Byrne Books

During the '80's horror boom, legendary comics writer and artist John Byrne decided to try his hand at novel writing and Fear Book was the result.

The Dennisons, a nice New York couple decides to finally buy that house in Connecticut they've always wanted. They find a perfect little house in the town of Fairharbour and get settled in. It turns out the Hansons (who had been renting the house before the Dennisons bought it) left rather suddenly and the Dennisons continue to receive their mail. Mainly a bunch of catalogs.

Into this picture of tranquility comes the Catalog. An unobtrusive little book with a blank red cover. Sam Dennison accidentally looks through this book and is horrified by what he sees. So much so that he burns it and makes his wife promise never to look inside one should another arrive. The Catalogue then starts to arrive daily...

This is one of those stories of the supernatural getting an innocuous toehold in reality and then geometrically progressing to become something monstrous that Bentley Little can write so well.

John Byrne is a gifted storyteller with a sure hand. Years of comics writing has given him a knack for pacing and he handles his characters pretty well. He handles the family and neighborhood dynamics believably and does a good job showing the supernatural threat worming its way inside this small community.

The main characters are pretty well fleshed out, but some of the secondary characters can be two-dimensional. Dialogue was down to earth and believable. Overall I was very impressed by John Byrne the novelist.

The two big problems I had with this book were two secondary characters. The first is Sam's lawyer friend Phil Marsdon. Every thing he says is crudely offensive That doesn't bother me, but it quickly became unbelievable. Any of the (infrequent) appearances of Phil Marsdon became an annoyance as all he would do is fly off the handle in a rage or make rude remarks More should have been done with Phil.

The other character that got in the way of this book was Katherine Goodbridge, a professor of the paranormal the Dennisons turn to. She came off like one of Mr. Byrne's comic book characters. She is not shown to have much personality, but always has exactly the write answer. Also she spends paragraphs at the end dishing out all of the other character's deepest secrets in a somewhat clumsy way.

These two characters do not ruin the novel. Really they stand out because the author has done such a good job making everyone else believable.

I would recommend picking this one up if you're in the mood for a nice quick scary story. It isn't quite a classic, but the premise is something different and it is very well written. In the '90's Mr. Byrne put out a second novel: The Whipping Boy. I was impressed enough by Fear Book to seek that one out. Too bad he hasn't written more novels.

Book had sme plusses but the volume I got was returned because some pages were miscut and printed upside down

While not the best comic of all time, by any means, it does a very nice job of setting up many DC books of the late eighties. If you are a fan of DC comics, pick this one up. It stars Superman, Batman,Flash, and a whole lot of other heros, facing a enemy they can not pound into the ground (Not that there is not tons of action along the way) and has the introduciton of Wonder Woman to the modern world.

Collected as a self-conscious extension of the 1988 work edited by Byrne and Whiten, "Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans," this volume contains 14 articles. In spite of the explosion of empirical research sparked by the 1988 volume, this collection does not emphasize a review of this new work. Instead, one is left with the impression that this collection is heavily weighted toward theory and speculation.

My evaluation of this collection is that it contains less extension and more refinement of the 1988 presentation. The contributions in this volume tend to limit the grosser conclusions of the earlier work while refining the Machiavellian intelligence concept more precisely.

Only a few of the articles warrant specific note, in my opinion. I found Hauser's article on deception to be of value, especially in its careful distinction between functional and intentional deception. Whiten's review of theory of mind research holds promise for anyone interested in that subject. The three empirical articles, Russon's on exploiting expertise, Menzel's on foraging, and Barton and Dunbar on encephalization quotients, also make significant contributions.

New theoretical speculations regarding evolutionary triggers include brain modularity, technical expertise, sexual competition, and language left me wishing for more data and less speculation. Only the Boehm chapter on egalitarian behavior and intelligence seemed to warrant a second reading.

My advice is to skip this book and go straight to Sternberg and Kaufman's collection "The Evolution of Human Intelligence" (2001) or Corballis and Lea's "The Descent of Mind" (1999).

The premise of this collection of articles (25 in all) is really quite simple. The editors contend that the competitive nature of social group living provided the primary impetus driving the evolutionary development of monkey, ape, and human intelligence. Other triggers for this change are considered - tool use and foraging behavior - but this collection represents a significant first salvo advocating social expertise.

No more than six articles could be considered empirical research reports due to the absence of significant research in this area prior to the publication of this volume. The majority of the articles are ethnographic is content; however, the variety and specificity of these reports are fascinating reading.

The articles are grouped into seven sections. The first includes three early works, one originally published in 1953 that sparked the idea of social expertise. Primate social relationships are the second group, and it contains one study of human child interactions. The effect of adding a third party to dyads is discussed in the social complexity section. Theory of mind especially as it may be demonstrated among chimpanzees is the subject of three articles in the fourth section, and deception is discussed in the fifth. Alternatives to social expertise are reviewed in the sixth section, and the exploitation of the expertise of others in primate groups in the last.

Considerable research has been done since 1988 which may have supplanted this collection. For example, Sternberg and Kaufman's collection "The Evolution of Human Intelligence" (2001) or Corballis and Lea's "The Descent of Mind" (1999) may be a much better starting places for a review of more contemporary work. Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this read. If you have the time to indulge in a multi-volume introduction to the evolution of intelligence, find and include this book. To some extent it established the parameters for the ongoing dialog.

Marvel's line of hardcover Marvel Visionaries books seem like a good idea, but there are a few that while they display the highlighted author's talents, they are poorly assembled. This hardcover TPB, which focuses on legendary X-Men scribe Chris Claremont, is sadly misassembled thanks to only featuring single issues of his various runs on different series' instead of full storyarcs, which really doesn't display Claremont's talent as a whole to begin with. The issues we get here aren't bad though: the penultimate issue of his legendary Dark Phoenix Saga from Uncanny X-Men, an issue from his Wolverine mini-series (featuring art from Frank Miller), as well as various issues from his runs on Excalibur, New Mutants, Iron Fist, and Daredevil. While what you get here isn't bad, if you start to dig the story you're reading and want to see how it ends, prepare to lay down more cash to pick up the whole thing in TPB form. There's nothing bad here at all, and Claremont is more than worthy of being labeled a visionary, but this poorly assembled TPB fails to display just how great and influential a writer Claremont was way back when.

I brought this book purely on the title, hoping it might be a Regency, it wasn't. Julia Byrne has set this book in 1464, so things are a little more robust than later times. For me it was readable but not as subtle as I prefer. I think if I quote a passage from the book you can get a flavour of the tone and style of writing. The hero is addressing the heroine.

"If you want to live, my lady, he said very softly, `you'll shut up and do exactly as I say. If I say we're leaving tonight, that's precisely when we leave. If I say ride hard, you'll ride harder than you've ever ridden in your cosseted, useless life. If I say walk, you'll walk. If I say crawl on your hands and knees, you'll damn well crawl on your hands mud knees. Do you understand me?' Nell was trembling by the time he'd finished, but it wasn't in fear of Beaudene. At least, she didn't think it was. His forceful insistence that they flee her family, his arrogant confidence that he was right, shook her more than she cared to admit. What if she was wrong? What if the slashed gown was the only piece of spite Margaret had indulged in, and the other incidents real attempts on her life?"

From the back of the book...

Lady Eleanor fitzWarren had barely seen her father since he gave her into the `care' of her uncle's dissolute household. Only by deceit and manipulation had Nell managed to hang on to her virtue, so it ill became Lord Rafe Beaudene to think her a whore, however things might have looked! Rafe might have been delegated to bring her to her father, prior to any marriage fitzWarren might arrange, but Rafe clearly had an agenda of his own. Was Nell simply to be a pawn between two powerful men bent on revenge?

There's a fundamental flaw with this book. Issues are fashioned as false dichotomies. Then two articles, at times written by journalists or even political think tanks, are included to illustrate the two sides.

Why is this a problem? Many teachers I've met never critically examine their profession, it's larger social/political function, and how they may inadvertently serve to further agendas masked as curriculum. Polarizing serious issues and then choosing articles full of logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and gross generalities only contributes to simplification of complex topics.

The counter argument is this- since teachers may not have exposure to these topics, it's best to introduce them in this manner. Yet I fail to see how any neophyte in any discipline benefits from such simplistic division into "sides".

A very very frustrating read. I give it 3 stars because I recognize it has value for some students, there are some good articles, and it's inexpensive.

I hope professors considering this book will instead poll their class on day one, find out the issues they're facing and interested in, then use their formidable access to journals and periodicals to find articles that are more up-to-date, relevant, and sophisticated than what Ms. Byrnes has compiled for us.

It's time to raise the bar on special education. This begins with a critical, thoughtful examination of the practice of teaching and it's larger social function. This book does a fair to poor job at that.

I'm mainly an '80s Byrne fan, and I highly recommend his '80s stuff, but he's done quite a bit of work since then, so I thought I'd check this out.

The thing that shocked me about this right off the bat is that this is the most cartoony art I've ever seen from him. It's just not his '80s-style Superman at all. That's OK really- as long as people know what they're getting up front. The reason I actually kind of like this artwork is that this is some of the most *detailed* work we've seen from him in a while. The inks are crisp & tight; the colors are brilliant. The humor is whimsical at best, annoyingly redundant at worst, and is too over-the-top British for most people, I'd think. Having said all this, I kind of like it- at least as a change of pace. Colin Clark is Superman here, and he's constantly reminded by his parents that the worst thing he could ever do is to "stand out from the crowd". This is, of course, what Superman does by nature, and his parents are so embarrassed they repeatedly move their residency without even telling their son, just to get away(!). They're constantly afraid of the attention he'll bring. It's a running gag throughout the whole book, which is packed with extremely British references on almost every page. Interesting side characters include: Louisa Layne-Ferret, the hot looking, manipulative, younger cousin of Lois Lane; a modern Jimmy Olsen; and a comical appearance by The Bat-Man! I liked the crazy take on Bat-Man here, even if the joke is overly forced.

His mid-'90s & early 2000s work tended to be a bit loose & sketchy; this is certainly not the case here. If you're looking for something different from Byrne, this is it! Still, I generally recommend his '80s Superman over this.

Now, I'm not going to hold the fact that I did not read carefully against the book - that's my fault, not the book's.

I was hoping for something a bit more serious, like Millar's "Red Son" in which Superman is raised in the USSR rather than in the USA.

But, this book is a tongue-in-cheek take on Superman, based on the premise that he landed in Kent in England, rather than Kansas, USA. Co-written by Monty Python contributers (it doesn't seem quite right to call John Cleese a mere contributor), this is an irreverant look at English culture, government and media - Superman is merely the medium used to deliver these scathing attacks.

A lot of the book deals with how normal people react to someone with super powers. Unfortunately, much of this ground was covered by Pixar's "The Incredibles" (both "The Incredibles" and "True Brit" were released in 2004) and even, to a lesser (and darker) extent by Frank Miller's first Dark Knight series.

The real lesson in this book is that good parents are very important. Superman's English parents can't hold a candle to Superman's traditional American parents.

The art of this one is a real strength - it reminded me very much of the vivid, clean lines of the Superman comics that I read when I was a kid.

So, mixed scores: Strong art, the Superman story is sacrificed for the jokes, but they are good jokes, no new ground covered when it comes to regular people's reactions to Super Heroes...

This one gets a C+ from me.

Wow, I cannot believe how boring I found this book. While I did enjoy the artwork, the writing is just dull, flat, lifeless. I expected soooo much more from the man who wrote Faulty Towers. Not for Superman fans, not for Cleese fans, not for anyone, really.

With art by John Byrne and John Cleese on the writing staff, this should have been one of the greatest Elsewhere novels of all time. I could not have been more disappointed. Aside from a few cheesy jokes, I was literally bored reading this. Save your money, folks, unless you're a diehard John Byrne fan who's out to collect everything he's ever done.

DC takes an interesting premise and throws all its potential out the window with SUPERMAN: TRUE BRIT, an original graphic novel that asks the question, what if Kal-El's rocket landed in England instead of the USA? This is not a serious Elseworlds tale by any means, but rather a bunch of gags drug out over 96 pages. Writer Kim Johnson presents the reader with a question: in a reserved, uptight British society, how would a godlike character like Superman fit in? To answer that question, all Britons are unfortunately portrayed as bumbling, conservative stereotypes who have no place in their lives for someone whose superior abilities make him stand out from the crowd. Monty Python's John Cleese provides a writing assist, but it's mainly to inject some Pythonesque humor, the result being inside jokes that non-Python fans will miss. And one of the more unfortunate parts is how this Superman story just HAS to give a nod to Batman, and there's an awful lot of effort required to build up to a relatively small appearance. It's almost like they came up with the Batman angle first and then built the Superman story around it. Well, the story is about Superman, so why not focus on him and let the stupid Batman jokes fall by the wayside?

But as bad as the story is, it is accompanied by the best John Byrne art I've seen in years - probably because it was inked by Mark Farmer, who provides a very polished finish to Byrne's normally "scratchy" pencils. Superman's costume is a nice change as well, incorporating the Union Jack and a collar into the standard togs that he's worn for almost 70 years. I would have preferred it if DC had let Byrne write this one, as he would probably have provided a more serious and interesting take on an English Superman than what we have here. So this book gets a big thumbs down, and this comes from both a Superman fan and a Monty Python fan.

This is a book that I have read and reread a few times. I received this order within a few days of ordering it. I am very satisfied with this companies service.

A friend twisted my arm... Hey! A friend is a friend.

the lottery will make you rich too.


at 1 to 14,000,000 odds

It seems to obvious to work but it does, Give it a try and it will change your life forever.

Rambling, poorly written, with precious little actual content; this seems almost like something from a blog stretched out and padded to look like a book.

The Secret of Rhonda Byrne? (If Rhonda Byrne has any personal secrets, I surely don't care about them.) The Law of Attracrtion in the Bible? (I'm sorry, I didn't see any concrete chapter and verse statements to agree with or refute The Law of Attraction.) There were Biblical references, some stuff that seemed like it might be Biblical, incomplete and out-of-context statements... Is there an editor here? Hello? Editor in the house?

Ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble. Not even worth a flip-through at the library. That's my perception of it.

Not recommended.

I expected this book to be chock full of Biblical facts to support or refute "The Secret." This is not the case.

The book has several punctuation/spelling errors. Was there no editor?

It is only 100 pages. The font is large and everything is spaced far apart. The book could have been written in 50 pages to save paper.

There are "quotes" throughout the book that are meant to make a person think they are from the Bible, however, no verse/chapter is referenced so unless one is Biblically savvy, one cannot tell if they are from the Good Book or not.

I looked up many of the scriptures which are referenced and most of them are taken out of context. For example...

Numbers 13:33
And we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same (like grasshoppers) in their eyes.

If you read the whole chapter in the Bible, the reason they seemed like grasshoppers was because the people were very tall (giants). Period. No secrets. No hidden message. They didn't really "think" they were grasshoppers, therefore, everyone believed they were grasshoppers. It was just a tall/short thing.

Sometimes the chapter of a verse is listed but not the verse number. When I tried to find the verse being referenced, I couldn't. So, I'm not sure if they are really verses or not.

The author talks about evolution as if it is real. (Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but many Christians believe evolution is a fallacy. Why even mention it in this book?)

He also says that whether we believe that God rules the universe or some other power rules it, it doesn't matter. The principles are all the same. It all works the same.

How many God-fearing Christians do you know who believe this? (Between this theory and the aforementioned evolution, I have to wonder if the author is a Christian at all?)

Perhaps the biggest secret of all is how this book ever got published. You will not find the answers you seek here. It is far better to get them from the Bible yourself.