The greatest part about this book is not the story it tells (although it is a great story) but how the story is told. It reads as both a sort of novel and a work of academic history. I would say it is a historical narrative but it is more than that combining both forms in seperate sections of the story and then blending them all together.

Another nice touch is the author's use of a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary at the beginning of each chapter. Don't be decieved by the short length of the book, you will need a dictionary to learn all of these words and it has some great ones(some weren't even in my dictionary) But hey if you are going to read a book about lexiography you should use a dictionary right.

Years ago I read this wonderful epic for the first time and was enthralled with its terrific characters. Unfortunately the translation I read was very difficult to understand and I had problems trying to match characters with pronouns among other things. This translation has no such problems. It is very readable. The readability of the text obviously enhances the experience since one can concentrate on the content and not on the difficult language. Another nice feature is the inclusion of the original text. While I can not read it, it is certainly very interesting to compare.

The actually epic of Beowulf is a great knights tale that has been revived as a result of Tolkein's interest in the work. In my opinion it is the greatest epic ever written. While it is much shorter than say the Iliad, I certainly found it more entertaining. Beowulf's adventure's with Grendal and his mother(thank goodness none of our mother-in-laws were like this) can not be beat. Don't miss this enchanting tell.

I also highly recommend this book on tape read by Heaney. His Irish accent gives the story a dark ages feeling that really enhances the experience.

When I picked up this book I was hoping for something in the strain of Brave New World or 1984. Well, Bellamy is no Huxley. This book is dry and unimaginative. The author's view of the year 2000 is almost comical. In over a hundred years(the book was written in something like 1887) the only change is that all of humanity has learned to work together. The funny thing is that is all this time the mode of dress has stayed the same. So somehow man has changed his entire inherently selfish nature but hasn't been able to come up with a better shoe style in a hundred years. Give me a break. If you are looking for a thought provoking look at the future I suggest Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. As for Bellamy's Looking Backwards, leave it on the shelf.

The best and by far the most complete study of Mormon temple ceremonies. Not only does it address the endowment and the chages the church has made in their ceremonies(most recently in 1990) but also lesser known ordinaces such as the second endowment. The book is daring in subject matter and approach cutting right to the facts. This book tells it how it is without any display of personal religious viewpoints, which in and of itself is an accomplishment. Nowhere else will you find such a frank and fair description of Mormon ceremonies.

Potok's wonerdful narrative centers on the life of Asher Lev, a young Jewish boy and an emerging artist. One can not help but to feel his agony as he is torn between his love of art and his attempt to live up to his families expectations. This story is a must for any student of religion, art or the human condition.

First of all this book is not cliche or a rehash of earlier material as other reviewers have stated. This book is also not very good. The book is written by John Bennett the first mayor of Nauvoo and one of the first major opponents of the Mormon movement. It is one of the first works of anti-mormon literature. I give it a five not because of any inherent academic achievement by Bennett (it has none the book was little more than a money making scheme and a political tool) but because of what we can learn about early mormon dissenters and their views of Mormonism. It also has great significance as a first hand account, albeit a biased one but all views of Mormonism are obviously biased one way or the other.