A short but thorough history of baseball as seen through the development of signs, sign stealing and tip-off reading. Includes some delightful photographs, numerous anotations, a lengthy bibliography and index. Paul Dickson's approach to baseball makes me wonder if the recent homerun records aren't more a case for renewed talent in sign stealing / tip-off reading than for new technology for bats or performance inhancing drugs.

All in all I enjoyed the book. I was suprised that so late in the book the crimes happened. The detecting part of the story seemed more disjointed than the set up of the crimes. For a book published originally in 1942, I found the characters and plot rather modern. There are of course some pieces that show the book's age but I don't want to ramble on and risk giving away spoilers.

It started off strongly and at first I was enjoying the book with the same sort of enthusiasm I had enjoyed Arrows of the Queen some ten years ago. Then Alexander happened and I yelled at the book and contemplated tossing it across the room. From about page 200 to about page 275, I couldn't help but picture Donkey from Shrek and I found the whole experience very distracting.

My husband told me that the book got better and every time I growled about Alexander, he reminded me, "But he's important to the story." Things fortunately did get better and I could enjoy the last third of the book although with not quite the same way as I had the first third.

I am waiting now for zombiebooker to get back to me with an address. If I don't hear back in a day or two longer, I'll send the book onto Eskielover.

Plot summary does not equal analysis. This book falls into the trap of using plot summary to pad an otherwise shallow and poorly thought out book. The writing style waffles between flippant and unneccessarily reverent for Roddenberry. The Ethics of Star Trek would be a much stronger book if it approached the series in terms of the times they were made. Does the Orignal Series reflect the ethic debates of the late 1960s? Why did post cold war 1990s produce a series as dark as Deep Space Nine and what sorts of cultures and ethical questions are represented by the B'Jorans, Cardassians and the Dominion? How are these ethical questions brought to the screen? How does film editing, writing, music, etc. work to build up the ethical theses? How do these same elements work against the theses?

None of these topics are covered. Instead there are simplistic retellings of the classic foundations of ethics and logic. The chapter on the Cave, for instance, is laughable.

I am now just waiting to hear back from the person after me for an address. Then I'll get this book back into the mail.

I see that Colfer has left himself a wee opening for an Artemis Fowl #4 and if there were one, I would read it. The Eternity Code's pacing is slower than books #1 and #2 but it's just as tight and almost just as entertaining. While on the one hand I was glad to see Butler make it through to the end, the book would have been stronger in many regards if he hadn't. I was also suprised to see Artemis' parents suddenly absent after they were Artemis' raison d'etra in books #1 and #2.

I'm torn as how best to review this book. One the one hand I've seen many adaptations of the book on TV and film. Some credit the book others don't. Having just recently seen the UK series "Survivors" (1975) I must say that I'm surprised that Terry Nation didn't credit Wyndham given the heavily lifted plot and dialogue! Sure, the main characters are changed around but the incidental plot elements are nearly the same and in the same order. All that is missing is the triffids and the comet.

Which brings me to my main complaint about the book: The triffids hardly have anything to do with the plot of the book even though they are the title of it and are the most thought out piece of the book. The idea of a tech industry expirament let loose in the wild was fascinating but save for chapter 2, nothing is further is developed along those lines.

Then there's the comet (if it is one) which blinds everyone and then the unexplained plague a few days later. Now if you believe the B film Day of the Comet, the comet turns those who saw it into zombies -- triffids be damned and then the same sort of plot (minus menacing plants) goes on. In this book though, the two seem unrelated except to kill off all those annoying recently rendered blind folks.

It's not a brillant book. It won't win any awards but as a written adaptation of the series Charmed, it does a good job. Prue, Piper and Phoebe come across as they're portrayed in the series. The mystery behind the magic shenanigans unfolds just as it would as an episode. And it takes just about as long to read as it would to watch.

I'm glad to see that in the reprint the cover art has been fixed. While the painting on the first edition is well executed it has NOTHING to do with the story. The new cover art is closer to correct, though I would have loved to see the little calico standing in front of the ornately carved blue door rather than inside the tool shed. I guess the door would have been quite difficult to do justice.

I also have to admit that once I was about 1/3 through this book, I realized and remembered that I had read this book when it had first come out (but had forgotten much of the plot). I can recall reading it for the first time in a salon on State Street as a freshman at UCSB. I remember thinking it would be cool to have a calico cat (I now do). And I remember being annoyed by the cover art.

One piece that confused me about the story is the timing of the events. Only until the last chapter and the epilogue is the story given a timeline of 1957 being the "present" but the way San Francisco and Marin are described, pieces of the story feel like they should be taking place either now (late 1990s when the book was written or 2000s if the present was meant to be the near future). Other events make the book seem like it should be taking place in the 1920s or 1930s. I think the biggest sticking point is the mention of an earthquake being strong enough to kill some characters in the back story. San Francisco is known for two big quakes: 1906 and 1989. Of course it turns out that the earthquake in question is completely fictional but I think it would have been better if the timeline could have been wrapped around an actual quake or the city in qusetion moved to a place not so known for two quakes. In other words, I found the odd details distracting at times that I just wanted the plot to take where it wanted to go.

The author though excels at two pieces of this book: her understanding of cats and her ability to describe paintings. It helps that she is an accompished artist in her own right. When she was describing Braden's series of portraits fo Melissa I could see them so clearly! When she was describing the little calico cat, I felt as if she were in the room with me.

I bought this crossword dictionary about 20 years ago when I was starting out with doing crosswords. I haven't looked at it in years as it just seems like cheating. One word of caution, the binding is rather flimsy. My copy lost a few pages over the course of normal use.

I loved the book. The last chapter almost pulled the same manipulative ending as Breath, Eyes, Memory and Friendship Cake but thankfully didn't. Given the photograph on the back of the book, I have to wonder if the author was writing in part about himself. It was nice to see the Bachelor evolve as a character as the kitten brought out the best in him. Anyone who liked this book would also like Clevland Amory's books and James Herriot's Cat Stories. With so many of these sentimental books about men and their cats, do they count as a genre-"kit lit" perhaps?