'The Green Mile' is perhaps one of the finest novels yet by one of the world's greatest storytellers; by turns warmly human and shatteringly horrific, and totally unputdownable from first page to last.

In 1996, Stephen King decided to reach into the past both with the presentation of the material and with the content of The Green Mile itself. Like Charles Dickens before him, he serialized the work, publishing one episode a month, without having finished it beforehand. This 'entertainment in installments' method created a sensation and, between March and August 1996, it seemed as if everyone was 'walking The Green Mile'. Bear in mind, however, that this concept would probably have failed if the tale itself was substandard. King went to great lengths to ensure that it was not.

The Green Mile (here complete in one volume) taps into what Stephen King does best: character-driven storytelling. The story begins slowly, but it's deliberate, not sluggish, as King sets the grim scene in a depressing version of Shawshank Prison. As with all King novels, his characters are well drawn and their lives are neatly sketched. Then: "Lights. Camera. Action." From what was part 3 of the serialization ("Coffey's Hands") King charges through with an unstoppable story brimming with insight and surprise. It is not until the very end of the original part 6 ("Coffey on The Mile") that the story once again slows to allow readers to breathe a little.

The ending of The Green Mile is perhaps King's saddest (with the possible exception of Insomnia) though it is still one of King's best recent novels, rich in detail and character. Nothing is ever what it should be, and there are little surprises (and some pretty big ones!) at every turn. A highly recommended read, even if you do lose the fun of the serialization as it happened.

Question: What does John Cleland have in common with D. H. Lawrence, James Joyce and Aristophanes?

Answer: The Comstock Law

All four writers (and a host of others) have had their novels banned in USA for years under the Comstock Law of 1873. Officially known as the Federal Anti-Obscenity Act, this law banned the mailing of "lewd", "indecent", "filthy", or "obscene" materials. The Comstock laws, while now to some extent unenforced, remain for the most part on the statute books today. The Telecommunications Reform Bill of 1996 even specifically applies some of these outdated and outmoded laws to computer networks (without much success, it is noted).

So what's my message here? Simple - if we continue to allow censors to dictate what we can and cannot read, we stand the chance of being robbed of some of the world's finest written works - and we're not talking exceptions here. Consider, for example Candide, Voltaire's critically hailed satire - Jean-Jacques Rousseau's autobiography Confessions - Chaucer's Canterbury Tales - Boccaccio's Decameron - Defoe's Moll Flanders, and various editions of The Arabian Nights. All were banned at various times in the US. That noble book 'Ulysses' by James Joyce was recently selected by the Modern Library as the best novel of the 20th century yet, like Aristophanes' Lysistrata, Cleland's 'Fanny Hill' and Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley', it was banned for decades from the U.S.

Fanny Hill is no longer distinguished for the once-shocking treatment of the sexual activity of one 'loose' woman. Now that we're used to hearing and reading about sex, it's apparent that the novel is memorable for better reasons: namely, that Cleland was a masterful writer whose intelligent descriptions take us bodily into the world of his characters. The book's moderate language on an immoderate subject make it a unique, original work - a triumph of passion and eroticism over sterility.

The next time you hear that something has been censored, question whether it is really to protect public morals (where the pornography of senseless war, and starvation appear to be more acceptable than freedom of sexuality), or whether it is to protect the censors' own frustrated identities! Fanny Hill is yet another powerful reminder that all the censors have ever succeeded in doing is to ban outstanding literature in the name of public morality.

I was impressed by the first 65 pages of 'Jakob Nielsen's 50 Web Sites'. For the first time, it seemed, someone had stopped to analyse the genetic code that made for a successful homepage.

What happened on page 66? .......... What happened was that I came to the deconstruction (criticism) of THIS site (amazon.com) and discovered that things were not as they seemed. Having purchased regularly from three of the amazon sites over the last five years, and having written over 200 reviews on this site alone, I think I know the site as well as any other customer. Thus I was surprised when I saw some of the criticisms levelled by Jakob Nielsen and Marie Tahir. I'm not saying that everything is perfect - and fair criticism is wholly constructive - however, the authors have left themselves open to the charge of superficiality.

Take as an example their criticism of the page tabs (they say that users can make use of the other navigation tools on the page). Personally, I ALWAYS use the tabs at the top of the page. It seems that Nielsen and Tahir haven't considered user preferences.

They say that 'Friends and Favorites' is a meaningless category name. Not to me, it's not. Nor to hundreds of thousands of other site users.

They say that 'Free e-cards' should be in the 'Gifts' category. WRONG - Gift Certificates are in the gift category. e-Cards are e-Cards. Gift Certificates are Gift Certificates.

They say that 'Hello' is an unnecessary level of friendliness. Is it? I LIKE being welcomed to the site (even though I know it's only an electronic gizmo). What Nielsen and Tahir failed to understand was that, after signing-in, the message says 'Hello, Graham Hamer' (or Hello, Father Christmas if that's who you are). As I say, the authors have been too superficial in drawing their conclusions.

They say that Photo albums and Photo frames is an odd and seemingly random combination of items. Eh? Doesn't the word 'photo' conjure up a link?

They say that 'Kitchen' should be grouped with 'Lawn and Patio'. Why? I don't grow flowers in my oven.

In Nielsen and Tahir's specific examples, they criticise 'A Painted House' as being a poor description of John Grisham's 'A Painted House'. ... What planet are these people from?

They criticize the fact that there is more than one place on the page to sign in. I LIKE that feature since both my wife and I have accounts with Amazon, I often find that I am 'signed in' on her account. Having a convenient location to click is a useful addition.

Nielsen and Tahir have completely misunderstood the meaning of the heading 'New Releases'. If they had bothered to click on any of the categories below, they would have understood its function. (Superficiality again.)

I could rant on and on for pages, but I think you're probably getting the gist of things. Having discovered that the authors had made such a poor job of deconstructing a site I know well, I now don't trust their judgement on the remaining 49 sites. That's a shame, because the idea behind the book is good - just poorly executed.

As a good story, 'Riverwatch' delivers. The plot is not wholly original, but is intelligent enough to surpass any thoughts of having been there before. There are, though, three (small) problems... First off, there are some clumsy grammatical errors, which are particular noticeable in the early chapters of the book. This is a shame, since a little elementary editing would have removed most of these. Secondly, Nassise seeks to 'tell' his reader too much, instead of using his descriptions and dialogue to 'show'. Again this is a shame since his ability to coin a keen phrase is evident when, as a page one 'prologue', he describes something as simple as silence and succeeds in immediately drawing his reader into his imaginary world. And thirdly, he has fallen into the first-time author's trap of overusing adjectives and adverbs. He would do well to listen to Stephen King's advice on seeking these out and destroying them (On Writing : A Memoir of the Craft). Any single one of these problems would have passed unnoticed. Any two would have been a slight irritation. But all three caused a series of reoccurring distractions that took the edge off my enjoyment of Riverwatch.

And yet the novel is still well-balanced, and has all the ingredients of a darn good read. Riverwatch is fast paced and, despite the story's Gothic feel, Nassise's protagonists are generally likeable characters with whom one can easily identify and empathize. Like most great horror writers, Jospeh Nassie draws the evil in his book from the dark regions of the human mind, though he fully hones the tangible reality of the evil in the nightmare shape of Moloch - The Beast. Nassie's descriptions of this, the last of the 'Nightshades' are superb, and genuinely scary. He taps into our darkest fears and conjures up enough bloodcurdling horror to unsettle us and have us peering nervously round dark corners. The deaths (of which there are several) are bloodthirsty but not excessively so... enough to put you off your bedtime cocoa, but not enough to make you want to close the book. As I say, Riverwatch is well-balanced and should be praised for achieving this difficult feat.

Take note... despite my criticisms, if Joseph M. Nassie can curb his predilection to adjectives and adverbs, allow his story to do the talking, and have his manuscript proof-read, his next book will be a true masterpiece. This is a young author on the way up and, in Riverwatch, should be congratulated for having laid the most solid foundation stones.

As I look through the reviews of 'Skipping Christmas' I understand why the response is so mixed. My feeling is that many readers have expected a typical Grisham-style book and have ended up with less than they had hoped for. Skipping Christmas is NOT typical Grisham. John Grisham has taken a light-hearted look at the reactions when a couple decide to give Christmas a miss and go on a cruise instead.

Where the story falls down is in the detail. We are told that Luther Krank is only skipping Christmas to avoid the cost (not because Christmas is humbug). Why, then, would he avoid placing a Frosty on his roof? Why would he not go to the (no cost) firm's office party? There are lots of other details, too, that don't fit into Luther's original 'plan'.

Though Skipping Christmas is just a short, light-hearted read that lasts a few hours, I didn't find it particularly satisfying nor, despite the potential, did I find much humor in John Grisham's execution of the plot. It's marginally amusing but not much else.

I totally agree with the reviewer who says that Kidnapped has become his/her favorite book of all time and that (s)he still re-reads it several times a year. Not that I re-read it, but I agree when (s)he says that (s)he envies anyone who is about to read 'Kidnapped' for the first time. I am about the same age, and I well remember my first reading - how I smiled when Uncle Ebeneezer served his gruel (porridge) - how I held my breath when David nearly stepped into space on the broken stairs - how I cringed with the injustice of Ebeneezer tried to cheat David out of his inheritance by selling him into slavery in the American colonies.

Stevenson's 'Treasure Island' is reckoned to be his best book but, for sheer descriptive weight, superb characterization and sharp, sharp dialog, 'Kidnapped' is the one for me. In brief, 16-year-old orphan, David Balfour visits his uncle in order to claim the inheritance, left by his father. The uncle, having failed to kill him, arranges for David to be kidnapped by a ship of thugs and villains and taken to the Carolinas to be sold into slavery. While navigating the Scottish coast, the ship collides with another boat and the crew capture the lone survivor, a swashbuckling Highlander called Alan Breck Stewart. David and Alan become friends and escape their captors. On land again, Stewart is accused of murdering a rival clan member and he and David must now cross the Scottish mountains to reach safe haven and for David to reclaim his inheritance.

The descriptions of the Scottish countryside are truly marvelous and the sense of pace and adventure keeps the reader hooked right to the end. I notice that one reviewer likened this section to 'a tiresome episode of The Odd Couple'. Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that The Odd Couple was written a few years AFTER Kidnapped ! (In any case, I doubt that a written version of the television series would stir anyone's emotions like Kidnapped can). To most readers the historic aspects, along with the fact that the couple are being hunted by British redcoats is enough to maintain interest, suspense and pace.

Read and enjoy !

Dave Barry has a screw loose somewhere and it makes him one of the funniest writers on the scene today. The storyline of 'Big Trouble' features a bearded drifter who lives up a tree, a couple of Russian arms dealers, a pair of losers who hustle tourists for dimes but are headed for the big time, a sexy illegal immigrant, a vodka-soaked embezzler, a poisonous toad, two very fed up New Jersey hit men and a dog who looks like Elizabeth Dole... oh, not to mention a giant python called Daphne and a nuclear bomb!

Want to know more? ... Read the book!

I chuckled my way through the first half of Big Trouble, and laughed my way through the second half. What else could I do with a story that fell somewhere between Tom Sharpe and Tom Wolfe but was better than the sum of both? Dave Barry is more like Elmore Leonard than Elmore Leonard and has created that rare literary beast, the genuinely funny mystery/thriller novel.

If I could give six stars, I'd want to give this book seven. It's a real killer. Can't wait to see the movie.

If being irreverent is stating that Parisian waiters can be rude, then I've missed the point of this book somewhere. Everbody KNOWS that Parisian waiters can be rude. Just be rude back!

I can't help feeling that Alexander F. Lobrano (Heidi Ellison in the first edition) have just dug around to exaggerate the things they don't like, and played down (or even omitted) the good things. For example, in a section marked 'Secret Gardens', how can Parc Andre Citroen be considered secret and Jardins Albert Kahn completely missed? It makes a mockery of claiming to be a true guide. Much better (if you're French-speaking) to get yourself a copy of 'Paris inattendu' by Michel Dansel. You get the truth AND a lot of fresh information.

When I was very young (about six thousand years ago), our school master used to read to us from Wind in the Willows. The stories had a magical quality and a few weeks ago, as a somewhat older person, I got to wondering whether they would still have that sense of enchantment that held us so captivated all those years ago.

I was NOT disappointed. Toad was just as cantankerous and difficult as ever. Badger, Rat and Mole were just as supportive - just as memorable. Badger is unpredictable but protective (and sometimes mean). Mole is timid and shy. Rat is courageous and romantic. And who could ever forget those dreadful gun-toting weasels, ferrets and stoats glorying in their take-over of Toad Hall? Wind in the Willows is a true masterpiece of allegory with endless moral lessons disguised as a children's story. It is also a lesson in things long-forgotten... the glory of floating noiselessly down a river at dawn, past loosestrife, willowherb, bulrushes and meadowsweet. How many of us have even heard of these meadow plants, never mind seen them. But it doesn't matter, because it evokes nostalgia either for things long-forgotten or for things never-known.

At a child's level, Wind in the Willows is about friendship and about life in an imagined world centered around the river. At a less innocent level, Wind in the Willows draws many parallels with life, though Kenneth Grahame managed to avoid preaching his lessons. Not the least of Graham's parables is that 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall' because Toad is as egotistical and as self-important as they come until being thrown in jail for 'borrowing' a car. After that, it's all downhill for Toad, and it is only thanks to the loyalty of his friends that he regains some of his position in society - though not before learning a little humility first.

Though, at an older age, we pretend to be more sophisticated, at heart we always hold out the hope of a return to innocence and simple adventures. We are still (most of us) perfectly capable of identifying with the animals and the idea, as one reviewer put it, of two school-aged hedgehogs frying ham for a mole and a water rat, in a badger's kitchen does my imagination no harm whatsoever! As for Grahame's choice of phrase (...the "remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England"...) it's almost as poetically attention-grabbing as Rowan Atkinson's Blackadder series.

If you're looking for laser guns and hi-tech wars, W-i-t-W is NOT the book to buy. If you're after something a little more gentle (and a little more intelligent) Wind in the Willows is an outstanding example of a Classic that continues to withstand the test of time.

I wonder why it is that, whenever somebody points out the truth about outdated and failed American foreign policy, that person is condemned with phrases such as... 'outdated arguments', 'Liberal Idealist', 'confusing'? Chalmers Johnson may indeed focus on the Pacific Rim region, but his observations accurately reflect the views of much of the rest of the world too. It is true that, at the moment, the extremists tend to be concentrated in the regions of the world that are fundamentally Islamic, but that does not mean that the rest of the world agrees with America's attitude. Where America stumbles is in its belief that it doesn't need to EARN respect .... that respect will be granted thanks to the purchasing power of the mighty dollar.

Even America's friends in Europe are exasperated at the naïveté displayed by USA politicians and many of its citizens. Why, for example, should Britain now run to America's aid in the battle against terrorism - after all, American citizens have been openly sponsoring Irish terrorism for decades. Fortunately, Britain is a good ally. Britain also understands the attitude of empire-builders - attitudes that are stubbornly maintained but not yet fully understood by USA. - the outdated imperialism of treating the natives fondly, but with a certain superiority and disdain. Just because America has the hard cash that enables it to develop other people's science does not make America the originator. Remember that telephones, television, rocket science, computers were all invented elsewhere. Stop treating the inventors with contempt, just because they have less $ in their pockets with which to commercialize their inventions.

And this is the real nub of 'Blowback : The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'. It is a timely warning to USA to learn the lessons of history and to approach its neighbors with a good deal more respect that is shown at present. From a personal angle, I would add that American people (for whom I have a fondness, a lot of respect, and a large measure of good will) would also do well to equip themselves with a better understanding of what is going on beyond their shores. I share a commonly-held view that American is insular in its understanding but global in its power. Something is bound to go wrong! It's not hatred for the American people (excluding a few demented fundamentalists), it's much more exasperation at the prevailing attitudes. 'Blowback', though limited in its coverage makes this abundantly clear.