Roger Kimball -- who was among the first male students at Bennington College -- works as an art critic. Born in 1953, he is a shade too young to have been part of the 60s. Why did he write a book on an era he wasn't part of, at a time too early for real reflection? 1.) Because he is an arch conservative who draws his weapons from the conservative arsenal: chiefly name-calling, which somehow passes as "wit;" 2.) Because he lacks a sense of history. Kimball is almost smug about having majored in the Classics in college. To study the literature of a period, one needs to know something about the period in order to understand why the people reacted as they did; what was beautiful to them; etc. Kimball understands nothing about the historic roots of the upheavals of the 60s and lays most of the blame at the feet of Norman Mailer. According to the jacket blurbs, this is a "radical analysis." It analysizes nothing. Kimball's method is to look at the writings of some figures from the 60s and quote them, along with their speeches and articles about them. There is no tying together of the words from the past with the state of the present, which is what this book is supposed to be about.

I wonder if a reader from Plaino, TX read the same book or if a reader somehow got confused when reviewing Home Bistro? This is a book in which EVERY RECIPE HAS A SHORT LIST OF INGREDIENTS. In fact, it is the perfect "last minute" cookbook, which is how veteran author Betty Fussell describes it. Small in size, it is the perfect book to glance through after a long day at work, sitting on the stool in your kitchen, watching the tv news while trying to figure out how to rest your soul by enlivening your palate. Fussell's aim is to suggest one dish meals, although she does offer valuable side-dish and wine go-togethers. And her one-dish meals are not the "hot dish" of Lake Woebegone fame or your mother-in-laws dry macaroni and cheese with a corn-flake topping (yuck!), but imaginative meals that draw on European, New World and Asian traditions. Let's face, what is more relaxing and more rewarding, 1.) a meal made up of take-aways from the deli where the mayonnaise always tastes suspicious; 2.) a meal made up of convenience food from supermarket boxes; 3.) a meal made from simple and fresh ingredients that can be ready in the time it takes to cook frozen french fries? For me, three is the answer and that is part of the reason why I like Fussell's book.

This superbly acted, absorbing movie is based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King. It tells the story of a black man, condemned to die for the rape and murder of two young girls in the south during the 1930s, his experience on death row and the revelation of the real killer. All of the performances are sterling, and this is particularly impressive since most of the cast is asked to do one of acting's most demanding jobs: portray good people without seeming simple. Good people is a concept that is particularly difficult when applied to prison guards, normally thought of as cold at best and brutal and sadistic at worse. Tom Hanks, perhaps the leading American actor of his generation, leads a cast as capable as he is. Although I have seen several movie adaptations of King novels -- Carrie, Dolores Clayborn, Misery, The Shining -- this is the first one that convinced me to read the novel. I noticed that one of King's themes is imprisonment. Jack Nicolson's writer is imprisoned by his family and his stalled talent in The Shining; James Caan's writer (hmmmm) is held prisoner by insane fan Cathy Bates in Misery; Carrie is imprisoned by her mother's scarred notion of womanhood. Here, there are several imprisonments: John Coffey's capture in race and accusation and in his own remarkable gifts; the warden's wife's imprisonment in the cancer that changed her personality; Tom Hanks' character's boxing in by his prolonged life and the knowledge that he played a role in ending the life of an innocent man. This is a wonderful movie based on a fine book.

There is no better way to discover the soul of a city than on foot. Whether the city is Helsinki or New Orleans, San Francisco or Paris, Chicago or Berlin, when you walk its streets and see its people face to face and sit next to them while you sip coffee or wine, you come to know the city. Although I have yet to try walking from hamlet to hamlet in France, I fully intend to. Bruce LeFacour and his photographer wife Faith Echtermeyer obviously have the same idea about knowing a land. I have read this book several times and would like nothing more than to spend next summer, in France, walking to all the lovely places.

To start off: this is not a book for the hard-line traditionalist, in fact, it is a book for those who aren't fond of the neighborhood Chinese restaurant style. It is also a book for either accomplished cooks or for those who want to become accomplished cooks. Barabara Tropp is fun. She writes well and reveals a light and charming personality with a fine sense of humor. This book is conversational and literate. It is not filled with photos, so if you are very visual and want to see what the finished product looks like, then this book is not for you. That is not to say that it isn't handsome. Recipe titles are set off is a pleasing blue type that is easy on the eyes. There are informative sidebars that we associate with the best of the teaching cookbooks. Someone already compared it to the Silver Palate cookbook, but it is also like the works of Julia Child and Elizabeth David: a knowledgeable cook/writer fills you in on secrets that you could waste years in learning the hard way. One drawback: Tropp suggests that you begin by establishing the China Moon pantry. This takes a bit of dedication. The plus side of doing this is that you have all the ingredients ready and they can be used in other styles of cooking by today's eclectic cooks.

At the denouement of this movie, I felt my partner flinch. As the credits rolled, I turned to him and asked, "When did you realize Bruce Willis' character was dead?" He answered, "At the end. You mean, you knew before?" I knew Willis' therapist had died when the subtitle read, "One year later." If I had any doubts, they were erased as Willis, sitting at a table with Toni Collette who played the mother, got up when her son came home from school. It looked almost like the old split-screen technique. There is no horror or suspense here.

Watch Branagh's Henry V and Olivier's back to back: Branaugh's is greater. Olivier was asked by the "Old Man," Winston Churchill, to produce Henry V during Britain's darkest hour in order to strengthen the resolve of the people in their fight against Hitler. Despite the commission, Olivier's sense of self and of himself as Henry is stronger than any feeling of patriotism. Olivier saw both himself and Henry as handsome, dashing, romantic princes. It is Olivier's over-arching romanticism, not the commission from Churchill, that mars and limits his film. Branagh, a native of Ulster, is totally a Shakespearean -- hence my name for him, "Young Ulster," and, simultaneously, totally contemporary. This film captures not just the language and dramatic sense of Shakespeare but the history behind the play, an often difficult thing as William was never an historian. The use of Derek Jacobi as the narrator, setting the film within the framework of its time was magnificent.

The two ladies present a lovely group of songs, sung in breathtakingly beautiful voices. This is the music of the Scots' parlor, mainly voice and piano, easy to listen to but far from easy listening. By the way, Kate Rusby is person is a singing Gracie Allen: an absolutely crazy young woman!

Great writer that is...Margaret Atwood is a tiny woman, like the heroine of this novel. Based on a fairy tale idea, this is a thoroughly contemporary novel by one of the great satirists of all time. This novel lives -- not only is Atwood's city of Toronto magnificently and accurately depicted here -- but the characters are all women that we might have known. The central character -- oh, dear, who is the central character, is it the professor Toni who narrates the book and seems so much like Atwood herself -- or is it the focus Zenia, the perfect woman who seems so model-like, so tall, so slender, so hip, so intelligent? Anyway, this is a book about allusions. The Robber bride is based on the idea of the Robber Bridegroom, the evil fairy tale character who murders his wives. Zenia is completely other than she seems. Far from perfect. Far from accomplished. A myth. This is a book to read now if you haven't read it already and then to reread in about five years. I think it is time for my second reading!

I read this book about 25 years ago. I was working on a master's degree in English in Detroit and had just met the man that I would marry. Sigh! How I wish that I had listened more carefully to Atwood. I would have run from that! The Edible Woman is broadly humorous -- the heroine works for Seymour Surveys -- and very much a girls night out. Funny, perhaps slightly dated, it is a warning to listen to your inner voice. I seldom read more than one or two books by an author. The next book from Atwood's pen that I read, Surfacing, turned me off to her for many years. However, during that time, her reputation as a writer grew. When I finally picked her up again, I was glad I did. Atwood has grown into one of the major voices in 20th century literature and will, most likely, continue to be heard into the 21st century.