Sherman Books

I used the Stewart book for my Calculus I course, and needed this one for my Calculus II course. This book is unequivocally the worst mathematics book I've ever encountered. In almost every section of every Chapter there is a proof that is needed to understand the material that the author leaves for the student to work out for themselves in an exercise. The most of the examples are grossly oversimplified compared to the work that the exercises require, so the student has no confidence at all in what they're doing when they get to the problems. The definitions involving critical subjects, like the introduction to integrals, are very wordy and hard to decipher. I had to resort my Stewart book many times just to get a grasp of the material. And when it comes to the problems, there are many where it's impossible to understand what they want you to do. In short, there are other Calculus books out there with a much more straight-forward approach, so if your so unlucky to need this book, I hope your professor is good, otherwise you're in for a rough semester.

I study the book from cover to cover and work out almost all the odd number problems on the second half of the book. I took classes on the first half of the book in the 70s and I study the book from the begining to the end in the last year. I found the first 14 chapter simple and easy to read. Problem is this book only provide the easier part of the subject, you can learn but not quite enough. In the vector portion, the book really not cover the parametric representation of vector very well. Even the example just show the answer not give you the method of finding parametric equation.

The last 3 chapter are on the scatter side. I found it confusing. It does not provide with the top down approach. You can easily get lost reading chapter 16 and 17. Again the book is very weak on the parametric surface. Almost not covering the subject. Surface integral and divergence theorem section is as weak as can be.

I study 2 other books. I study this book first, don't get a good feel. Lately I study Howard Anton book and I think it is a lot better. It could be due to the fact it is the second time I study the Multi Variable. Anton's book is more top down, telling you what the chapter want to achief and then go down to more detail. It is a harder book to read. But I don't think Sherman Stein's book is good enough for self study regarding to the Multi Variable.

I gave the book a three star mainly because of the first 2/3 of the book. The Multi Variable portion is forgetable. Should get two star or even one star. Some of the exercise in the book are very strange, not very pratical.

If your school use this, you have no choice, if you are buying for reading, go with Howard Anton or Thomas.

I am a student at CSUSB and I have had to use this book for 3 quarters of Calculus. At the school all the professors say the book is horrible and can't wait until the department changes. In 2005 they finally changed the book to Caculus by Larson, Hostetler, Edwards. It is ironic in desperation I asked a fellow student how he was handing the problems of this book. He said that he borrowed a book from his friend who said the book was excellent. It turned out that it was the book written by Larson, Hostetler, and Edwards. I then obtained a copy for myself and found the book to be excellent.

Stein's and Barcellos's book has very poor explanations in the chapters and very few examples to explain to you the concepts. Whereas Larson's book has excellent explanation of concepts and follows it up with good examples that make the concepts easy to understand. At the present we are studying the disk and washer methods of finding volume. Stein covers these topics in approximately 3-4 pages of very poor explantions. The Larson book had 2 chapters on the subject and 9 pages just on the 2 methods. I currently have an A in the last quarter of Calculus and I attribute that to using the book by Larson.

As you can see I can not say enough bad about the book by Stein and Barcellos. Good luck and I hope you make the right choice, but don't buy this book.

I can only review an edition of this book dated at least 20 years ago. I bought it when I was in high school (in 10th grade actually) and used it by myself to learn calculus.

When I got to the actual class, I knew basicaly everything and I mean everything that the teacher taught us in 12th grade. I didn't even need anything for my first 2 university level courses in calculus, just took the notes in the class and that was enought to get A+ in both, differential and integral calculus (course 1) and Vetor calculus.

The explanation of derivatives was great and my teache just enhanced my knowledge there. The book was specially great when teaching integration. There was a chapter devoted to that. I skept the section about using tables for integration and only learned a few basic formulas. The book taught the methods and still now, after 20 years, I can integrate pretty much anyhing without any difficulty at all.

If the current edition is as good as it was 20 years ago, then this book is definitely a winner.

This book is literally the best basic calculus text you can possibly get. Anyone wanting to start learning calculus NOW should get this. No real previous mathematical knowledge is necessary. There are several appendices on algebra and series etc. The book discusses trigonometry, so you can learn the book practically without knowing a thing. The "feeling" of the book is inexplicable. Reading this book really gave me an true understanding of basic calculus. Excellent for people like me who need proofs (especially visual ones) have a solid grasp on concepts. If your only goal in learning calculus is to do well on examinations, this book is definately not for you. You should get "Calculus for Dummies" or something like that. The great thing about the text is that it appeals to almost everyone. If there is a certain chapter you don't care for or doesn't matter to you, for example on methods of graphing, you can just skip it, and it will not do any harm. Highly intelligently organized. If you want some help in you physics class on basic vector algebra, just turn to chaper 18 and just read! This book is full of applications, which is great. It also has several historical notes. The colors make the book very engaging to read. Unless your colorblind, this will help engage your interest. Very adequate spacings on the paper as to keep you clearheaded and focused. The drawings rival those of Picasso. They show calculus to be a LIVELY subject. The examples (inside the chapters) are very helpfull. Stein offers several suggestions on how to solve certain problems. Its a shame; this book does not attract the amount of attention it deserves. I did get stuck a couple times; but that is inevitable. Definately get this one: its a gem to have. I can understand how some people would hate this book; its not very concise. That should not be a hindrance. If you feel there is no need to read on about a subject, skip some pages. At the end of chapters it all comes together with a summary of the most important concepts. The book prepares you for study of calculus-based sciences such as physics, and for more advanced mathematical topics as well. I worship this book.

Fellman's prose is dynamic and his knowledge of the events of Sherman's life is apparently up to the task, but his psychoanalysis is overblown. Sherman's psychological problems clearly must be discussed and psychohistory is valid within limits, but almost all of Fellman's paragraphs drip with analysis of what Sherman or Ellen was thinking, why they thought or said it, and, worse, what they might have said but didn't. One example: Sherman hated newspapermen, claiming, with a degree of truth, the military is chained to a rock while reporters were vultures that flew freely. Fellman claims, "Sherman fancied himself the modern Prometheus, the vulture-tortured embodiment of truthful duty." The mere presence of a rock and vultures, frequently used analogies, does not by definition constitute a paranoic self-vision. Fellman paints an ugly picture of W. T. Sherman that smacks of late 20th century attitudes. If you consider Fellman's approach to be valid, ask youself why a used hardback version only costs $1.39 while a used hardcover of Isaac Robertson's Stonewall Jackson bio starts at $19.30. I want to read one of his competitors' works.

Citizen Sherman is not so much an attempt to put Sherman on the couch, so to speak, as a study of his character and personality as evinced through his personal relationships and in his voluminous correspondence. Fellman isn't just making things up or shooting from the hip as some reviewers imply; most of the light shed on Sherman's life and character comes from his own words. You will not find most of this information anywhere else. If you want an analysis of Sherman the Civil War general you won't find it here. But that doesn't mean that an understanding of Sherman the man is not worthwhile. This is a wonderful biography, a beautifully constructed and poignant character study of Sherman the man. If all the Civil War buffs out there don't like its lack of reliable military information, too bad; there are many other places to find that. And since when should an author be hesitant to seek an understanding of an individual's motives, emotions, and psychological processes? This is what the finest biographers do. Fellman does not cross the line by asserting theories that are not backed up by evidence. Indeed, his assertions as to Sherman's feelings and emotions are supported by a great deal of evidence.
I will acknowledge that Fellman, on occasion, does let his liberal bias show as when he claims Sherman was "an utterly inhumane warrior" and the like. After making a brilliant case for the necessity of Sherman's kind of warfare, and letting Sherman speak for himself as to his motivations, very human motivations we all can relate to, Fellman seems to be one of those authors who feels it is necessary to damn any kind of practice that seems to make liberal minded Americans uncomfortable with humanity or themselves. He, as an author, seems to be one of those people who just couldn't live with himself if he didn't somehow pretend he is beyond that, and we all should be too. Well, sometimes just plain old nasty stuff just has to be done, and when it does need doing, we should be glad we have guys like Billy Sherman around to do it for us. This is more a minor annoyance, however, and does not detract from the power of the character study. All-in-all, this is a book well worth reading. You will surely come away with a much enhanced picture of Sherman the man.

I usually loathe any historical book which puts its subject on the couch, but this is a notable exception. Fellman infuses this book with his own spin on certain matters, but much of the interpretation is accurate! If you enjoy a "National Enquirer" approach to biography, then this is your bag, though a more intellectual, sobering and accurate analysis of events than a tabloid rag. Fellman delves deeply into Sherman's womanizing and the reasons behind it: Ellen, WTS's wife, was a passionless prig, obsessed with Catholicism and being the type of prim, straightlaced wife that Sherman would ultimately abhor. Can we blame him for repeatedly cheating on Ellen? Of course not.

Fellman is much weaker on the military end of the biography and his limitations show. There are numerous factual gaffes and the author is on safer ground when restricting himself to purely personal matters. This is hardly the definitive treatment of Sherman, try John Marszalek's biography (available on Amazon) for an exceptional and scholarly approach. But if you want a book focused primarily on the private life of Sherman, this nicely fits the bill

I have read dozens of autobiographical accounts of the Civil War by its leaders, both Northern and Southern. Most of these accounts were, of course, written in the sentimental, shielded, "polite society" style of the post-civil war/turn of the century years. Although these books offer valuable insight into the author's actions and reactions, philosophy, and basic moral structure, they leave the modern reader without a real knowledge who the author was as a person. It is only through a thorough understanding of the subject of a biography/autobiography that the reader can truly appreciate the way in which a subject continues to influence us years after that person made his mark on the world. For example, everyone knows that Sherman was a hard-headed, all-out warrior whose unwavering determination helped the Union win the Civil War. But not everybody knows about the Sherman who, during the war years, was an unhappily married man whose heart died when his favorite son did; a man who, years after the dust and gunsmoke settled, sought to recover dormant emotional feelings by seeking the companionship of women half his age. It does seem that there are a few very minute points in this book that are historical misrepresentations, most likely caused by oversight. But despite its few flaws, it gives a full and complete portrait of Sherman, the human being - someone we must see for all he was in truth, before we can truly understand his impact on American History.

Some of the above reviews have merit, Fellman definitely puts Sherman on the couch, and, I also don't usually like this, as it takes some liberties that may not be entirely correct. However, it will take more than one source on Sherman to help the reader draw their own conclusions about the man. This said, I very much enjoyed reading Fellman's analysis. I did find it light militarily, however, I really wasn't looking for that kind of bio on Sherman. A history teacher, this was my first exposure to "Cumpy" the man, as opposed to military commander. I found myself wanting to research him more as a result of reading this book, as I feel it inspired me to learn more about him. There is an implication here that the book did not tell me everything I needed to know, but, as stated above, I found myself not really minding as I enjoyed Fellman's ease with words and the simplicity of the smooth flowing text. Therefore, I didn't critique it so much for being a bit on the lighter side of research work. I found that I would need to consult other sources for more information anyway. Having read Grant's bio and Foote's Civil War trilogy, I found this to be a good introduction to Sherman as an individual, especially after hearing Grant's praise of the man in his own work. I'm interested to read Sherman's own book after reading Citizen Sherman, can compare some of Fellman's analysis with Sherman's own. I very much enjoyed the section on Sherman's women, and the way that the text was oriented less chronologically than in the different departments of Sherman's life.

I have been reading the Great Generals series and added this book along with them and enjoyed it a lot. I have even used statements from the book in my office environment to encourage my fellow workers and also used it in a program that we have in the office.

It is a lively and interesting book, however, it is almost impossible to agree with the author on the conclusions - he is way too lightweight in my view.

This is the first book I read on war strategies. It is really a fascinating read, and in a way reads like a thriller. The battlefield is like a chess game, with opponents trying to outsmart and deceive each other. The book offers the reader a fascinating journey through the minds of some of the most famous generals in history. Readers will be introduced to the strategies of Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, William Tecumesh Sherman, T. E. Lawrence, Sir Edmund Allenby, Mao Zedong, Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, and Douglas MacArthur.

The author points out the exceptional as well as the bad choices that generals make. The reader will learn many war strategies which are fascinating to say the very least. For example, when fighting armies with elephants, the Romans shook bells, scarring the elephants and making them useless for battle.

Generals can succeed in one war but utterly fail in another. MacArthur is referred to by the author as the Jekyll and Hyde. In the Pacific theatre, MacArthur gained fame as an invincible general. However, during the Korean War, he made one mistake after another, and exposed his armies to unnecessary danger. Despite his tactical disasters during the Korean War, his fame and legend led the Truman administration to approve his disastrous strategies (as a footnote, many historians note that the United States has not won a single war since World War II!).

Deception is the main key to victory. Hannibal took his army through the formidable swamps of the Arnus River in Tuscany in 217 B.C. rather than face the Roman army directly. Not expecting such a move, the Romans left the route open, permitting Hannibal to emerge behind the Roman army with a clear road to Rome. This forced the Romans to abandon their strong position and rush after the Carthaginians. Hannibal ambushed the dislocated Romans at Lake Trasimene and destroyed nearly their entire army. Almost 70 thousand Romans dies that day!

The Carthaginians in Spain believed Scipio Africanus would strike at their armies and left unguarded their capital and principal port, New Carthage. But Scipio had deceived his enemies. He seized New Carthage in 209 B.C., cut off the main sea connection with Carthage, caused several Spanish tribes to come over to the Romans, and abruptly threw the Carthaginians on the strategic defensive.

Genghis Khan was another master of deception. He focused the attention of the Khwarezmian army by fierce attacks on cities along the Syr Darya in Turkestan in 1220. He then led a Mongol army across the supposedly impassable Kyzyl Kum to seize Bokhara, far in the enemy rear, isolating the Khwarezmian capital of Samarkand and blocking reinforcements from the south. In a single quick campaign, the Mongols captured Samarkand and destroyed the Khwarezmian Empire.

By demonstrating with part of his army at Valenza on the Po River in northern Italy in 1796, Napoleon convinced the Austrian commander this was the sole French target, drawing Austrian defenders to that point. Napoleon then marched the majority of his forces downstream to Piacanza, thereby turning all possible enemy lines of defense, and forcing the Austrians to abandon all of northern Italy except the fortress of Mantua.
When strong German forces attacked Holland and Belgium in 1940, British and French mobile forces rushed northward to block the advance. Erich von Manstein, knowing this would happen, sent his panzers through the supposedly impassable Ardennes to seize Sedan, which was defended only by second-rate troops. When this occurred, the German panzers had a clear path westward to the English Channel, trapping the Allied armies that had rushed into Belgium and ensuring the defeat of France.

The last chapter of this book covers the lessons learned in the war campaigns of the last 2,000 years. The author points out that war remains an art rather than a science, despite the immense amount of invention, industry, and technology lavished on war since the beginning of organized society. He further adds that although the principles of war are simple and can be learned by anyone, the application of each principle requires much care, skill, and caution.

I personally enjoyed the chapters on Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, and Genghis Khan the most. But let us not forget that war is a dirty business, and people die! It would be better to compete at chess games or at the Olympic Games. There are many none aggressive and none destructive ways to show one's talents for strategy. Hitler should have spent his days playing war games on his PlayStation 3 when he was not earning a decent living. I am against glamorizing war. The irony of life is that one is sent to the electric chair for killing another in cold blood in a dark alley while one is glamorized and hailed for bombing an entire city, killing thousands (the allied bombings of German and Japanese cities during World War II).

One minor issue I have is that I did not like the cover of this book. I read the July 1995 Avon Books edition. The cover portrayed the generals in a cartoonish manner. For the scope and seriousness of the book the cover did not do justice to the book.

Why do some generals do better than others? Bevin Alexander takes some of the great generals out of history and examines why they did so well. The author tries to point out the common traits and tactics each general shared. The selection of generals is interesting - Jackson and Sherman are picked over Lee and Grant.
But Mr. Alexander is also willing to point out some of the bad choices that these good generals sometimes made. Napoleon, for example, did great in Italy but in latter battles used frontal attacks instead of mobility and misdirection. He let the size of his army get in the way of good generalship.
The final chapter tries to tie it all together, listing simple ideas or rules, that all great generals followed.

Alexander has written a nice overview of some of military history's best generals. His overall thesis was certainly proven well, and he chose those generals who best proved his point. I particularly liked the chapters on Hannibal/Scipio, Genghis Khan, Sherman, and Rommel. This work could have been a five star book; however, his chapter on MacArthur was where the book lost me. Militarily speaking Alexander continued as he had throughout the book, but his political overview of the Communist threat was almost as ridiculous as was Toland's in 'In Mortal Combat', which dealt with Korea. Hence I do concur with one of the other individuals who reviewed this work that his objectivity is lacking in his more modern chapters. Nonetheless, save for the last chapter, this was a good overview for someone starting to learn about miliraty history and strategy, or it is a nice refresher.

Easy to use in wiring a boat or any 12 volt DC wiring. All the things you will need to know to safely wire any 12 volt system

This book is useless. It has no helpful information on how to wire up any 12 volt device. All this book does is explain the different parts of an electrical system and nothing else besides that. If your looking for a book that at least has wiring diagrams for 12 volt systems then I would suggest that look for a better book.

Very good basic guide for 12-volt systems. I'm not an expert and needed a little help doing some wiring on our cruiser. This fits the bill.

Good as advertised - a basic book. Turned out it wasn't really what I was looking for. As another reviewer wrote, if you already know how to use a multi-meter it's probably too basic.
Well done for its advertised purpose.

Even if you've never worked with electricity, but now need to because you have a boat, "The 12-Volt Bible for Boats" is a great introduction that covers more than just the basics. The early part of the book covers all of the beginner introduction to batteries and electricity. It also explains the differences between 12-Volt car systems and boat systems. This book helps you determine what gauge wire you need for what current demand of your new piece of equipment and length of the wire run. The later chapters cover specifics of how to hook up particular equipment such as solar panels and wind generators. The final section covers test equipment you can build yourself. This book is definitely worth the price.

Am I ever glad to have found this book. In spite of being slow and very careful reading requiring much pondering and afterthought, it is worth every second of hard concentration. The reader needs to be in love with classical music and with piano-playing, be a true artist as well as having a deep understanding of vibrant colors, painting and the visual arts. 'Piano Pieces' brings the reader closer to a new understanding that taps into new creativity.
Thank you, Russell Sherman!

I think it was Lincoln who made the wise comment that "you can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time." True enough but to the reviewer who allegedly gave it up "after two pages" and another who rendered the book as "pretentious [...] cerebral flatus" , I must do an ad hoc Sir Wilfrid Robarts [Charles Laughton] for the defense here and offer some reverse coin considerations. True enough that the book uses a play on words [as does Charles Rosen's tome, et al] but then too, it 'does' say "pieces" and hence the normal paragraph to paragraph flow and cohesion is missing seemingly more by design versus that of author fault.

So too, there is much comment on Mr. Sherman's students [NEC or otherwise] in a general collective sense anyway and the mixed bag types he has taught over the long haul where musical ability per se is not the 'only' hurdle that has to be worked on [or extracted therein] although there are quite serious piano students who feel that they have an absolute right to their 'complete interpretive freedom' while relegating the composer to a mere after-thought! You know, the old Bach syndrome, no tempi nor dynamic indications so, goes the argument, "anything goes" or others where directives 'are' given becoming mere 'recommended guidelines' as opposed to 'mandates' yet when the "my own thing" interpretation is not embraced by the masses as being both 'daring' and 'unique', much less by the pianistic master/mentor, ahhh, the fault must be in the level of instruction, yes? Certainly not the student, no-no, it must be the mentor who is allegedly 'doggedly mired' on the war-horse pieces or hopelessly bound up with the romantic [or whatever] era century itself. And manner of thinking and mind-set therein.

I found the book to be well done and well presented albeit in a form that may give the appearance of being disjointed but then the word 'pieces' as distinct and separate entities within themselves can work various ways. Finally this, Russell Sherman, much like Charles Rosen, has been the road in kind and thus becomes duly qualified by default to comment on that road. This is not to suggest that reader agreement is forced or mandated by any means but it is to say that the collective findings are at least experience borne and rendered therein as opposed to mere armchair pontificating based on the findings or assumptions of others. Those kinds of tomes exist too. As do opinions of the more inherited or, shall we say, paraphrased from others variety versus that of having said experience and expertise. There 'is' a difference! A rather meaningful one.

Doc Tony

I recently discovered this little book in the public library and in the first few pages realized I must own it. Mr. Sherman is a brilliant thinker and writer. I am inspired and enlightened by his pianistic and artistic wisdom. I look forward to each and every page and can't wait to own what will become a cherished and important addition to my personal library.

I like Sherman's approach to music and agree with him on much of his critique of modern music-making and culture. It is a pity, then, that his good points are lost in a seemingly endless series of brief remarks without structure. I'm sure this book would rate 5 stars if it was rewritten into a series of essays; the current format lacks the framework needed to make his observations cogent.

I picked up this book hoping it would be similar to Charles Rosen's page turner Piano Notes. Both are books written by pianists about playing the piano, and both have titles that are plays on words (Piano Roles is a third one of that type). Why oh why did I not look it over more carefully when I saw it in the bookstore? This book says nothing and the writing is completely pretentious and impossible to enjoy. It is my understanding that the author thinks he's being poetic by using various rhetorical devices such as metaphor. But the reality is he's just being tedious. I gave up on it after only TWO PAGES! I just couldn't stand it anymore and I flipped through the book and realized the entire thing was written in the exact same way: a bad attempt at being poetic without actually imparting any interesting or useful information. I have just ordered another book by Charles Rosen and am looking forward to reading it.
The only redeeming thing I have to say is that I suppose that if you're seriously right brained, you might enjoy the non-linear presentation, but personally, I think I'm more left-brained and need some order, logic, structure, not just a bunch of unfulfilling metaphors.

I'm giving this title a five-star rating thanks to Kennett's insight into Sherman's mind. I was more than familiar with Sherman's life before opening this book, but I still managed to find it an entertaining read. Sherman was a complex man with a variety of motivations in his life and career, and Kennett does a strong job of focusing on WHY he did what he did rather than just regurgitating the events in his life.

While the focus if the book is on the military career of Sherman, there is enough information on his early life and his time between military stints to provide a well-rounded biography.

When I first got this book and started reading it I made the mistake of thinking this as a plain old Biography. As I read it I learned that wasn't the case and the second half of the title "A Soldier's Life" made a whole lot more sense. This is a Military Biography on Sherman, not a life Biography.

This book was my first step into the world of reading about America's Civil War. Ever since I was a kid I have been fascinated by it and after reading this my old fascination was ignited ten fold. I would call this a must for anyone interested in Sherman.

If you want a good solid exciting biography of Sherman - this is your book. I'm tired of reading bloated biographies of
say 1000 pages. This book has a nice quick pace. Sherman would have liked that. It gives adequate coverage to Sherman's military and personal life as well as a nice perspective on his historical legacy.

Lee Kennett has accomplished the impossible: he's taken one of America's most celebrated and brilliant generals and made him seem like nothing more than an average commander and a less-than-average human being. After reading Kennett's biography, I'm left wondering why President Lincoln and General Grant, to name but a few, were so impressed with Sherman's capabilities as a soldier, and why the Confederate generals feared him as much as they did. Rather than portraying Sherman and his accomplishments in a fair light, Kennett seeks at every turn to diminish those accomplishments and the man who achieved him. Sherman, we are told, was at best a competent general, not the great strategist that his contemporaries and subsequent students of military history recognized him to be. Trouble is, Kennett doesn't back up his dismissive assessment of Sherman with any kind of analysis, impartial or otherwise. Instead, he gives short shrift to Sherman's accomplishments in the field, including the famed "March to the Sea" -- all topics that Kennett glides over with astonishing little detail. Instead, Kennett is content to engage in psychobabble of the worst kind: Sherman's behavior in America's greatest conflict, and indeed throughout his life, was nothing more, in Kennett's eyes, than repeated manifestations of a "narcissistic" personality disorder. I bought the book expecting a serious treatment of one of America's greatest generals and instead got a hatchet job (and an unconvincing one at that). Unless you are a Sherman hater, save your money for one of the other good biographies of Sherman or, better yet, his own memoirs. This book, I regret to say, is worthless.

William T. Sherman seems to have a biography written of him every three years or so. There are currently four bios available, not to mention his own memoirs and more venerable books such as the volumes by Liddell Hart and Lloyd Lewis. He's an endlessly fascinating character, multi-faceted, complex, and as amazingly verbose. He had an opinion on most everything, and to use my wife's phrase, "never had an unuttered thought." Because of this he's great biography material, and historians have been interested in him a great deal as a result.

Those recent bios vary greatly in their treatment of their subject. John Marszalek's Sherman: A Soldier's Passion For Order is the culmination of that man's life, seemingly. Marszalek lived with Sherman for a great while, to the extent of naming a dog Cumpy (Sherman's childhood nickname), and it showed in that the book is still the longest and most exhaustive biography. He sees Sherman as a twisted soul, tormented by his inability to control the world around him, but able to deal with things once he gets in command of an army and is able to influence events to an extent. Michael Fellman's Citizen Sherman is more harsh and unforgiving. Fellman is a Canadian historian who looks at the American Civil War through relentlessly modern lenses, and sees racism, misogyny, elitism, and various other ills pretty much everywhere in 19th century America. He doesn't think much of Sherman. Stanley Hirshson's The White Tecumseh, on the other hand, is apparently a very forgiving portrait of what the author considers a great soldier (this is the one Sherman bio I haven't read). The author of the present book, Lee Kennett, falls somewhere between Marszalek and Hirshson. He handles Sherman pretty mildly, though he does make note of his foibles and prejudices (as expressed in things he wrote) in passing.

Most biographers of Sherman note that he wanted to be judged as a soldier, and then dutifully tell you that they will abide by his wishes. Kennett follows suit, but only sort of succeeds. Instead his book is largely a study of Sherman's personality, with a whole chapter devoted to this subject on the eve of the Civil War. The book is remarkably spare in terms of narratives of the actual battles themselves: instead there's a great deal of space devoted to the politics of the army 1861-1865. So the Meridian raid gets about a paragraph, and the battles around Atlanta are disposed of in a page or so.

The author also leaves things out, things that make it into some Sherman biographies. Perhaps the best-known anecdote is Joe Johnston killing himself by standing bareheaded at Sherman's funeral, and catching pneumonia. It's not here, and there are a number of other things that didn't make the book either. I know this is a short biography, but somehow I expected some of these things to make the book.

Several previous reviewers put this forward as an introductory biography of Sherman. One thing the book definitely is is neutral on the subject. Until now, the one neutral book was Marszalek, the longest, so I suppose this one, at half the length, is better. I don't consider a 352 page book an introduction to anything, however, and I can't say I agree here. Introductory books are 200 pages or so.

That being said, this isn't a bad book, and I can't come up with any reason to review it negatively. It's just not a particularly good one either.

Great book, part of a great series. I've read them all and loved them.

KINDOM'S SWORDS(5/2002) is the 7th book in the STARFIST series of Military SciFi stories, which follow the exploits in the 25th century of a company of Space-faring Marines.

This book has a couple of intertwining story lines... the main one involving hard fighting on the religious outpost planet "Kingdon", where the Marines meet up with the "skinks" again... the second and third story lines are somewhat lame, and involve Captain Coronado's court martial, and his wife's exploits while he is gone... this is really "part I" of two books, and you will need to read Book VIII in the series to finish what this book starts.

The technology in this first "post 9/11" offering from the STARFIST series is only slightly better than in the first books in the series, but there still is a lot to be desired in a book that supposedly takes place 400+ years in the future. I find these books enjoyable... but, I notice that nobody else has reviewed this particular book since 2002 (this review is written in 5/2008)... so, the idea that the technology in these books has gone somewhat "stale" appears to be a new concept in these reviews.

I really enjoyed the book. Although, I will have to wait for the next book to conclude my opinion on this book. The cliffhanger is kind of weird since the whole story of the book doesn't seem to end.

Also, for the first time, the authors tried to do more than one storyline and it feels kind of weird. One of the storyline brings nothing to the actual story or the 34th FIST Marine. This could explain on why they did not conclude the story since they had already too much.

Overall, it is still a good StarFist book. Different from the previous one but this is what bring the joy in reading :o)

More of a 2 1/2

I enjoyed this book, but did not think it was up to the previous in the series. The main problem was that it was disjointed in its plotting and pace. It felt like they had the basic book together and then created a separate plot line (or two) and wedged it in there. It broke up the main story and created a lack of cohesion that was bothersome. Sherman and Cragg have pulled off parallel plots before with great success, so I know they can do it. They just seemed all over the place in this one.

(Minor spoiler alert)This is also the first book where the major campaign was not completed. I'm not adverse to cliffhangers per se, but there wasn't really any true build up and the termination seemed arbitrary.

I still loved the characters and the writing itself is as exciting as usual. I hope these fine authors can get back on a more cohesive track with the next volume.

In the previous volume of this series, HANGFIRE, readers were set up for some nastiness by the "skinks" without ever finding out just what they were up too. All we knew was that it would not be good for humanity or the marines. We learn more in this book and it is not good for either.

Once again, Sherman and Cragg demonstrate a liking for pursing widely variant plotlines simultaneously. They did an adequate job of this before but their skills are improving in this one.

The main plot involves the committal of the 34th FIST to action on the world of Kingdom. They think they are headed in to suppress a peasant revolt but it turns out that it is the skinks who are the cause of the problems and they are major problems. To make matters worse, Kingdom is a theocracy and the marines must face a local government that is as potentially dangerous as the real enemy. Just to keep the pot stirred up, there are also dissident elements at work within Kingdom that have a strong desire to hurt the marines, the Kingdom government, the confederacy and anyone one else who disagrees with them. To make matters worse, many do not believe in the aliens the marines are fighting and believe it all to be some sort of convoluted plot.

The second plotline concerns Captain Coronado, CO of L Company. A few volumes back he was involved in a hush-hush operation dealing with another alien sentient species. In that book, he did the right thing, against the cruel and inhumane orders of the scientific leader of the post, and is returning to earth to face court martial. This puts strains on his family situations in ways recognizable to anyone who has ever tried to serve both a family and the military. Needless to say, the gallant captain has his own adventures along the way and improvises, adapts and overcomes....just the way a good jarhead is expected to do.

This is actually probably the best book in the series so far. There are a few surprises and new twists. Its going to take at least one more book and some significant reinforcements to get the marines out of this mess.

Joe Arpaio is a blow hard, self-aggrandizing, ingoramus who has cost Maricopa County, Arizona tons of money pursuing his idiotic vision of "tough jails" and ham fisted policing. The problem with this system is that it is a proven failure. It punishes people who are presumed innocent and doesn't reduce recidivism. His book is what you would expect from a narcissistic moron. It toughts what a great guy he is and how smart he is while ignorring the preponderance of evidence which contradicts the claims.
I am a lawyer who sues Arpaio. I have used this book to cross examine him at trial and although it was useful for me, it is a self-serving myopic that is pretty dull.

Joe Arpaio has secured his place in law enforcement history as an innovator & a worthy public servant. August Vollmer, Sir Robert Peel, & Clarence Kelley now have a new member to their club. All cops & politicians should read & learn from Sheriff Arpaio's book & so should all business managers & executives. Sheriff Arpaio exemplifies unorthodox simplicity in the pursuit of public safety & budget effectiveness. It's no wonder that the liberals hate him!

and you will end up without a civilized society, which is basically what we have now. I am a criminal trial attorney with 25 years experience and 15,000 cases. Atty Robbins, who writes a review also, seems upset that criminals are being treated like criminals. What a novel idea the sheriff has !!! Obviously, the problem is that a lot of folks do not like to see criminals actually punished. And therein lies our problem. The problem is not with criminals as much as it is our unbelievable tolerance for them. The book is a great read for anyone who wishes to see criminal offenders pay for their crimes. People like Atty Robbins are outraged at the treatment the sheriff metes out to the offenders but is strangely and disturbingly silent about their victims.

We need more men like Mr. Arpaio. Today the government seems to go out of its way to define and protect "prisoner's rights," while lacking any hesitation to trample over the rights of us law-abiding citizens. Arpaio dispenses justice much like a dispassioned referee does at a football game - if you commit the offense, you recieve a penalty, and your sob stories don't buy you so much as a pillow mint.

His most vocal critic on this forum is someone who professes to be an attorney, but cannot spell properly or use words in their proper context. If you're thinking about buying this book, don't look to those of us who gave it 5 stars. Look to its staunchest critics. A bitterly angry critique that is not well-written - when floating alone in a population of praise - usually indicates that you've found a good read.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of a kind. The best lawman in the United States. He has two goals: (1)lock up the thugs and do it as inexpensively as possible, and (2) make sure the losers don't want to come back to his jail. Every sheriff and police chief in the country should be required to takes lessons from Arpaio. In this book he explains, in very plain English, how he reaches his goals. Give 'em hell, Joe!!

Harold Sherman's book, 'The Dead Are Alive: They Can and Do Communicate With You', was published a year before he died in 1987. It is therefore surprising that for a 'can-do' sort of dead guy, Mr Sherman's post-mortem communications seem somewhat less than prodigious.

NOT WHAT i EXPECTED AT ALL. It was all about taping unheard voices.

If you have any interest in life after death, then you owe it to yourself to read this book. Sherman continues in the tradition of other researchers like F. W. H. Myers and provides highly convincing evidence that humans survive their physical death. Sherman covers the topic from many different points of view, from ghost hauntings and dreams to electronic voice phenomena (EVP). I differ with some of the other reviews on this page that question credulity of technological contact with the "other side." Mark Macy in Miracles in the Storm also documents other-worldly communications through phones, radios, and televisions. Just because something seems "far out" doesn't mean it isn't real. After all, Scientific American and the scientific establishment once considered the Wright Brothers a hoax also. The history of science is full of examples of ridiculed ideas that later became the foundations of everyday life. Perhaps one day, after-life communications will seem as commonplace as Internet radio is today. (Dr. Simeon Hein is the author of Opening Minds: A Journey of Extraordinary Encounters, Crop Circles, and Resonance.)

An "after life" book for those who are not sure what happens when we die, and the book is written so everyone..believers or not will find pleasure in reading it.
BB

I didn't enjoy this book. The writing was very dry and drawn out. It seemed to go in circles in many places. And, though I believe in life after death, some of what the author suggested stretched beyond believability, especially when he delved into some of the supposed "communications."

While the book can be quite enjoyable in its own right, the authors don't seem to be familiar with the much better series of books written by Diane Duane. Her history of the Sundering and the creation of the Romulan (Rihannsu) culture is better established in five previous books, and quite frankly makes better sense considering the way the Vulcan people turned out in the canon shows.

Books are never completely canon when the shows and movies can change details at any moment, but the books could at least be a part of the time line. Based on [...] information Chekov would be 132 and Uhura 138 years old in this trilogy. And I've never seen a hint of Saavik being married to Spock in the shows- that is sort of incestuous considering their early history. It seems a little too pat to have some of these details in the book and feels more like fannish wish fulfillment than good story-telling.

Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz have crafted one of the finest examples of "Star Trek" fiction that I've come across in "Star Trek Vulcan's Soul Book 1 Exodus", which is a thoroughly engaging look at Vulcan at the time of "The Sundering" coupled with the mysterious appearance of the Watraii, an alien race dedicated to the total destruction of the Romulan Star Empire's homeworlds of Romulus and Remus. I am surprised that Admiral Pavel Chekhov can be as spry as he is, given his advanced age, but nonetheless, I did welcome his appearance as well as Admiral Uhura's, in this well conceived story involving Star Trek: The Original Series characters set a year after the Dominion War. However, the most engaging characters are those from "The Sundering", most notably the engineer Karatek, who eventually becomes a disciple of Surak's, and flees Vulcan in one of the Exodus starships leaving a nuclear war-ravaged planet. The literary quality of the authors' prose is much better than what I have read from virtually most of the recent Star Trek fiction I've come across. I am looking forward to reading the sequel, which will be the second book in a trilogy devoted to Spock and Vulcan's history circa "The Sundering" and its repercussions for the United Federation of Planets, Klingon Empire and especially, Romulan Star Empire.

Major chronology/continuity issues with this one. Dissappointing, as I liked Shwartz & Sherman's other work.

1. Saavik had to wait 75 years to make Captain? Heck, if that were me, I would've resigned long before...

2. Uhura and Chekov are still alive?? Excuse me?

3. Authors treat the Dominion War as if it happened what, a year, after the movies, forgetting there is a 75 year period of time in between.

This novel just doesn't live up to the excellence of the authors' previous work. Star Trek authors should really watch all of the shows before attempting to write anything.

Apart from the plot of the book, I'm curious as to how Uhura and Chekhov can still be active Starfleet officers at well over 140 years old. They're only human! Dr. McCoy showed up on Star Trek: The Next Generation in 2363 or so, and he was obviously not in any shape to be on active duty. I find it hard to believe that Uhura and Chekhov are in much better shape, being only a few years younger. Obviously, there would be medical advances in the almost 400 years between now and then, but if medicine has advanced so much that humans are living a couple hundred years, why was Dr. McCoy in such decrepit condition? In "Generations", Picard remarks that there are more days behind him than before him, and I've never heard anything indicating he is over 100. It's nice to have the old characters around, I know, but it just doesn't make sense. Of course, none of the books are "canon", so I suppose that allows for some leeway, but some sort of rationality would be nice.

The idea behind this book is quite interesting and could be catchy for many readers. With it's style of 'one chapter in present times, one chapter in the past etc.' it resembles a little "Spock's World", which is a really good book.

BUT...

The authors's style itself is rather clumsy and seems forced.

Some examples:

1) Admiral Chekov? Admiral Uhura?

Using those ST:Classic characters who might still be available, however old they may be, to nourish a story about Vulcans and Romulans is dull at best.
Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz are most likely satisfying their own sentimentalities in unnecessarily "reviving" these characters for their book...or is it just a desperate attempt to attract more ST:Classic fans?!

2) Vulcanoids have green blood - common knowledge among Star Trek fans.

Nonetheless we are being informed about this fact almost every other page. Something/one has always a blood-green tone, shines in the brightest blood-green, resembles the green of healthy blood, has a streak of green blood upon his face etc...
After about 50 pages it made me wanna scream: "YES, I GOT IT! PLEASE STOP, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!"
I highly doubt, that Vulcanoids are running around constantly judging the tone of everything green and reminding themselves, and thus also the reader, that THIS is the color of their blood, not red. Fascinating, that these Vulcanoids almost never see any other color worth mentioning in this book, just green.
Did Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz try to underline the exoticism/alienism of Vulcanoids this way? If so, it's a primitive and seriously unnerving attempt.

3) Vulcans are a very intelligent, precise species and know how to calculate without a computer. Nothing new!

Nonetheless Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz feel the need to remind the reader of this fact almost every other page (again!). Their Vulcans make comments about the PRECISE chances for whatever situation (however ridiculously uncalculable it may be) all the time.
Here just ONE example out of SO MANY: "Wouldn't it be wonderful, if the moment could last?" Saavik asked. "If we could all stay so amazingly unified. Of course," she added, "that is logically not possible." There was less than a .00035563 chance of such an intense feeling of unity lasting any longer...(Spock's thinking)
Where did he get all the necessary data to calculate such an amazingly precise number...for something as variable as humanoid behaviour? And why does he do it every other page, whether it's necessary/useful or not? Is it logical to constantly waste part of your concentration on something absolutely useless (and impossible)? Does that properly support the image of an intelligent and logical man/race?

4) Surprise, surprise - did you know, that Vulcans follow a philosophy that revolves around logic? If not, this book makes sure you will notice and never ever forget it!!!

Perhaps Vulcans (or just the authors?) don't have such good a memory and don't exactly know what logic actually is, cause it seems they have to remind themselves and others of the logic in this and that every now and then. If the situation, action, case has something to do with logic or not is rather irrelevant.


If you're just looking for a story and further background information about Vulcans and Romulans, this book will be quite interesting for you. Should you be the kind who likes good writing too, your money would be wasted.

PS: Please forgive my grammar and spelling, but english is not my mother tongue.