Carey Books

Great issue that's part of a great story leading up to the next big X event. But the image they show on the cover isn't even the image I got. I am pretty dissapointed with the fact that, after buying, I look to see two other images other than the main/first shown one and see the image I actually got. It should be a more direct wording because the other one was a much cooler cover.

Mark Twain famously wrote a scathing critique of Cooper's whole body of work; this critique, "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses", is widely available on the Internet and speaks to the flaws in this book far better than any review written since.

The Last of the Mohicans is probably the best of Cooper's novels, and true devotees of historical adventure may be able to see past its numerous flaws. But compared to many of its contemporaries, it falls completely flat. The prose isn't nearly as lively as that of "The Three Musketeers", the story not nearly as exciting, the protagonists not nearly as richly or fully drawn, the antagonist merely a lurking evil presence, rather than a developed individual.

For those looking for historical adventure, you're better served by Dumas, Sabatini, or a bevy of modern authors.

James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851) is sometimes called the "American Scott". Like Sir Walter Scott who romanticized the Scottish past, Cooper focused readers attentions to the the American frontier. His most famous works are the Leatherstocking tales featuring Natty Bumpo. The novels in the series include: The Deerslayer; "The Pathfinder"; "The Last of the Mohicans"; "The Pioneers" and "The Prarie." The most famous of these novels is "The Last of the Mohicans" set during the French and Indian War in North America. Natty Bumpo the hero of the tale is said to be 40 years old; he is an experienced woodsman knowledgable in fieldcraft; Indian fighting and how to survive in a brutal frontier setting in upstate New York.
The novel includes exciting fights with Indians; escapes from Indian captivity; word paintings of nature; a love story and a tale lamenting the passing of the last of the Mohicans.
The characters are:
Natty Bumpo-the intrepid scout for the British who rescues damsels in distress while escaping Indian capture. He is the hero of the novel and the Leatherstocking series.
Duncan Heyward-A brave but inexperienced British major who is love with the inspidly portrayed Alice Murno. Alice is a stick figure with no depth or character development.
Cora Munro is the sister of Alice. Both of these siblings are the daughters of British soldier Munro who is the commander at Fort William H enry. The fort is captured by the French and their Indian allies. Alice and Cora are captured and taken to an Indian village.
Chingachgook and his son Uncas. Good friends of Hawk-eye (a nickname for Natty Bumpo). Uncas is the last of the Mohicans. He is love with the dark skinned Cora.
Mauga. The evil Indian who is the major foe of the English and the friends of Hawkeye.
The novel is written in an old fashioned literary style which lends itself to slow reading for moderns. The language does not, however, get in the way of the nonstop action. The book is one of the first novels written by an American author assisting at the birth of our literary heritage. Cooper's views on Indians is not politically correct. It is worth your time and effort to become acquainted with this literary milestone.

I liked the book, Last of the Mohicans. I notice that many reviewers who gave it one or two stars are kids who had to read the book for an advanced English class or who saw the movie and decided to read the book. It is NOT an easy read (which is probably why many kids did not like the book), but I thought it was worth the effort. It was a little difficult keeping the characters straight at first because Cooper has several names for the key characters and switches between them freely.

My favorite character was actually one that I would guess is an outlier - David Gamut. His manhood is often insulted by Hawkeye, (Hawkeye calls David's pitch pipe his "tooting weapon" and he pokes fun of his useless profession of psalmody) yet David's bravery is no less than the heroes of the tale. Sure he can't shoot a gun (it would be against his principles anyway), but he sticks with the sisters when they are kidnapped by Magua and is able to come and go freely among the Indians as he is viewed by them as not having all of his mental faculties. He saves Uncas' life by secretly switching places with him and tells Hawkeye not to avenge his death should he die for the ruse. His moral character is higher, I believe, than the vengeful Indians and Hawkeye. While Hawkeye tolerates or even disdains David at the beginning of the book, I think he grows to like and even admire David by the end.

The plot was interesting to me and sure some of the language is convoluted and Cooper's vocabulary is admittedly far superior to mine. However, if you keep a dictionary nearby, you'll learn several new words and enjoy an exciting tale.

"The Last of the Mohicans" is a novel for the ages and its hero Hawkeye is a man who teaches life lessons with each page you turn. Many people believe that this novel has outlived its worthiness but once turn of the pages will reveal to the reader a world that is both savage and young, characters that are both civilized and savage, and a story that harkens back to the beginnings of the new world. Cooper's language is hard to swallow sometimes, and the movie is easier to watch, but the reader who settles into the pages of Hawkeye's life and world is rewarded with lessons about friendship, love, survival and the rite of passage that all people go through. It is a definite must read for both English and History classes as it explores the beginnings of this great country in which we live.

Since there are already over 100 reviews of this book and probably thousands have been written over the years, I'll do this one without benefit of book in hand, from memory and without a lot of details. It took me many years to get over the antiquated language barrier and to finally read the book. The classics are always harder to read than contemporary fiction, but sometimes it's worth the effort.

What tipped the scales for me and piqued my curiosity was watching the recent movie with Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, Russell Means, and Eric Schweig, and realizing that this was a good story. Also, I'm very familiar with the setting in upstate NY: Lake George, Balston Spa, Glenns Falls, Scroon Lake, and surrounding area--at least as it is now, and it was fun imagining what it would have been like in those days, when the land was virgin, settlers could lose their scalps if they weren't careful, and the France contested with Britain for supremacy of the land.

The book wasn't a romance--at least not in the modern sense of the word--with love scenes and the like. But it was a romance in the old sense in that the three main characters; Hawk-eye, and the two Mohicans, were larger than life heroes; in the moral, physical, and spiritual meanings of the term. The elder sister Cora was also a well developed, strong willed and heroic character, which surprised me a little considering the age in which the book was written.

For me the most interesting character of the novel was Chingachgook's son, Uncas, who was the "last of the Mohicans," a noble race of American Indians, which formerly occupied the lands by the "salt lake," (i.e., the Atlantic Ocean), and were dispossessed and robbed of their lands and heritage by the original Dutch settlers and others. Uncas was a tracker extraordinaire, even better than the indomitable Hawk-eye in this respect. But he was young, inexperienced, and impetuous, which was eventually his undoing when he came up against the evil, and formidable Magua. But before he died, he was recognized as a king or great chief of his people, an heir apparent. So decreed the venerable Tamenund, a 100 year old patriarch and judge of the Delaware peoples, a related tribe to the Mohicans. This episode would have been difficult to write into an action movie, but it would have been great if it had been.

Another interesting character completely eliminated from both the 1934 and 1992 movies was David Gamut, a preacher psalmist, whose moral presence and as a comic relief, was an integral part of the novel.

All in all, this is still a book worth reading, if only to get a glimse of the way things were then and might be again.

Okay, I know...this isn't what you expect it to be, coming from Jaqueline Carey, especially if you've read any of the Kushiel books (wonderful, wonderful stuff --stayed up all night cause I couldn't put down the first one). And I, too, didn't like this much...at first. And then suddenly I realized...this is a direct response to the very didactic Christian perspective that dominates The Lord of the Rings. I mean, you have the group of travelers who are trying to stop the other voyagers...the Elvin princess (is it an Elvin princess? It's actually been a while since I've read this) whom both sides desire to possess (and the interaction between her and the general guy -- HOTT), the dark, evil lord who dominates completely... The only difference is that it's told from the point of view of the "evil guys," which throws an interesting twist into it. And the evil guys -- not that evil. They've all acted out of revenge or from having been wronged in some terrible way that makes one sympathize with them. Once I realized this, though, it was suddenly very interesting. Carey plays with the power of legend and hearsay in a fascinating way. My only regret was that I couldn't get a hold of the following books of the trilogy and couldn't find out what happens to the princess -- does she end up siding with the "evil guys"? And do the evil guys get redeemed? Or does Carey have a more interesting (and more appropriate -- the idea of them joining the "good guys" horrifies me because that side was kind of dull and narrow-minded) fate for them?

For a good portion of this book I found it very lacking - character development seemed weak, backstory was only barely hinted at, I just couldn't care about any of the pro/antagonists.

And the prophecy - the whole book revolves around the prophecy, but she just delivers it like a dictionary definition, with really no explanation of where it came from, is it unique, how old is it, nothing. Even a simple preface of an ancient character having a vision and delivering the prophecy for the first time would have gone a long way in making the story more enjoyable.

Oddly enough, towards the end of the book, she starts to give more backstory, character depth and motivations. Because of this 11th hour effort, I will give book 2 a chance.

I'll be honest there were so many similarities between this novel and The Lord of the Rings (LotR), I lost count. Several times I almost put the book down thinking that I was just reading LotR again. However, what kept me going and even allowed me to give this book a three star review instead of a two was the villains.

Tanaros Blacksword may compare to the Witch-King, but we know so much more about Tanaros. One gets to know and like this conflicted and very human immortal. If Tanaros the warrior is not your kind of character perhaps Ushahin Dreamspinner will make this book better. Despite his small role in the novel, his story really sticks with you. He is a half-breed. Half-man, Half-Ellylon, belonging to neither, an outcast raised by the monsterous Were. His torment and pain is artfully rendered by the author. Yet another reason for the three star rating is Carey's ability. If you like to read and have never read LotR then you will love this book. If you have it is difficult not to make comparisons.

I'm honestly surprised by the bad reviews. I really liked this book - we're given a completely NEW perspective on the "dark God" premise. What if ... what if the so-called "dark God" is NOT in fact the one who is responsible for the destruction of the previous "Golden Age"? What if the so-called "light God" is the one who is trying to take over the world and re-make it in his image through any means possible - with lies, twisted truths - and then basically make certain that everyone will do things his way (i. e., take away freedom of choice)? What if, basically, everything you THOUGHT was TRUE, was, in fact, WRONG?

This is the premise of this refreshingly original idea. Satoris Third-Born, formerly known as the Sower - since his Gift was that of the Quickening of the Flesh (aka - passion, lust, call it whatever you want!), is now called the Sunderer, the Banewreaker and all manner of dire things after refusing to take away his Gift from the Children of Arahila (his Sister) - that is, refusing to take away passion from Men. After defying Haomane First-Born - Lord-of-Thought - three times (Haomane was peeved because - after refusing to allow Satoris' Gift for his Children - the Ellyl - and because of their surpassing beauty and perfection - and immortality - Men became jealous and waged war upon them, trying to gain the secrets to their immortality; Haomane thought that removing the Quickening of the Flesh would help by a) "thinning the herd" and b) creating a calmer, more rational people) at Arahila's request, Haomane sent his wrath upon Satoris. Anyway, because of Haomane's various attacks upon Satoris, the Souma (the Eye in the Brow of Uru-Alat - the World's Creating God) is split apart, the world is Sundered and the sea pours in. Satoris is wounded by a splinter of the Souma, a wound that will never heal - however, he manages to catch hold of this splinter, and maintains possession of it - a dagger he calls the Godslayer. Satoris remains in Urulat with the various Children created by the Shapers, and the other six Shapers stay across the Sea in Torath where they continue to plot. That is the background of the story.

Flash-forward: almost everyone in the world believes Satoris alone is responsible for the Sundering and splitting of the Souma. As a result, Satoris is despised universally, despite the fact that all he wishes is to be left alone in his fortress in the Gorgantum Defile, in the mountains he has Shaped. He has called to himself Three Men and bound them to his service, stretching the Chains of Being and granting them immortality - Tanaraos, called variously Blacksword, Kingslayer and Betrayer; Vorax, the Glutton; and Ushahin, the Dreamspinner. In Banewreaker, the signs of war have appeared, and Haomane's Prophecy for the downfall of Satoris is in the process of being fulfilled - a daughter of the Ellyl is to wed a son of the house of Altorus, that which is Unknown is made known, that which was hidden is found, etc. It is up to the Three, with the help of their allies the Fjeltroll, the Were, and the Men of Staccia, to stop those who would fulfill the prophecy and thereby destroy Satoris and bring about the reign of Haomane First-Borne.

It is an incredibly intricate and dense story - there are a lot of characters and the plot is tightly webbed; however, J. Carey writes with an easy self possession that makes the story accessible. I hope more people will give this story a try; it is very interesting!

Jacqueline Carey had an intriguing idea when she conceived Banewreaker: What if the Lord of the Rings was told from Sauron's perspective? I have always been attracted to the bad/evil guys in movies and books and had hoped that Carey's novel would feature compelling, evil characters. Unfortunately, it does not. My biggest grip is that her "bad" characters are not that bad. They're good guys who may have made bad decisions. She probably has a point: that good and evil are not so easily differentiated, and good and evil labels depend on who is telling the story. Still, I regret that she did not commit to creating fully evil characters and showing us their point of view.

Banewreaker is an intentional doppleganger of the Lord of the Rings, so I cannot fault Carey for the overall similarity; however I do think that it is TOO much of a copy. The plots are almost mirror images. Does the novel really need its own fellowship? She could have use the Lord of the Rings as a starting point and developed her own plot.

I also think that Carey spends too much time with the "good characters", burdening us with too many characters and tangential subplots. She should have clung to Tanaros, who is the most complete and conflicted character. I would have liked a novel just about him: starting with his life as a general and sworn sword, then to his betrayal, and then to his commitment to the "dark side". I think that this novel would have been much more effective as a character piece than as an epic fantasy.

One last complaint: Why does everyone call each other "brother", "cousin", or "lad"? It was annoying after the twentieth time.

Diane Carey is one of the most respective Star Trek authors. I haven't had a chance to read any of her yet. This was my chance to check out one of her books while driving four hours on the road. I must say for the most part I enjoyed this very much.

The contents of this book take place right after "Generations". The Enterprise E is getting ready to go, however it is Captain Morgen Batesan who is assigned as Captain instead of Captain Picard. The readers met Captain Bateman during season 5 of the series in the episode "Cause and Effect". If it helps he was played by Kelsey Grammer of Frasier and Cheers. Captain Picard had another mission to accomplish as the Gul Madrid that tortued him in "Chain of Command" part 1 and 2 is at it again and it is up to Picard to find out where he is keeping hostages of the federation.

Meanwhile, Captain Bateman and the crew of the Enterprise while on a training mission get attacked by a Klingon from Bateman past, who is out to get revenge. And he will destroy the Enterprise in order to get it.

Once again since I get audio books at such a good price, and I have just started reading Star Trek novels and just don't have time to read them all, this was another good road trip for me. I noticed that one other reviewer said that it is unlikely that a Captain who had come from eighty years in the past would be given the Enterprise a few short years later. I agree with that analysis. That was a little far fetched. However, all and all I enjoyed this story. Picard dealing with losing another starship and searching for answers through visiting Captain Kirk in the holodeck was done quiet well. I didn't feel like that there was so much taken away from the story. With the audio book Kahless I just felt there was to much missing. I didn't get that feeling here. So while still not as good as reading the book, I recommend this audio book. Although if you have time still read the book as I will be doing as soon as I can.

Captain Fraiser heads the Enterprise in this tale. Remember the Next Generation episode where Enterprise D almost collides with a ship from the past? The equivalent of a coast guard cutter, the Bozeman, with Captain Bateson (portrayed by Kelsey Gramer) crosses over into the modern Starfleet era. Talk about back to the future! In this one we get another take on his TV alter ego, only he's captain of a Starship.

Picard is off to find Cardassian torture expert, Madred. The despicable Cardassian had a mock Federation outpost to lure Starfleet members. Our favorite captain has to rescue them. With all this going on first officer Riker and his new captain have to contend with an old Klingon enemy that came thru the rift.

We even get to see Scotty in action again. Fresh from his appearance in "Relics."

This one would have made a fantastic two part episode. Diane Carey is in top form here. Don't miss this one. It's even good to read the second time around; just like any good Trek episode.

How can I put this in a nice way? I've both written and read fan fiction that was better than this book. Now I'm not as passionate about Trek as some, and I don't have a favorite author(s). However I've read enough paperbacks to discern a good book and not a good box. And this isn't a good book and should have sunk with the ship that Diane Carey was supposedly on.

Spoilers from here on out for those whom don't want to know...

Star Trek: The Next Generation, Ship of the Line reads like a reunion movie of your favoriate television show. One where ever cast member and guest star to ever have appeared is brought back and given some screen time. And to add insult to injury it's just about as bad as those reunion movies are. The book is supposed to tell the after episode adventure of Morgan Bateson, introduced to Next Gen in the episode "Cause and Effect" who's since then become something of a cult icon as captian of the USS Bozeman.

Now you'd expect being a Next Gen Trek book that captain Picard and company would factor in. However, so many cast members are in this book that only Lt. Uhura and Lt. Checkov are absent - literally. The characters appearing in this book vary badly in the way that they are written. From Cheif Enginneer LaForge, who appears as if he was a giddy and naive cadet, taking a back seat to Montgomery Scott. To Counselor Troi and Dr. Crusher whom appear initially as if they were giddy school girls and ultimately as outraged gawkers if there were such a thing.

Captain Picard appears sullen and moody about the desctruction of the Enterprise D (granted), but sullen and moody to an extreme which is beyond norm. Its as if he's facing a life altering moment all the while wanting to scream to him that a ship is a ship is a ship. And what happened to the Enterprise D (if you've ever seen the Trek movie Generations) isn't even his fault! It's like your favoriate first car. Yeah it was your baby and it was totalled in an accident. You're definetlly going to miss it. But it's a car, a machine. You can obtain a new one just as Captain Picard can be assigned a new ship. Commander Riker isn't portrayed much better, but does appear to be genuienlly worried about his friend and captain. Data, you'd wish would just turn off his damn emotion chip the way it makes him come across. Captain Morgan Bateson is portrayed as ... I can only describe it as with a casual swagger unbecoming of a Star Fleet Captain. Someone whom runs a very loose ship until he has to tighten up ranks for appearences. Totally contray to the way in which he was portrayed in his breif cameo at the end of the episode "Cause and Effect." Told by Picard and Riker, that he and his crew are in the future with no avenue of possible return and he all but collapses figuratively speaking. But yet is portrayed as a captain as legendary as Kirk. A true Starfleet captain wouldn't have to be told he had just passed through a temporal loop, he should already know before even steps foot on the Enterprise D. The only characters to at all be anything like themselves throughout this book are Captain Kirk and Captain Spock.

We swing from as far back as the original series and all the way to the latest Next Gen movie at the time "First Contact." Minus Captain Bateson's swagger in the way he runs his ship, we start this story with the USS Bozeman in deep space on the Federation frontier with the Klingon Empire near Starbase 12 at the height of tension between the two powers. Good enough for the most part. The Bozeman is described in error as a "cutter" but anyone whom knows Trek starship design can see that the Bozeman is based on the same hull as the Miranda/Avenger class frigate(s) and has a sizeable presence. It definetly is not a cutter which are normally very small and minimunally crewed if Diane Carey the author knew her nautical terms.

After having rendevoued with Enterprise NCC 1701A, which immediately after transfering two crew members, departs for the staging area in advance of a Klingon task force moving towards the border. The Bozeman is left in typical Trek fashion to luck into being the only ship that stands between Starbase 12 and the real threat, a Klingon vessel commanded by what we're told is Captain Bateson's longtime rival Klingon Commander Koraza. Combat ensues as one would imagine before the Bozeman is cast adrift in the nebula/temporal loop that will bring it to the time of Next Gen. The Enterprise 1701A ultimately doubles back and intercepts Koraza. Nice appearence by the Enterprise A, and equally nice that Kirk and Spock make breif cameos as well.

But what should pick up in Next Gen times and continue as the rivally of Captain Bateson and Commander Koraza soon is swamped by countless appearences, bad writting, wasted pages of dialog and a lack of basic proofing by the author and/or the publisher. As a previous reviewer touched on, the Bozeman is refered to as a museum piece having finally returned to Starbase 12 after being found by the Enterprise D. A new Bozeman is refered to late in the book. Unlike that reviewer, whom I respect, I can believe that a newly commissioned vessel could in fact be named in honor of the original ship,rather than the original ship almost a century old by Next Gen time refitted and put back into service. But unlike the author Diane Carey I cannot believe that Star Fleet would just rename a vessel, which is frowned upon in nautical circles. Pages are wasted with endless arguements between Bateson and Riker, negative group discussions between Picard and company over how he won't be taking command of the Enterprise E. Captain Bateson, and whether or not he's qualified because of a quirk of senority that takes into account traveling from the past to the future and how many years you traveled. Pages that could been spent on the larger story are wasted with a holographic Captain Kirk, from the original series now, with Captain Picard along for the ride on several historic missions in some kind of touch stone life altering decision type of moment for Captain Picard. These pages should have been spent detailing and furthering the story of rivalry between Bateson and Koraza. And basic lack of proofing in how the son of Klingon Commander Koraza is also refered to as the son of his second in command. There are basic sentence structure errors, an occasional spelling mistake or two, and I kid you not, the name of a starship that Enterprise E under the command of Captain Bateson is supposed to rendevous with for war games changes from the Nora Andrews one page to the Nora Nicholas just a few pages later (and remains so through the rest of the book).

Like I've just written, Star Trek: The Next Generation - Ship of the Line should have been about the continuing rivaly between Bateson and Koraza. This story could have been similiar to the Next Gen episode "The Wounded" with the USS Phoenix, which tells of the story about another starship captain and the Cardassians. Switching things around, what could have been a real read of a story about a stoic and somewhat famous Starfleet captain and his rival a Klingon Commander unintenionally bringing both powers to the brink of war as they work against each other. Having to be quickly and delicately interceeded upon by Captain Picard and the untested Enterprise E.

However what we get is overall several pages at the beginning of this story, a few in the middle and a few at the end.
Inter-mingled with pages of our previously mentioned holographic Captain Kirk. Ironically the only character with which anytime is spent, however briefly, is Koraza whom were led to believe believes that he beat Captain Bateson, not knowing what had really happened, but whose plans for the destruction of Starbase 12 were ultimately quashed by Captain Kirk. Has since been living a life of dishonor with his crew on a survey ship. Lastly to add insult to injury, as if just to give Captain Picard something to do it seems, that a Cardassian POW camp is thrown in. But the author fails to even hint at the Federation/Klingon/Romulan war against the Dominion. And has the gall to write that Picard can travel to Cardassia at the height of war, and insist upon the return of prisioners. To which Picards Cardassian torturer (see yet another Next Gen episode) calmly agrees to as if it were nothing. This would be akin to General Norman Schwartzkophf(sp), simply going to to Baghdad during the first Gulf War in 1991, asking for the Iraqis to return their colation prisoners, and with little fan fare the Iraqis agreeing. And lastly Koraza, a traidiontal Klingon, ultimately rolling over because he, figuratively speaking, see's the errors of his ways.

Ship of the Line Degnerates into a real mess of a novel. Ramptant with so many things going on that nothing gets done. Seriously poor character portrayals and writing that a freshman in high school would be ashamed of. Don't bother reading this book, because you'll be dissappointed like I was. If you've recently purchased this book, then take it back and use your money for something else. If you're just bent on reading this book, check it out from your local library like I did. Then that way you won't feel bad when you see just how bad this story is, because you won't have actually paid for this book then.

KB

I first took an interest in "Ship of the Line" after watching the TNG episode for which it was inspired, "Cause and Effect." Certainly the idea was, in theory, a compelling one - the opportunity to discover what happened to the crew of the USS Bozeman following a tragic leap forward in time after ninety years in a causality loop. This is a premise ripe for exposition, particularly given the fact that "Bozeman" is a ship name that turns up in later Trek movies (Generations, First Contact).

To her credit, Carey's book has some strengths typical of a Trek novel veteran. She takes some time out to explore the what-ifs of a crew adjusting to a new time and the challenges there, painting the Bozeman crew as authentic and three-dimensional characters struggling to find a place in a new era. As an added bonus, Trek fans familiar with the TV series get to revisit some notable personalities, including Montgomery Scott (introduced to the TNG universe in "Relics") and the brutal Cardassian Gul Madred (Picard's torturer in the TNG story arc "Chain of Command," parts 1 and 2). Carey nails these characters pretty good and I could actually hear James Doohan and David Warner speaking in my head.

But the book ultimately feels overburdened by its ambition to do too much. The Bozeman saga joins the mourning of the loss of the Enterprise-D, the first shakedown cruise of the Enterprise-E (led in part by the crew of the Bozeman), the resurgence of Montgomery Scott as a Starfleet engineer, the plot for revenge by the Klingon nemesis to the Bozeman's captain, a hijacked-ship subplot, Picard's meditations on the old adventures of James T. Kirk, a vignette on the methodology of prison camps on Cardassia Prime, and Picard's showdown with Gul Madred. The book feels like it was pulled too many directions at once and thus none of the plotlines emerges as wholly satisfying. What's more, some of the attempts Carey tries to make to connect all these events together feels contrived; this is particularly true of the book's climax, which tries to resolve all the plotlines in a way that comes off as both implausible and very "un-Star Trek."

Moreover, the attempt to integrate TNG characters like Picard and Riker into the plot likewise dilutes the character development of the Bozeman's own. Carey no doubt did this to attract a broader audience - frankly, readers are more likely to pick up Trek novels when Patrick Stewart's face is splashed across the cover - but one cannot help but wonder if the novel could have proven more compelling as a tale had the Enterprise-E plotline been scrapped in favor of a straight-up series of tales of the USS Bozeman in the 24th century, with other plotlines relegated to background events. It might not have sold quite as well but it would have done greater justice to this premise.

These criticisms being as they are, I still give this book three stars because its excess of ambition still has some bright spots and fans of TOS and TNG will find enough sentimental moments to enjoy the book more than they don't. I wouldn't pay out a lot of money for this book, but it's probably still worth your time if you can find a cheap used copy or - better yet - a copy at a local library.

I was intriqued with Capt.Morgan Bateson and the USS Bozeman since I saw the Next Gen TV episode. This story creatively writes about this Captain and his crew, what their mission was just before they entered the Typhoon Expanse. I liked reading details on their personal 'difficulties' in adjusting to a 24th Century from a 23rd.
Author details this in a beliveable fashion, for I never swallowed folks just 'Time Traveling' without consequences.
Story also alternates between Capt.Picard and the transition time his crew & him faced after their 'USS Enterprise-D' crashed.

Pro: Story picks up when Capt.Picard is informed by StarFleet of a new undercover assignment given to him. He is told that Capt.Bateson will be handling the 'maiden voyage'[test run] of a NEW 'Enterprise-E' with both 'Bozeman' and 'Enterprise-D' crew working together. Also on board is an 'Enterprise-A' character. Seems strange, but the author in a clever way explains why the assignment was coordinated this way by StarFleet.

Pro: Capt.Bateson & his crew have personality conflicts working with Picards' crew on the 'Enterprise-E'. The 'test run' soon turns into an adventure. Capt.Bateson,-like Capt.Kirk, also has a re-occuring villain antagonist.

Con: Author handles Capt.Picards' undercover assignment at a snails' pace.

Pro: Story heads into high adventure with the 'Enterprise-E'. There are also humourous bits with the USS Bozemans' mascot.
[their ships' adopted pet]

Picard eventually gets to his destination and runs into his OWN villain [of which ST:NextGen fans will recognize]and the captain soon has his work cut-out for him.

I liked the novel, it was a fun read. I wish there was a Capt.Morgan Bateson series.

Having read and enjoyed most of the other novels by Bond, I decided to go back and give Cauldron a try. I truly enjoyed Red Phoenix and Vortex, with both being great novels that highlight geopolitical conflict and ground war action. Unfortunately I found that Cauldron was not on the same level as these other two works. Although Cauldron follows a similar model of regional conflict that threatens to expand into a wider conflict, the story seemed to be less plausible to me. Ignoring the believability issue for a moment, however, Bond's writing does capture the essence of a high-tech military thriller, complete with action that is fast, furious, gut-wrenching and intense. Bond kept me turning the pages, but at the conclusion it did not seem be as satisfying to have finished. Overall, I would have to say that Cauldron was good but not great.

Larry Bond is an excellent techno-thriller writer. Cauldron is one of his finer works. The plot is very interesting. By the mid 1990s the world is gripped in a trade war. Efforts to promote a global economy by the United States following the end of the Cold War fail. France and Germany becoming very protectionist and establish multiple trade barriers and begin using a job hungry Eastern Europe for their own ends. NATO dissolves and cooperation between countries is dead.

Worsening economic conditions causes chaos in Europe which leads to both France and Germany declaring Marshal Law. Using their newfound powers to keep political powers, the two countries led primarily by France form the new European Confederation. What follows is EurCon as its known bullying Europe to follow its demands. Poland stands up to the new power bloc and is supported by the U.S. shortly after this conflict erupts with German Panzers and French jets blitzing through Eastern Europe.

Although the above plot sounds unbelievable, it flows quite well in the novel. Another thing I like is there is no unrealistic attempt by Bond to make Europe and America enemies. Nazis don't seize power in Germany, nor does France have a Napoleon Bonaparte (although a character who wishes he was). The path to war is carefully laid out and I enjoyed it. The combat in the book is excellent with infantry, air, naval, and tank battles being described in detail. We also get a great look at the characters. German soldiers don't love going to war, they hate it and wonder why they are fighting. Polish troops are patriotic but not over the top, and the Americans are trying to keep things from exploding into devastating conflict.

Cauldron is an excellent book and although its premise might seem strange, it is well carried out.

Larry Bond first collaborated with Tom Clancy to ignite World War III in Red Storm Rising. The first two novels published solely under Bond's name plunged us into the Second Korean War and into war with a hellish South Africa under extreme apartheid. In his third novel, Bond pits former allies against each other: the United States and the United Kingdom versus France and Germany in a slugging match over economic and political hegemony in Europe.

Bond's vision of the future depends on two critical events: the dissolution of NATO following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a severe global recession. The former event divides ally from ally, and the latter sparks a crippling trade war between increasingly desperate nations. The ensuing shooting war between former allies may seem a bit far-fetched, especially to a generation seventy years removed from World War II. However, Europe's limited success at welding itself into a united entity, even under the best of circumstances, suggests that a disaster on the scale of a severe global recession could burst the seams of European unity and bring unforgotten dreams of national glory back into power. Bond's scenario may not be as far-fetched as we might like to believe (though the subordination of the Germany military to French commanders is hard to swallow).

Feasible or not, the historical setup is little more than a convenient backdrop for Larry Bond's expert description of military tactics. This is hardly surprising, considering Bond's six years in the navy and subsequent career in realistic computer wargaming (Bond most recently contributed to the World in Conflict wargame, due to hit the market in 2007). In fact, his skill at describing tactical maneuvers is what makes Bond compelling, not character or plot. It's frankly difficult to care what happens to Bond's characters: from the no-nonsense American President, to the megalomaniacal Nicolas Desaix, to the smart but sweet analyst Erin McKenna, to the ruthless yet likeable Colonel Soloviev. This list is far from complete; Bond's "Dramatis Personae" at the beginning of the book lists fifty-one characters whom Bond thinks are significant enough to describe ahead of the story. While the characters' plights afford some moments of interest, not one of them is compelling enough to warrant significant emotional investment in his or her fate.

However, Bond excels when the bullets start flying. Not even Clancy can top Bond's ability to drop the reader into the middle of a firefight, make him feel the artillery, see the explosions, and taste the dirt and the blood and the smoke. Meanwhile, a reader with minimal military knowledge can easily follow and understand the course of the battle, receiving an excellent education on the tactical realities of modern combat. For instance, the "last stand" defense of the 101st Airborne against a German breakthrough in Poland gives fascinating insight into how lightly-armed infantry can oppose a fully-armored advance, and how infantry is severely limited under those circumstances. Other examples could be given, from aerial dogfights over Eastern Europe to a night onslaught on a US naval task force to the threats posed by the French nuclear arsenal. In these and other scenarios, the reader is given an entertaining education on combat in the modern age.

Cauldron's success depends heavily on the reader. The plot tends to clunk along fairly predictably, with the final outcome rarely in doubt. The characters are well subservient to the plot, and thus not overly interesting. On the other hand, Bond's ability to narrate tactical engagements is rivaled by few. In this light, a reader uninterested in military tactics will be asleep long before this 569-page behemoth is finished. Even readers interested in modern warfare may find themselves skimming impatiently through political maneuvering and preliminary skirmishes until the war finally begins in earnest on page 246. In summary, readers should consider carefully how interested they are in military tactics before picking up this tome.

I have read Bond's previous work, Red Phoenix and Vortex, and IMHO, they are the best military novels ever written. So when I picked up Cauldron, my expectations were high. Unfortunately, all I got for my 8 dollars was a poor and boring and predictable plot, with annoying and self righteous characters babbling about why they are entitled to start WW3 (see the CIA agents in Russia and the president). The action was anything but exciting, with American led forces kicking everyone's butts easily. The portrayal of the French was especially horrible. Throughout the whole novel, the French people are vilified and bashed throughouly, and they are portrayed to be so incompetent and cowardly that one has to wonder how in the world they managed to climb their way to the top of the European ladder in the first place. But somehow when the shooting starts, the French armed forces fight with the same skill and tenacity as your Sudanese militia. I was sorely disappointed with this work, and my opinion of Larry Bond has been substantially lowered as a result of this book.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a blessing in disguise not only for the Pentagon but for writers of military fiction. Just as the armed services have had to develop new doctrines, strategies, tactics, and weapons systems to contend with new enemies (potential and real), authors such as Tom Clancy, Stephen Coonts, Harold Coyle, and Larry Bond have had to look at the world situation, read the proverbial "tea leaves," and write plausible scenarios pitting American soldiers against foes that are very different from the by-now all-too-familiar Soviet "Ivan."

The writing team of Bond and Patrick Larkin (Red Phoenix, Vortex) was one of the earliest practitioners of "the-Cold-War-is-ending, let's-look-at-other-story-possibilities" idea. Although the Soviet Union was still in existence when their first two novels were published in the early 1990s, its role in Red Phoenix (about a second Korean War) and Vortex (conflict breaks out in South Africa) is very limited...think of it as an old Mafia don giving limited amounts of money and guns to a younger up-and-coming capo.

In Cauldron, the international situation is very different. NATO has dissolved, its mission as Western Europe's shield against a massive Soviet invasion having been achieved. France and Germany have formed a loose military alliance, and right-wing elements now begin reviving the old empire building instincts most Europeans thought had died out with the end of the Second World War. But the wars in the Balkans and greed in the hearts of many government officials in France and Germany -- and even impoverished Russia -- have awakened the old demons of imperial ambitions and diplomatic arrogance. And when the new Franco-German alliance starts bullying the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe for financial gain, Hungary and Poland soon become the first victims of full-scale aggression. Only the United States and Great Britain, aided by a few other smaller European allies, stand in the way of a Third World War.

Long time readers of the genre -- and of the Bond/Larkin novels in particular -- know that the eventual outcome is never really in doubt. The techno-thriller, in some ways, is sometimes just as predictable and conventional as a Harlequin Romance novel....only instead of ripped bodices and heaving bosoms there are camouflaged fatigues and flying missiles. Still, the premise of American and British troops facing off against former allies is (while far-fetched) intriguing and a bit disconcerting.

Stephen Rojack is (in the words of the publisher's blurb) a decorated war hero, a former Congressman and a certified public intellectual with his own television show. He is also a murderer. One night, in a drunken rage, he murders his estranged wife Deborah and then, pausing only to have sex with her German maid Ruta, pitches her body out of the window of her flat to make her death look like suicide. The police have their suspicions about Rojack, but cannot actually prove his involvement in his wife's death, and he is never charged with any crime. (That doesn't say a lot for the state of forensic science in the sixties). The rest of the book is taken up with Rojack's late-night Odyssey though the New York underworld, his relationship with a singer-cum-prostitute named Cherry and his bizarre interview with his father-in-law, Deborah's immensely wealthy father Barney Kelly.

The title "An American Dream" is deliberately ambiguous. On the one hand it refers- ironically- to the patriotic ideology of the "American dream", the idea that it is America, of all the countries in the world, which provides its citizens with the optimum conditions for the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, it could be that Mailer intended his title to be interpreted quite literally, to suggest that Rojack's adventures never took place outside his imagination, that they are no more than a drink-fuelled hallucination. Certainly, the writing does at times take on a weird, nightmarish quality, a quality heightened by Mailer's lengthy, intricate, swirling and frequently obscure sentences. It is certainly suggested that Rojack is on the verge of madness; early in the book, before Deborah's murder, he hears the moon urging him to kill himself. The moon, of course, is frequently associated with insanity, hence the etymological link between "lunar" and "lunatic".

There are certain similarities with Hemingway's work. The prose styles of the two writers are very different (Hemingway generally being much terser), but Mailer is clearly writing in the same tradition of literary machismo. The book is written in the first person, with the world seen through the eyes of Rojack himself. This is a very male-oriented world; women generally enter into Rojack's life either as his bitter enemies (Deborah) or as sources of sexual gratification (Ruta, Cherry).

The book was immensely controversial when it was first published in the mid sixties, not only among the sort of conservatives who disapproved of any literary treatment of sex and violence but also because of Mailer's attitude to women. He adopts a deliberately amoral position towards Rojack's crime, which is never explicitly condemned. Rojack himself never expresses any remorse or regret at his wife's death; his only concern, apart from sex with Ruta, is to try and ensure that the blame does not fall on him. In earlier decades there was an unofficial literary convention that fictitious criminals, just as much as real-life ones, had to be seen to pay for their misdeeds, but in the sixties this was breaking down.

The book clearly has its admirers- the majority of those who have reviewed it here have awarded it either four or five stars- but I, quite frankly, loathed it. The theme of violent or sexual crimes committed by males against females is a difficult one, but there are male writers who have covered the topic well. Examples that come to mind are Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" and John Fowles's "The Collector". Both those works are, like "An American Dream", first-person narratives, and both Nabokov and Fowles allow their anti-heroes Humbert Humbert and Frederick Clegg to condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

"An American Dream" is not in the same class. It is a lurid celebration of violence with a nasty streak of misogyny running throughout. The repulsive Rojack's pseudo-philosophical meanderings read less like self-condemnation than self-justification. He wants to blame everyone but himself; Deborah's death is either her own fault (he paints her as an obnoxious harridan) or that of society in general, a society which both Rojack and Mailer see as sick, although there is no meaningful analysis of that sickness or of the social causes of violence. No amount of protest against the crushing banality of society can justify the taking of another person's life. It is hardly surprising that the feminist critic Kate Millett called this book "an exercise in how to kill your wife and be happy ever after."

I never get tired of this book by Norman Mailer as read by MacDonald Carey. He has a great voice and a great acting style that make you see the book in your head like a movie! I am not kidding, sometimes I forget it was a book and think I saw this movie! I protect this tape like the special item it is. If you like the dark side, you'll like this book very much.

Mailer's `classic' story of a supposedly all-American life gone astray is at times very good, but all too often it doesn't reach the heights that it is aiming for. The concept of the American Dream is something that has loomed large in popular culture both in the US and in the exported version of that culture abroad. Many authors and artists have attempted to explore and seek out the essence of this rather ambiguous concept (Hunter S. Thompson comes to mind). More often than not they have not really known where to look and have come to the conclusion that the American Dream is dead or at least decaying. This view is central to Mailer's own investigation into the Dream. In this book he attempts to convey a broader picture of society through the fall from grace and respectability of a middle-aged successful former Congressman.

Certainly the downfall of one man's life from seeming respectability and contentment into upheaval, the underworld and the margins of his former society can be seen as a metaphor for an American generation in general or even the entire society. The fixation on suicide throughout the book seems almost a forced symbolic element when taken as part of the surface or primary story; it definitely makes more sense when applied to the death of the American dream as a whole. That Mailer sees US society standing on the ledge of building and alternating between the impulse to jump and self-preservation I think is a rather accurate assessment of the times he was writing about. The problem is that the effort to tie this into the story of the individual is too obvious or unnatural for lack of a better term.

Mailer set his goal high in writing this book, but for this kind of work the parallel meanings have to both be obvious, be able to stand independent of each other, and most importantly, naturally intertwine with each other. The failure to do so results in something that might have been great and yet clearly is not. All that being said, I did enjoy the book for the most part and would recommend it as a decent story and summation of a challenging time in the history of US society. One certainly cannot fault Mailer for the attempt.

"Ultimately a hero is a man who would argue with the gods, and so awakens devils to contest his vision. The more a man can achieve, the more he may be certain that the devil will inhabit a part of his creation." Norman Mailer

As Pulitzer Prize winner Mailer's (1923) fourth novel reveals, the devil dwells in the details of the American dream. An American Dream (1965) tells the powerful story of war-hero, congressman, television talk-show host, intellectual, Stephen Rojack, who seems to be the embodiment of the American Dream, that is, until his inner demons summon him to kill his estranged wife Deborah in an alcohol-fueled rage. After throwing her body from a Manhattan window, he then defends himself by claiming she committed suicide. Written after he stabbed his second wife (Adele Morales) with a penknife at a party in 1960, Mailer's novel may be read as an apologia on violence as a form of personal redemption in a culture of convention and conformity. Upon its publication, it also sparked a controversy over Mailer's portrayal of women (see Kate Millett's Sexual Politics, 1970). His controversial study of Stephen Rojack is characteristic Mailer: brilliant, poetic, and compelling.

G. Merritt

Former Congressman and current alcoholic Stephen Rojack murders his estranged wife, a maven of high society, in a sudden, delirious rage, then throws her body from the window to make it look like suicide. Over the course of the following 36 hours or so, he must deal with the police and his powerful father-in-law and begins a tentative romance with a nightclub singer. Suffering from too much alcohol and too little sleep, his sanity becomes more frayed and his encounters become increasingly surreal.

Writing in the first person perspective of a character whose mind is falling apart, Norman Mailer produced prose that is frequently opaque but never dull, often coming up with startling turns of phrase. The landscape of Mailer's American dream is fraught with violence, superstition, and unseemly sex. I'm not sure I know what to make of it all, but it certainly is a stimulating ride.

Diane Carey is capable of being one of the best writers of Star Trek stories in paramount's stable; she is also capable of being one of the worst. It all depends on whether she (or her editors) manage to curb her tendancy to try too hard for novel, exotic, clever, "creative" use of the language. When they succeed, it is possible to see that she is a fine writer, with a good sense of pacing, characterization, and (where applicable, when she isn't simply adapting an already existing plot to book form) plot. When they fail, it is virtually impossible to see anything past the flurry of distractingly WEIRD uses of perfectly good words in places that they simply aren't appropriate.

In this book, they partially succeed; it isn't nearly as bad as her worst work ("Descent", "The Search") but her tendancy is still present enough to be distracting. The plot, of course, isn't hers; it is the work of Stephen Behr and Hans Beimier, who wrote the episode for TV, and it was a fine episode and makes for a fine plot for the book. Unlike in the above-mentioned books, Diane Carey doesn't completely ruin a fine plot with her writing, but she does detract from it.

After I read this book, I realized how much I had actually fallen in love with all these characters! The book had so much more and was so much better that the episode, in my opinion! The Odo/Kira scene was really touching, and I cried after the book was over, not wanting it all to be over. It was a really well-written book, and I give my accolades to Diane Carey on this. Now, if they could just do something about the length.... Read the book, people, you will love it!

I noticed a couple instances in the book similar to http://www.jcandco.net/archives/2004_03.html David Schleifer's books also mentioned at http://www.maccenter.com/ The battlecruiser series shows so many things prevalent in both this book and others like it, yet it was written in the eighties.

I have become a big fan of the Star Trek paperbacks, and have read several - "What You Leave Behind" was my favorite so far.

Not quite as painful as Diane Carey's "Dominion War" books, but she fails to really get into the minds of the characters as we see them on the show. Tolerable. Read only if you are a completist -- and have read almost everything else. (I remember Diane Carey being a far better author than these three adaptions show. Maybe she's just not good with DS9.)

Each chapter is a jigsaw puzzle piece and when put together, the portrait is complex, engaging, terrifying, and ultimately satisfying. There is a challenge to the narrative, like Carey expects the reader to fill in the blanks, and thus brings him into the story actively. A sense of palpable dread hangs over the entire affair as the reader invests emotionally into the fate of the mother (who is no mother) and the son. This is a terrific, fierce novel.

Who ever wrote the inside flap summing up this book did a better job then the other telling his boring no one cares story. If you can even call it a story cause there wasnt much of one.Nothing happens at all, after the kidnapping. Dont waste your time with it, there are a million books that are better and more enjoyable to read.

For somebody who grew up in the sixties, I found this novel to be very interesting. Yet, I have to admit I was a bit confused in the first chapter. I found myself rereading scenes, struggling to understand whether or not the girl was in fact Che (the boy's) mother, or not. The individual scenes are fascinating, and I was very interested in watching the relationship between Dial and the boy evolve, however vague. I would have liked a little more help from the writer in terms of better defining the relationships. I am a Carey fan, and I loved Theft - this one not so much, but I'll be looking for his next one.

I was trapped on a plane reading this book. It's so disappointing. You want to toss your hands up and say WHO CARES? It was 200 pages devoid of anything worth reading.

Seven-year-old Che, the son of absent revolutionaries, lives with his grandmother on New York's Upper East Side. One day, a woman named Dial, who Che believes is his mother, whisks him away from everything familiar. Che and Dial end up at a hippie commune in the Australian outback. In an academic sense, I recognize the talent behind Carey's sensitive and nuanced portrayal of the mother-son relationship, but I didn't really enjoy reading this novel. For one thing, the Australian outback sounds terribly grim. Everyone is rude or weird, dusty, and hungry. For another thing, a good bit of the narrative is improbable. Why Australia? There's also a nudist who doesn't really have a well-understood place in the story. Overall, His Illegal Self lacks cohesion and appeal despite the masterful depiction of Che's relationship to Dial.

SPOILER WARNING. I was very disappointed by this book. Not because of how it does or doesn't relate to Tolkien (I don't care), but on its own merits. It's skillfully written, but the emotion foremost in my heart at the end was: so what? There is almost no evolution of the main characters, which is a capital sin of storytelling, and what evolution does happen matters little, as Carey kills almost everyone off at the end. I love (and most highly recommend) Carey's other works, but I found this book (and its predecessor) a well-wrought, colossal waste of time.

My biggest criticism of the first book in this pair was that she waited til near the end of the book to really give the background history and motivations, even personality, of most of the characters. But once I had that, I really enjoyed the end of the last book. Then, with that basis set, I really enjoyed this second book much more.

There are so many ways Carey could have taken the story, and I found myself extremely satisfied with the ending. The majority of the major characters wrestle on their own level with the thesis behind the whole book - what makes one evil? Do you stick by your principles when you aren't sure your side is right or not? How each resolves this quandry is what brings the plot to its culmination, with each and every decision integral to the final outcome.

I can't understand why people compare this to the story as told from the perspective of the Nazgul, or compare it to LotR at ALL - this is completely different! The Nazgul were intent on world domination and the complete and total subjugation of all people and races underneath them; Satoris only wants to be left alone. Haomane would be more accurately compared to the Nazgul than Satoris, and even HE isn't THAT bad - he just wants his way like a spoiled child!

That's not to say I got the ending I wanted in the book! But the book ended as it should - as the dragons say - "All thingss mussst be asss they are." And, although this story was being told from the point of view of the so-called "dark" Lord, it still clings to the conventions for this type of story. However, I don't wish to spoil the story, so I won't go any further with those thoughts.

In this book we continue to follow the attempts of Haomane's Allies to fulfill Haomane's Prophecy, and Lord Satoris' Allies attempts to stop them. We spend a good bit of time with the Bearer - Dani of the Yarru Yami - in his travels to get to Darkhaven, as well as with Lilias in her captivity among the Rivenlost. Unfortunately, years of indoctrination leaves the Rivenlost and the races of Men completely unable to believe anything of what they are told of Satoris. Only the Lady Cerelinde - held in the fastness of Darkhaven, begins to question her beliefs. And, of course, by the time she does it really is too late.

Again, I actually really liked this story - those who compare it to LotR or the Belgariad are not really giving the story the credit it is due, I think. I have read LotR well over a dozen times, and must have read the Belgariad close to that - and I can't see that much of a similarity. I'll grant you that the very basic premise is somewhat the same, but it is a standard convention in this sort of story - however, Ms. Carey takes it into new and unexpected directions and I was happy to see it. I can, with confidence, suggest this to anyone who is willing to read this and take the time to really think about it.

I know this is a re-write from the perspective of the King of the Nazguls from Lord of the Rings, so we know how the story ends. That's not why I knocked off two stars. I did that because the characters just aren't that interesting. The only two who held my interest was the half-breed who seemed to hate everything and Lord Sartoris himself. He was interesting. The others just felt like place-holders. I will say that this world is dissimilar enough from Middle-Earth and the remaining characters and possibilities are intriguing enough that if the author returns to this world with an original series, I'd probably read it.

Great book, and excellent series by Carey. If you enjoyed her Kushiels series, check this one out.

A number of reviewers have called this book long, slow, and boring. Well that's either beacuse they must not enjoy reading too much, or because they're too young to understand the true meaning of the book. It does not have much action in it, but it's very deep, and gets you thinking. If you like a powerful, provocative, psychological novel, then this one is for you. It is for people that would enjoy reading about the incredible complexities of humanity. Great book!!

first off i think this book is very very boring.the book has some good points but if your thinkin of reading this book for entertainment then you better think twice. if it wasn't for having to read it in school i would have ditched this book when i read the first page. yeah it makes you think but i think that the author was being a little to lazy and jus wrote a bunch of crap that you have to try to fit together. This book is not good at all!

We had to read 'A Separate Peace' as an English II project. The book started out so slow, that if I wasn't being made to read, I would have abandoned it right away. It is slow, and really has no point. It is also disappointing in the end. I do not suggest this book if you are lookning for and kind of stimulation-intellectual or otherwise.

How else can you explain the way people feel during the war, trying not to believe it's there? John Knowles, in my opinion, has done the best job of explaining the unique characteristics each person adopts during a major turning point in world history. With deep insight on human personality and emotion, the themes astounded me with its truth and relative simplicity. A definite five star if you like the heavy stuff!

I believe that some people have had the same experience as Gene and Finny. The author makes a great connnection to wars and makes people see that war is not with someone else, it's inside you. So, are you constructing your Maginot Lines, too?