldar justice, the race is writen in the Warhammer world as distant and elusive.

Overall a well craft book with well rounded and interesting characters.

The wonderful Falstaff is also on glorious display. This is also the play with the famous tavern scene (Act II, Scene IV) that can be read endlessly with new enjoyment.

Everyone has his or her own take on Falstaff and his treatment at the hands of Henry V, but I dislike it even though I understand it. Prince Hal and his transformation into Henry V is not someone I admire a lot. Nor is Falstaff's manner of living, but his wit is so sharp and his intelligence so vast that it is easy to still delight in him.

But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.

For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.

-Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.

-In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.

-After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.

However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

Henry, Prince of Wales, as the next in line to the throne, is expected to take a hard line against these threats, and lead the charge against the rebel forces. However, as in Part I, Prince Henry is nervous, as a young man will be, about accepting responsibility for himself, much less for an entire nation. A frivolous youth, he associates with the common folk in bars and taverns, led in his debaucheries by the notoriously comic Sir John Falstaff. The dichotomy between Prince Henry's father figures, the frail, but courageous King Henry IV and the robust, but cowardly Falstaff sets up the scope of the choice Prince Henry must make. His choice, he comes to realize, will affect the course of his country.

The forces mount as the play moves forward - the King's army is ordered, well-equipped, and led by formidable generals - the Archbishop's army is made up largely of untrained citizens. The meeting of the armies' leaders in the Gaultree Forest of Yorkshire is the emotional and tactical climax of the play, and handled with dramatic precision by Shakespeare.

The growth of Prince Henry, the shaping of his mind, his relationships with his noble father and brothers, as well as those with his low, vulgar drinking buddies, forms the focus of "Henry IV Part II." Through five deceptively simple acts, Shakespeare illustrates the birth of a man and a king, and points the way to domestic peace. This is a play I enjoyed very much indeed, and would recommend reading alongside "Henry IV Part I" for maximum effect.

However, we can proudly witness the maturation of the young King from wild & dissolute young Prince Hal into one of the most revered monarchs in English history, King Henry V. Part II remains an intriguing play due to its paradoxical nature, yet unfortunately rarely acted out today. Now that I have read Henry IV(I&II) for the first time, I gladly move on to one of my personal favorites, Henry V. I recommend both parts(Folger editions) for all Shakespeare enthusiasts - they have given me greater insight into the young Henry V - when he was more concerned with downing a pint of ale rather than downing the French at Agincourt.

2 Magnificent Quotes from Henry IV Part II -
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." - King Henry IV
"He hath eaten me out of house and home." - Mistress Quickly