Interesting point of view, adequately written
341756
What saves this book is it has a unique point of view, discussing how presidents used past presidents to help them, and how past presidents attempted to influence the sitting president. That brings it up to 4 stars.

The quality of the writing is 3 stars. Not bad but not compelling.

It skipped a lot. If some of the presidents made no use of their predecessors, say so rather than just skipping that period.

Put this in the category of ok to read, but no loss if you don't read it.
4030517
The author writes about quantum theory in a simple, somewhat understandable way; I think even scientists struggle with these concepts, so I say that lightly . I prefer his stories which illustrate his points, vs the diagrams of experiments which are abstract. What he says does remind us that our perceptions are ours. It took a while to sink  in; think I'll need to read it again for another layer.
2247306
Interesting and readable.  The author gives enough information for a great overview of world history, yet it's condensed enough to be a relatively quick and easy read.  He has a balanced perspective and is good at hitting the most important themes.
568454
I've had a mild interest in both sides of "the depression issue", and find that many books tend to preach to the choir. You typically have "Buck up, just like previous generations did." or "Depression is so widespread, nearly 80% of all people have it and should be on medication."

Fortunately, Gary Greenberg's approach is reasonable, and relatively centrist. He points out the obvious economic benefits in diagnosing and treating depression, without turning conspiracy theorist, which is a plus right there.

All things being equal, there's nothing really fresh or groundbreaking here. However, the style, flow, and effort to remain objective make this book an enjoyable read.
3309948
This book is fair-to-good. I was bothered initially by its 'bibliocentric' perspective in several chapters, especially the ones on the patriarchs, the exodus, and the settlement. Although Shanks expresses in the foreward that it would be too much material for a single scholar to control masterfully, I feel they could have been condensed easily into one essay on the 'emergence of Israel'.

I mean by 'bibliocentric' that certain essays are written, partially, as if they were dialoguing with someone who sees the bible as a source of religion, not history or even religious history. So the authors have to clarify that they are not approaching it from a devotional standpoint (because they're not fundamentalists) or that they mean not to offend those who do. But I got over it because it is meant for popular (but educated) consumption, and most if not all the contributors do have some measure of religious attachment to the bible anyway. However, I'd rather have the history of Israel related to me straight without the pandering.

The articles are informative, but not outstanding. For example, McKarter's & Horn's chapter on the divided monarchy offers interesting tidbits of information previously unknown to me, but merely follows the biblical story with ANE texts and archeological data thrown in to confirm or disconfirm the major public events in the bible. It was almost boring reading. Lemaire on the unified monarchy was more of the same. Contrast Meyers who is much more easygoing and shorter, although his section on the diverse sectarian formations in Judaism should really be an excursus. It doesn't have much to do historically with Israel as a whole given the politically-oriented nature of most of this history.

That's another disappointment I have though. Much more focus on social history, aspects of daily life, etc., and a less bibliocentric perspective would have served this volume better. Although a little dated,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Coogan-1998/dp/0195139372/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Coogan 1998</a>&nbsp;is better in the comparable chapters (it goes beyond the Roman destruction of the second temple, where this book, faithful to its title, abruptly stops).

But not a bad read at all for a distilling of the standard fare with a few updates for this third edition.
2175312
Having read some of Harrison's other work, I knew what to expect here: clear and concise arguments illustrated by colorful analogy and well-crafted storytelling. This book certainly delivered on that front. Easy to read and very interesting, this book is presented in easily digestible short chapters, though the "50" idea comes across at times as a bit forced and gimmicky. At one point Harrison even admits "I debated even putting this chapter in the book..." But apparently since he had to have 50, it made it in.  Also, Harrison goes out of his way to state that he is NOT anti-religion and that he always tries to be gracious and understanding in conversation with believers (which certainly may be the case), but then as the book wears on, his tone becomes increasingly intolerant of religious viewpoints, at times referring to them as silly an ridiculous.  It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

These are small complaints, however, and most readers will gain at least something from a trek through Harrison's discourse.  An enjoyable read from a gifted writer and observer of the world.
4346878
I am a great admirer of Joss Whedon's various exploits, from Buffy The Vampire Slayer to Firefly, a show I consider to be some of the best Sci-Fi ever shown on television. So although I don't read that many biographies, I had to snap this one up as soon as it was available.

I enjoyed the book. It's a smooth read and keeps enough interesting story lines going to propel you into the next section. The book covers Whedon's life story, focusing on his career as a television and film writer, director, and producer, back to his invention of the name "Joss," in his school days. It describes the progression of his career with enough interesting detail to keep at least fans of his work throughly engaged. I enjoyed reading about his early influences, including a teacher who played a pivotal role, and some of the rollercoaster drama of life in network television.

I did think the book was missing some color. There's not a lot of insight into Whedon personally, which is a valid choice for a biography, but sacrifices some of whatever emotional resonance a bio might have. The book reads a bit like a very friendly long-form magazine article. There aren't a lot of angles or fresh observations going on here, although again, the book does pull off some decent storytelling.

It also feels a bit sanitized. The bio was clearly done with Whedon's approval and cooperation, and is careful to be vague about any unpleasant (or overly "interesting") bits over the years. For example, the book alludes to a lot of drama over Sarah Michelle Gellar's various feints toward walking off the Buffy show, but grazes lightly over the whole affair, giving no insight or detail not already public. There was a lot going on with that cast, and it would have been interesting to know more about how the dynamics evolved and resolved. The book does a little better with the network tumult over moving Buffy around, but then goes lightly again when it comes to Fox's cancellation of Firefly, focusing more on the Whedonesque fan group, of which I think the author was a part. The style of the writing itself is fairly flat, sometimes verging on the book-reportish. You get the feeling a huge amount of time was spent assembling various anecdotes into chronological order, and eventually there is a "getting through the whole history" element.

And even for fans, the book is an awfully sweet love letter to Whedon's talents and overall wonderfulness. The number of quotes from various people regarding his amazing "one draft" writing abilities and general genius is staggering. We get it. The man can write, and has become a powerful voice in television and Hollywood as a result. But what else? I would have liked to have heard more from the people who worked with him through what must have been extremely interesting projects than, "He's great. Writes everything in one go. Can't wait to work with him again." I got the feeling Whedon has so much clout at this point, and the author such a fan herself, that the scope and tone of the bio were hemmed in a bit.

All of that said, the book held my interest, presented a coherent narrative, and provided enough facts and detail to be worthwhile, at least for anyone with an interest in Whedon and his work, and is probably a must-read for serious fans.

Three stars.
1097874
As I understand the author's argument, there have been two dominant trends in America's relationship with religion. One is based on the idea that America is a Christian nation, and religion and politics work together for the common good. The other is the idea that the United States is based on separation of religion and politics. These two trends have been in conflict from the beginning (from before the beginning even), and the struggle between their adherents has shaped important developments in American history. The author frames that history as a debate between those who promote the "moral establishment" as necessary for fulfillment of American ideals, and those whose full participation in American political life is threatened by the establishment. It's an interesting argument, well documented and thoroughly explained, and intuitive in our own time--which, of course, is the whole point, or ought to be. The argument is compelling, and the author's own background as an ex-evangelical gives him a unique perspective, one that informs the thinking throughout the book. If you like stimulating thought, and having your assumptions challenged, then reinforced, and then challenged again, you will profit from this book.

One minor criticism: I found the writing at times a bit dull. Sentences are routinely long, with multiple modifiers, and explanatory clauses tacked on to the introductory phrases instead of separated into shorter sentences. There are flashes of really good writing, but many people, especially college students, will be looking to the end of the chapter to see how many pages they have left. They may even be tempted to skip a few. That would be too bad. Good books deserve good readers, and while I wish the writing were a bit more engaging, this is a good book. I look forward to more from this author.
319251
I found a lot of what Friedman had to say in this book interesting; it showed me things about how the world works today that I hadn't been aware of.  Moreover, it was interesting to read about some of the history that helped shape our present reality.  Friedman pulls no punches in talking about the policies of certain countries and companies -- that was refreshing.  And I hope the right folks are reading his prescriptions for what the U.S., as well as other countries that haven't gotten with the program, need to do if they want to prosper.

But I have to say that I'm not really fond of Friedman's writing style.  I almost didn't make it through the first chapter.  I got the feeling that Friedman considers himself wonderfully clever for coming up with the whole "the world is flat" analogy, comparing it to Columbus's discovery that the world was round.  It feels like a cutesy gimmick to me.  He goes on and on with many detailed examples of outsourcing and offshoring that I grew anxious to see come to an end.  Elsewhere I got the impression that Friedman wants to be remembered for some new word or phrase: in addition to the "world is flat" idea, we have "in-forming" (a play on "informing"; I read it as using technology to do for ourselves what others would have had to do for us before) and "self-collaboration" (doing for ourselves), etc.  I know he's all excited about this stuff, but these inventions feel like grandiosity to me.  He probably could have gotten by just fine with words like "empowerment" and "self-service."  Not once but twice he tells us about how he had Dell track down all the parts of the laptop he ordered, and he shares far more detail than was necessary to make his point.

I honestly enjoyed some chapters; in others it seemed like he was trying to be cute.  Perhaps this is a measure of his enthusiasm over what he considers his great discovery, and perhaps it would be well received by other readers, but it detracted seriously from the book for me.  I found myself picking up and reading to completion two other books before I could bring myself to finish this one.

Finally, I was bothered by the way he handled a quote from a Microsoft spokesman that characterized open source developers as barbers who write software at night for fun, implying both that they don't really know what they are doing and that they are not serious about it and can't be counted on to fix problems.  I hope that Friedman knows that the vast majority of open source developers are in reality software developers during the day as well, and that their open source software is generally important to other work they are doing, for pay or for a degree.  Moreover, quite a lot of open source is generally considered to be of high quality, and that is something that cannot be said of some of Microsoft's OS releases.  In part that quality stems from the fact that the source is open: people can see your mistakes, so you try not to make them, and when you do people tell you about the ones they find.  Of course it is in Microsoft's interest to paint an unattractive picture of open source, but in my opinion a journalist trying to educate the public should not have let such a self-serving mischaracterization stand.  In fact, that quote should probably never have made it into this book at all.

Again, I found a number of Friedman's points interesting so I grudgingly rate this book a 4, but in truth I wish the book were about 100 pages or so of frothy enthusiasm and self-aggrandizement shorter.
3677124
I was pleased with the following aspects of the book: Although largely justified in his other works Offit's language (never profane or vulgar mind you) and voice was less strong/outspoken in this one, Unlike Mnookin's The Panic Virus Offit doesn't stoop to the rhetorical devices that are both unnecessary and, at least for me and others that I've spoken with, also serve to undermine Mnookin's arguments, Offit tries to give the benefit of the doubt (under the auspice of sincere concern but without full understanding) to many of the individuals who have or still support theories that have been discredited, disproven, or lack substantiation.

Aspects I feel could be improved:
Although like Offit's other works (at least the ones I've read) he provides a large set of endnotes to support his claims, arguments, and ideas there are no in text indicators such as superscript or parenthetical insertions that show direct relationships between his text and the endnotes (I do not wish to count quotes and try to match them to his endnotes), I feel that many opportunities for additional discussion were not addressed such as the role of web 2.0 and self referencing or circular referencing phenomena, and I would have liked a larger selected biography for my own additional inquiry.
To be fair the above list is largely idiosyncratic and not indicative of poor writing.
616427
As someone that had very little knowledge of Ireland beyond its geography, I found this book sufficiently detailed enough to quench my interest in having a full understanding of the history, but objective enough that I could take the wording on a topic and intuitively understand that there was probably some VERY strong opinions slanted one way or the other on the incident.  That would be secondary reading.  There was opportunity to frame the progression differently and make it easier to digest, but the overall flow was well written and kept my interest.
2977048
It was easy to read, enjoyable, and interesting; however, not a book to skyrocket to the top of your 'must read' list. The characters were well developed and the writing and pace held my interest. It's just that the story was rather average and didn't quite leave a strong impression on me.
2681524
I like it,well written,holds your interests.
4808074
This concise account of her life comes with some helpful pages of photos and an historical map, so it is a good overall package. The author writes vividly and clearly, makes clear from the outset her admiring yet also critical, questioning point of view toward this life that has not been without considerably acclaim and controversy. My only reservation is also a strength of the biography: she assumes very little historical or cultural background which the reader might bring, but I also feel she does not challenge the reader enough to wrestle with the many psychological, political, and other issues that this era and this heroic life poses for us today. I felt not much was being asked of me, and did not feel as moved (other than by admiration) as I was expecting as I finished the book.
2333088
First-hand account with a unique point of view, by a thoughtful writer.
4219810
I appreciated John Stewarts recommendation and so read this book. It was inspiring to read a first-hand account of such a unique point of view. And the writing is a bit more simplistic than i imagined.
2625694
I'm always up for fresh perspectives on why and how religious beliefs fail under scrutiny, and Armin Navabi's book certainly provides that. No information provided here was "new," in the sense that I hadn't encountered it before, but the writing style and presentation was generally good. The most interesting part to me was the last chapter, which related how the author de-converted from Islam. I feel like this book would be most useful for someone just starting on their journey towards mental liberation, but I'm pretty sure most tolerant people would get something out of it.