Sachs Books

If you see the classic Roald Dahl cover illustration you might think this is an appropriate book for young children. It's definitely a book for 6th or 7th grade and up. Scroll around and you'll find some excellent reviews written by teenagers. I just gave it to my dad who is a WWII buff--he loved it. Adults, particularly those interested in Africa and WWII, will enjoy it so don't think you're going to read a children's book. It's really a classic memoir. The great British actor, Derek Jacobi, has recorded a fantastic unabridged audio version (and a fine one of Dahl's "Boy")

I've always enjoyed Dahl's children's books, and so I was curious to see what he might write about his own life. To say that his early adult years were exciting might understate the matter a bit. This book opens with Dahl embarking on a ship for East Africa, to start his first job as a representative of the Shell Oil Company, and follows him through his career as a RAF fighter pilot in the Eastern Mediterranean theater during WWII. Many of his tales are so over the top that it would be tempting to believe that he has embelished the stories. But even if he did, the result is an thoroughly enjoyable read, full of adventure and the excitement of youth. We also get a glimpse of the last hurrah of the British Empire, the epic struggle of the second World War, and just the barest idea of the conditions he found in war torn England upon his return. Very entertaining.

i must say, this book was incredibly hard to put down!

having read the previous roald dahl biography "boy," i was eager to read this book. i wasn't disappointed at all. i was absolutely fascinated by the things that this man has gone through. i feel like a coward indeed after reading about roald dahl's trip to africa and his terrifying wartime experiences! it's magnetic!

this book is written in a very straightforward style, and anyone and everyone should read it, i believe! there is a lot to be learned from this book. it shows the true insanity of war. people lose their minds in the kind of situations described in this book!

it has a happy ending, though. this, you can look forward to!

What an entertaining read this proves--not surprisingly--by the author of the children's classic, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Continuing the autobiographical expose of British boarding schools as revealed in BOY, Dahl opens this meant-for-adults book with a delightfully wacky view of his fellow Englishmen en route to work in Africa. Scornful of the repeated falls from stoic grace by so many of his predecessors, this young Empire Builder is at first shocked by the sight of so many decent chaps who have Gone Native--a result of prolonged absence from the UK and intense heat exposure. Can an idealistic youth rise above heat, humidity and British bravado to maintain his unflappable equanimity, or will he too succumb to the national trend?

Most of this book, however, consists of Dahl's serious account of his contribution to the Allied air war in Africa's western desert, followed by a long recuperation from head trauma. Before he returns safely to England, he describes the deadly action in Greece where German planes far outnumbered the intrepid RAF pilots. Interspersed among the reports of the air war are his own b/w photos and letters (self-censored) to his beloved Norwegian mother in England. This account will easily capture the reader's interest as Dahl translates the global struggle by bringing it down to an intensely human level. With his treasured possessions--pilot's Log Book and his 2nd camera--we leave him when he is reunited safely with his mother. A fast read--well worth the effort even if you are not a war buff.

Going Solo (the sequel to Boy) is a collection of Roald Dahl's most interesting stories of his time in Africa. These include: meeting a man you gives himself dandruff, teaching an African boy to read and write, seeing a lion attack a cook, learning to fly without a teacher, crashing in the African desert, leading a unit of R.A.F. soldiers to stop a caravan of German people from leaving Dar es Salaam, becoming temporarily blind, meeting the girl of his dreams then falling out of love when he sees her and living on a Greek airfield soon before he was grounded. Roald Dahl's style of writing changes each time slightly changes to fit the story. Basically, you get the idea that you have known Roald for years and he is just telling you an amusing story. Going Solo was not as interesting as some of his other fiction stories. For some readers it may not be interesting enough to keep you in the book; but it is not boring, thrills and adventure are always happening. To compare this to Boy would be a little difficult because even though they are the same writer, Boy is about his childhood and is for younger readers. Going Solo is probably for older readers. Even it you do not like one of the chapters the next will bring you back in. So if you want a lot of good anecdotes to read then or if you really liked Boy, you should pick up Going Solo.

I purchased the book "Ten Steps to a Federal Job" in January of this year 2008. I filled out my first application after reading the book in March 2008 was interviewed May 21,2008 and offered a job with the Federal Government on June 4, 2008!!!!!!! I started June 23, 2008.

I am so excited after 12 years of trying and going through the process so incorrectly, *I figured that out after reading the book*.

I would recommend you purchase the book immediately if you had any hesitations before don't it absolutely worked for me! If you are tired of working for the private sector and want to get into the highly competitive Federal Government get this book.

It is a must have and a best seller in my book!

Thank you Kathryn Troutman :)

I just used this book to apply for a job with the Federal Bureau of Prisons a month ago. I received a response via email and two weeks ago I received a notification. This book was really helpful on assisting me with my resume. This is really an investment that you should get.

I had been looking for a Federal job for five years; after reading and applying the principles in this book, I landed a GREAT position at the VA within weeks! This book prepared me for all aspects of the selection process ...right down to the second interview, the questioning process, and how to follow up. If there is one book to have in your search for a Federal job, it's this one. Use this and any resources that Ms. Troutman has ...it is well worth any price!

This book gives hints and advice for any type of federal job applicant. If you're seeking information specific to an agency, you will NOT find it here. However, this book has outstanding sample interview questions- I would have never thought of them but can see them asked in any interview. Also, there are about 15 different resume formats with tips on information that federal resumes require that you would never list on a private sector resume. All in all, this book was helpful in creating a great federal resume and preparation for general interview questions. Again, don't count on it for specific agency information.

Having read several books on how to gain employment in the federal sector, Kathryn Troutman has been able to succinctly explain how to position yourself for success in seeking a civil service opportunity. She shares her vast knowlege of the federal hiring process in a way that is easy to understand as well as implement. By investing the time in reading this book, you will have taken the first, probably most important step, toward being granted an interview for a federal opportunity!

Stark nearly unrelenting Dickens tale of businessman par excellence. Dombey exemplifies the "modern" man of business whose devotion to work and denial of self are so starkly modern to render the ironic quotes superfluous. Dombey, and son, and daughter, and wives first and second, pay dearly for this misdirected devotion until very near the very-nearly bitter end of the 900+ page novel (published serially in the original).

Even (one might says especially) the "comic relief" characters in this book are strong, direct, and conscious of the faults of Dombey and the world he represents. Dombey himself is unrelievedly unlikable at best, and strongly detestable throughout, with little to be hoped or pitied in his private or public character.

Dickens writes here with a passion that snaps off the page in some of the strongest scenes he ever put to paper.

And yes, as the edition introduction points out, despite the title, this is a mostly domestic novel. But its assumption of the supremacy of "business" in Dombey's life, and the rough-shod journey over (literally) the neighborhoods of London and environments, place this novel in a more modern milieu than most Dickens novels, which might have been set and written anytime after the Middle Ages.

I got what I wanted in timely fashion. I expect that of Amazon purchases.

Dealings with the Firm of Dombey and Son, published from 1846 to 1848 is, like many of Charles Dickens' novels, a tome. But, since it is over 1,000 pages (or if that is just this copy) we can consider it a true tome. Like War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov or The Count of Monte Cristo.

That's all I have to say since I have never read the book. I am a huge Dickens fan and I would like someday to read this tome.

Dombey and Son is a long novel dealing with Mr. Dombey an affluent merchant who has a family in crisis. Dombey's first
wife dies giving birth to little Paul who dies early in chapter 16 in a moving and symbolic deathbed scene. His daughter Florence is shunned by her father but is loved by Walter Gay a sailor employed by her father's firm. Colorful characters populate the many pages of this classic: Captain Cuttle and Sol Gillis who befriend Florence; the evil Mr. Carker and many others who appear in the lives of the Dombeys.
This novel written in 1846 is more thematic, well plotted and serious than many of Dickens earlier works. Dickens had a cinematic imagination; the tale of Mr. Carker's flight is riveting. While not my favorite of the master's works this is a
great book with great characters and story. Well worth the time
to read it and absorb its lessons regarding pride and the need for love and beauty in the human soul.

I just finished reading this gargantuan tome today after two weeks of diligent reading. It is second only to "David Copperfield" in my opinion. It is easy to be intimidated by a book this size (almost 1000 pages) but you must give this one a try! If you adore books that revolve around family dysfunction, this one is perfect for you. It's got characters you will love to hate and it is replete with genuine mysteries. If you have read "Oliver Twist," you will be glad to know that this story's good characters are a little less flat and boring.

As with Henry Fielding's "Tom Jones," there will be a few lulls here and there. In a story of this magnitude, it is hard to avoid...but there are not many. This is truly an enjoyable read. Be sure to get a copy that contains drawings by "Phiz"-- they really add to the overall story.

My daughter is a very good reader and it's always a challenge to find something that is not too adult, but not too childlike for her to read. This book was one of her favorites. The characters were engaging and the plot propelled her on a satisfying conclusion, leaving her to still want MORE! If your child has an adventurous spirit and a vivid imagination, they will love this book. **NOTE: my daughter recommends the reader be aware there are scary parts, and some kids might find it frightening, as it does talk about blood, death and evil spirits. But she adds: "It's a GREAT book!"

The books are exciting, but contain parts which are very violent such as a serial killer squirrel who kills baby animals for some sort of macabre enjoyment. There are also parts that are just down right bizarre for a children's book, like a squirrel named Smokewreath that uses bodies of other animals to conjure up magic. The Redwall books are much more interesting and less twisted and horrific!

Too often I've seen books, well-written and compelling, passed off as just another "children's" story, something that anyone above the suggested reading level shouldn't read. A book like this one could easily be thrown into that category. After all, talking animals on a fantasy island, seems pretty childish. There is no cursing, and it is relatively short, especially with the double-spaced printing of the book.

However, that is the books biggest downfall; it is too short. Other than that, this book is nearly flawless. McAllister is has crafted a wonderful, exciting world. The descriptions are well done. The plot is gripping.

McAllister's greatest achievement is, however, is in her character development. She has created a wonderful, lovable, and memorable cast of characters. From Crispin, to Urchin, to Husk, the characters have been masterfully created. It's amazing, in such a small amount of writing (relatively), McAllister could succeed so grandly. Within the first 20 pages, I was already idolizing Crispin as a hero.

Of course, the story is not lacking, either. This is a story of plotting and betrayal, deception and loyalty, compassion and evil. It is filled with suspense and drama, and you will not want to put it down until the end.

And it is not without its dark side. The island of Mistmantle is under a dictatorship, with a puppet king being played by a totalitarian, ruthless captain. Brutal work parties and "culling" have been instituted over the people. (culling is the act of killing new born babies with any physical defects present, which is branded as a type of "euthanasia" by the leaders).

A word of warning to any over-sensitive parent, there is alcohol use, as in wine, and several murders from knife to poison. Personally, I don't believe that this should affect how the book is seen, as they are all completely needed to craft such a compelling story.

Comparisons to the Redwall series are inevitable, but not justified. I'll admit, I'm a fan of the Redwall books, I've read about half of them, and that's the whole reason I picked this book up. The only similarity to the two, however, is the presence of anthropomorphic, talking animals such as squirrels, otters, and moles. Perhaps there is more action in Redwall, but other than that, the Mistmantle Chronicles is superior. It is plot-heavy, compelling, and leaves us with more than a simple "good vs evil" approach, but instead gives us moral ambiguity and social issues.

Urchin of the Riding Stars is a fantastic book, appropriate for any age. An above average reader could easily finish this book in 2-3 days, even one day if you can set aside a few hours. Easily worth the time and effort. And, if you find the problem of the book being too short, there are sequels waiting. I can't wait until I get the next one in the mail.

It was a very stimulating story, excieting and interesting, but it is much darker then Redwall, with more magic. One of the "baddies" practices some sort of black magic. I would have liked to read the rest of the series, but I thought that plot element was unnecesary. Too bad.

Most nights I still read to my ten-year-old son, and we were both surprised and absoltuetly taken by Mistmantle. He's a big reader by himself, and this was the first time that he ended up so eager to Know What Would Happen that he read ahead of me, and finished it first (and then urged and urged me to catch up--). We both loved the story, the language, the characters--we could stop and predict things together, registering the ways McAllister was setting things up, or the ways she revealed why certain figures behaved as they did. A really smart, page-turning adventure investigating right and wrong and honor and friendship--

Famed economist Jeffrey Sachs manages to deliver pessimistic news in an optimistic way. Yes, the Earth faces dire threats from global warming, poverty, war, deforestation and mass extinctions. Yet Sachs asserts that these severe problems are manageable. Fixing them will cost $840 billion - a massive amount indeed, but, as Sachs argues, only 2.4% of the rich world's gross national product. Sachs doesn't shy away from politically touchy pronouncements. He argues against the U.S. war in Iraq and for legalized abortion. Still, throughout the fray, his book strikes the unlikely balance of delivering a message that's both frightening and promising. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone seeking insight into the world's most pressing problems.

The book arrived very quickly, well packaged, in great shape. I was pleased to see follow-up to confirm mailing date and arrival on this end. I would buy from this vendor again! Try them. MOM

The global energy, environmental and economic situation is going through major changes. Jeffrey Sachs does an excellent job of analyzing the issues, choices and possible consequences before the world community. Comprehensive in nature, this book makes an excellent textbook that should be required reading for all who need to understand the realities of the new age before us. This is all of us so "Common Wealth" is a must read.

I received the book on time and in very good condition. This is a wonderful book that gives you a clear view of the problems facing the world and how we can solve them.

What a wonderful read! If you want to understand the planet that we are inheriting at this moment, in real time, then this book is for you. Get your global bearings here.

This is a well written account of one woman's trip and love of Vietnam. At most times it flowed but there were times were I would see myself skipping over pages that didn't interest me. I was actually a little sad of her use of her male friend that she was with her first long stay in Vietnam. Makes me sad to think of her being American, I sure hope we all do not think of people as usable. At least you'd think she'd of said she was sorry. Besides that it was a nice read, nothing that blows you away but it's a good waste of a rainy day!

I can't add anything to the other reviews other than to say that if you enjoy reading about westerners living in Asia you will like or love this book. You should also read "Catfish and Mandala" which comes from a totally different perspective, but is also memorable.

i loved every minute of reading this book. i was captivated by ms. sachs' tales of coming to terms with her discomfort in a very foreign environment where communication was almost impossible. her writing is clear and expressive and personal. i look forward to reading her next book, and hope that there are more to come.

This is simply one of the most stupendous travelogues I have ever read. In fact, I can't think of a better one. Read it!

Her writing style is so playful, amusing, charming, and sensitive. Her observation of the environment and culture is so acute. She brought alive the scenes, the sounds, the liveliness of Hanoi streets -- just like the classic Vietnamese novels that we had to read while in high school. I bought this book for my wife, previewed it and then finished it. Highly recommended.

Psychoanalysis usually does not make a good basis for fiction writing. There is, to my knowledge, one unique and very bright exception which is this book. The previous novels of Italo Svevo were showing real litterary talent but nothing like the genius he displayed in this one. At some point in his life, this man who must have considered himself a failed writer was encouraged to try it again by a totally unknown young Irishman who was giving him English lessons, one James Joyce. He created the funniest of the great masterpieces of modern litterature. Thinking about it, Ulysses and A la recherche du temps perdu can also be seen as essentially comical works. My personal preference goes to Zeno's Conscience.

Svevo is NOT the Italian Proust; any more than Laurence Durrell and Anthony Powell were English Prousts, or Thomas Mann was a German Proust, pace all claims to the contrary. There was only one Proust, and he was French.

So, having decided what Svevo is NOT, what IS he? What to make of this book, which would have never seen publication had it not been for Joyce? I don't quite buy the bit about it being all about Freud and psychoanalysis, or contra Freud and psychoanalysis. - There is that comic apercu in the last chapter, a jibe at his analyst, which I found exceedingly droll - "I believe, however, that he is the only one in the world who, hearing I wanted to go to bed with two beautiful women, would ask himself: Now let's see why this man wants to go to bed with them."

I think what Zeno thinks of himself and his life is that he is a "sick" man. ---But this is question-begging. - "Sick" in what way? I don't think it has much to do with Freud, but rather with Darwin w/ perhaps a bit of Nietzsche's "last man" thrown in. I'm surprised that not one of these reviews mentions Darwin, whose Survival of the Fittest theory Zeno is constantly meditating upon, including the famously gruesome example of the wasp paralyzing its prey so that its young can have live flesh to feast upon.

Here is what Zeno himself has to say about his "sick" state:

"How much more beautiful my life had been than that of the so-called healthy, those who beat or would like to beat their women every day, except at certain moments. I, on the contrary, had been accompanied always by love. When I hadn't thought of my woman for a while, I then called her to mind again, to win forgiveness for thinking of other women. Other men abandoned their women, disappointed and despairing of life. I had never stripped life of desire, and illusion was immediately, totally reborn after every shipwreck, in the dream of limb, of voices, of more-perfect attitudes." P.419

But his judgment on his type is what other reviewers call "presciently" damning. It is found in the last paragraph of the book in which a sick man like himself invents an "incomparable explosive" and another "sicker man" effects the book's last sentence: There will be an enormous explosion that no one will hear, and the earth, once again a nebula, will wander through the heavens, free of parasites and sickness."-That is, of course, of humans.

An interesting book - but, au fond, none too cheery.

*Zeno's Conscience* is, by some estimation, one of the `unknown' and unheralded classics of the modern novel. In it, the title character, at the behest of his psychoanalyst, records the story of his life as part of his treatment.

Zeno manages this massive task by recalling his life's most defining epochs: his failed courtship of one woman and marriage to another, his adulterous relations, his failed business venture with a brother-in-law, the traumatizing death of his father. And, most humorously and characteristically, his sincere and repeatedly renewed pledge to quit smoking......after `one last cigarette.'

Bookending this catalog of misadventures there is a short preface by Zeno's hostile analyst and an epilog by Zeno himself poking fun of this very same analyst and his failed treatment. The overriding message? Psychoanalysis is pure bunk.

At the time *Zeno's Conscience* was written, psychoanalysis was coming into its own and Svevo's mocking parody of its claims to "cure" the analysand could very well have struck a reactionary chord with the progressive intelligentsia of his day. I wonder if that played a role in condemning *Zeno's Conscience* to relative obscurity? Today, however, Svevo sounds like a prophet. After a century-plus of psychoanalysis, it's become a standard joke: Does anyone *ever* get better? It may have once been intellectually unfashionable to knock psychoanalysis, Freudian theory, and Oedipal complexes--but nowadays it's hard to even find a psychiatrist who believes in the efficacy of `talk-therapy,' without, that is, pharmaceutical accompaniment.

Supposedly championed by no less a literary luminary than James Joyce, Italo Svevo writes with a conventional crystal clarity very different from Joyce himself, unless youre thinking the Joyce of *A Portrait of the Artist* or *Dubliners.* As the voice of Zeno, Svevo's meticulous and incisive psychological portraits of self and other manage to be both devastating and touching. Here we are--warts and all. But Zeno--a sort of neurotic Zorba with a lot less energy--doesn't lose his enthusiasm for life or his affection for mankind. As he memorably argues, to `cure' us of illness would be like trying to stop up the holes of our bodies: it'd surely and quickly kill us. These `holes,' these `imperfections,' this `sickness,' is what keeps us alive--and what makes life enjoyable.

On the surface, *Zeno's Conscience* is a long-winded book narrated by an old guy looking back on a rather ordinary and largely uneventful life. A guy who failed at just about everything he ever put his hand to. A guy who, in spite of his relentless introspection, self-absorption, and self-analysis still deludes--and eludes--himself. A bundle of contradictions and impossible desires, caught on every side by double-binds and unwinnable predicaments largely of his own making, Zeno is a clown of the loftiest variety--one whose pratfalls tell a story as tragically symbolic as the climb to Golgotha, but with a lot more laughs along the way. Because in the end *Zeno's Conscience* is a very funny novel--the way life is very funny, through a veil of tears.

Well worth your time.

As André Gide once said: "Toute chose appartient à qui sait en jouir." Alas, those of us who do not possess this happy faculty, still have to somehow come to terms with life. This is the main problem in Svevo's novel, concisely summarized by its hero: "Simply recalling everything we humans expected from life sufficed for us to see how strange it was, and to arrive at the conclusion that perhaps mankind is located in its midst by mistake and doesn't belong there."

Of course, the theme of being out of place in life is not new in literature. "Exotopic" men can be found earlier in Thomas Mann's "Buddenbrooks", Flaubert's "L' Éducation sentimentale", and, ultimately, some sixty years before, in Goncharov's "Oblomov". So, perhaps thematically the only peculiar novelty of "Zeno's Conscience" is in the incorporation of certain Freudian elements in main hero's self-analysis. Nevertheless, the originality of this work is striking in the context of the fact, that even though Svevo is often compared to Joyce or Proust, he hasn't read any of their novels until after the publication of "Zeno's Conscience" (though he knew Joyce personally for many years since 1904, when Joyce was his English tutor in Trieste).

Full of humor, irony, and astute aphorisms, this book is an honest confession of its main hero, who fails to immerse himself in life. If you liked Proust, Joyce, or Musil, this book is for you.

The confessions of Zeno is an amazingly insightful novel about the folly of humanity, our amazing capacity for self delusion and our lack of understanding of our place in the great drama that is life.

Zeno is an elderly merchant in Trieste before World War One, who owes his success and money more to inheritance than to ability, who approaching the end of his life consults with a psychiatrist to cure his long term debilitating illnesses. As an exercise his Freudian psychiatrist asks Zeno to write a journal reviewing the major events of his life.

These journals form the basis for the confessions of Zeno and reveal a weak and shallow man. Zeno is subject to self delusions, he is almost totally lacking in self control, he is a man who plays at business while living of his inheritance, a man who marries because he feels that it is required of him, with little consideration of love, a man who blunders through life with little empathy causing harm to all around him. Yet what makes this novel fascinating is the authors ability to make Zeno despite all of his faults and weaknesses a likable and understandable human being.

Overall, an amazing book from a largely forgotten master.

I loved this book when I found it in fourth grade. I was just like Fran, poor, geeky, and too smart for my own good. I read this story over and over, and I have never forgotten how it made me feel. I would recommend this book to any thinking child, and more than a few adults who need their priorities adjusted. Moving and beautiful, this story should be treasured by everyone.

I first checked this book out of my school library in 5th grade, and it stuck with me ever since. When I found a paperback reprint as an adult, I quickly grabbed it. I feel this is one of the most important children's books ever written for this age group, handled masterfully by writer Marilyn Sachs.

It is not a happy book, but it is thoughtful and moving and will teach children about other walks of life and how many people live. It will teach them to appreciate what they have and to have compassion for others. I agree that it is best read under the supervision of an adult so children can talk about what they're reading.

Disney stories are wonderful, and so are happy endings, but there is a place even among younger readers for books about kids in jeopardy, in poverty, and who are struggling to make sense of the world. I also recommend the sequel, "Fran Ellen's House," for those who wonder what happened to the characters.

Nine-year-old Fran Ellen's mother is sick, and none of the Smith kids know how to help her. Ever since their father walked out on them, Mama just lies in bed, refusing to talk and ignoring their baby sister Flora.

Twelve-year-old Fletcher, the oldest, says they've got to keep the household running smoothly so no one finds out and puts them in foster homes. Fran Ellen's job is taking care of the baby, which she loves. But what happens when she's at school, and little Flora is all alone in her crib?

Although Fran Ellen's doing her best to hold her family together, she can't stop being afraid all the time. She sucks her thumb nonstop, and gets teased by her classmates incessantly...until it's apparent to her teacher that something is really wrong in the Smith home and she's determined to get to the bottom of it.

If you enjoy this book, check out the sequel, "Fran Ellen's House."

I loved this book as a teen and now my teenage daughter loves it. This is a wonderful story of a little girls survival in a world filled with fear and trouble. It will touch your heart.

I am a fourth grade teacher, I choose to read this book to my students. It really tells you something about a book and its characters, when children ask to hear it read over playing Gameboys during free time. The children gained a better uderstanding of the "different walks of life" They have been much kinder to one another since we read this book.

Nine-year-old Amy's just moved into a new neighborhood, and it's tough. Not only does she have to get used to a strange new apartment and a new school, but she's got to make new friends.

Still, despite her fears, Amy tries to look on the bright side. She has fun exploring her new neighborhood, especially with her new friend Cynthia, an adventurous tomboy who dreams up all sorts of things Amy would never dare try on her own.

Before long, it's almost as if Amy lived her entire life in the new neighborhood. She's got lots of friends, the protection and companionship of her older sister Laura, and two loving parents. Who could ask for anything more?

One terrible afternoon, Amy and Laura come home from school to find their Aunt Minnie waiting for them. It seems that Mama was walking out on the snowy street when a car slid and hit her. Now Amy must be brave, as Mama's in the hospital for who knows how long...

Although the Amy and Laura books are set in the 1940s Bronx, they are timeless. Whether today or 60 years ago, Amy's thoughts and experiences are sure to ring true for readers.

When I read this book as a child in the late 1960s, I didn't even know it took place in the 40s. You can't help but feel for Amy-- the new kid on the block. She's sweet, but flawed-- so anxious for cool friends that she doesn't seem to stand up for any principles-- unlike her older sister, Laura-- the "smart one." The book is full of warmth, adventure, good humor, and realistic family situations-- it remains one of the most memorable books of my childhood. The "spinoff" books were equally engaging-- "Laura," "Amy and Laura," and "Veronica Ganz" especially.

This was my favorite book of all time in fourth grade and still it remains #1 on my favorite books list after some years after fourth grade. It was the first book that I read by Marilyn Sachs, and that might explain why it is so good. As a nine-year-old kid way after Mrs. Sachs first wrote this, I could sympathize with Amy. Amy was a scrawny nothing (I was pretty skinny myself at nine) who was nine years old and had an older sister who she adored, and loved to imagine things. But that was where our similarites ended. I was more of a Laura fan, who spent her time reading books and sometimes had to go and save her sister from prospective bullies. But Amy still remains my favorite. Forty years after her publication, Amy Moves In will remain a great book despite its out-of-print. She might be a "goner" now, since there's some kids who will never read her, but those who did - they know she's an absolute joy.

Marilyn Sachs was pretty daring to write about life as it really was (and still is) in lower-middle-class New York. The heroine, Amy, is a realistically unpleasant little girl whose behavior is not justified or explained even by her dad's irresponsibility which impoverishes the family.. it's just laid out for you to see. Amy ingratiates herself with people she admires even after she sees they're racist bullies. She has to find her own answers; there weren't any kindly "counselors" back then. As for the idea that the boys seem "superior" to girls, face it; physically, at that age, they are. What Amy goes through with the boys in the park is an everyday reality that can't be changed by all the politically correct girls-can-do-anything wishful thinking in the world. There's more to identify with in the Amy stories than with all the unrelentingly cheerful Sweet Valley books in the world. Besides, I just love Rosa and I'd like to have a ball like that, too.

In my opinion, this book (along with Laura's Luck and Amy and Laura) is a children's classic, so why it is no longer in print is a mystery to me. I read this when I was in grade school in the 1970s and I found it wonderfully exotic. Imagine going to the convenience store to get penny candy and long pretzels out of a barrel! Imagine having a mother who looks like Joan Crawford (and this is considered a compliment!). The depiction of the Bronx during wartime is absolutely charming-- it's not the rough, slighlty seedy Bronx that one thinks of today.

I think publishers have a tendency to remove books from print if they feel that the subject matter is dated. (I notice that the All of a Kind Family series is out of print, too!). This is a huge mistake. I grew up with a tremendous respect for and interest in the past as a result of reading "old" books as a kid-- I was always much more interested in reading about "yesterday," and I think I had better manners as a result of my reading! I'm sorry to think that today's kids might not be able to take the same joy in the bygone days as I did.

Unreadable. A curiosity. A long way from English. The difficult made impossible. Many sentences, long and short, like, "So let these things have been spoken of just this much." Page 9. The footnotes are somewhat clearer than the text.

Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.

How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.

When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.

Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).

Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.

Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.

There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.

Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?

This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.

I've read and taught the Nicomachean Ethics several times in translation, and working through it this time with Joe Sachs' exceptional translation is what for the first time brought the urgency and interest of the text alive for me. I'd always said, in response to student complaints, something like: I know that the book itself, in style, is kind of boring and dry, but the subject matter could not be more important so try and look past that. With this translation, I didn't need to say that. You feel the urgency and importance of the subject in the writing itself. Joe Sachs has done a remarkable thing in bringing this text -- easily one of the most important philosophical works ever written -- to life.

As if that weren't enough, he has also written an excellent and very short introduction to the text that goes a long way towards overcoming many of the commmon misunderstandings of Aristotle's ethics, especially misconceptions tied to the Latin influences on translations of the text. Without any effort to give a "definitive" and inevitably partial account of the text as a whole, he confines himself to addressing three central concepts -- habit, the mean, and the noble -- shows how these have led many readers of the text astray, and points readers towards the passages in Aristotle that can overcome or resolve some of the basic misunderstandings (incidentally, one of these misunderstandings is evident in another review of this translation by FrKurt Mesick, and I can only assume he either didn't read the intro, or he disagreed with it in favor of more standard "textbook" interpretations of Aristotle, or that he is commenting on another translation and just happened to include his review under this one). Along the way, Sachs shows that the common reading of Aristotle as a kind of reformed or anti-Platonist is just false -- and that Aristotle's ethics is richer and more compelling than is usually thought precisely because of the elements of Platonism that Aristotle wisely retains.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.

How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.

When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.

Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).

Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.

Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.

There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.

Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?

This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.