Sean

Were Ferdowsi to come back to life and come to my home town, I would drive to see him and then park my car 100 yards away and get out. I would run to him and kiss the ground before his feet. I would pour a bushel basket of $100 bills over his head. I would spray him with Clive Christian No.1 Pure Perfume for Men (more than $1400 a bottle). I would hire the best local band to play for him, and I would feast him with the unbelievably delicious clams, oysters, and salmon the local waters are known for, prepared by the best local chef. I would laud him like a lion. And I would thank him for having written an epic poem which brought me so much pleasure.

I'm surprised at how much I loved the Shahnameh. Davis's translation is clear, understandable, and at time quite lovely. The mix of poetry and prose worked for me really well. I tend to resent prose translations of poems, but to tell the truth I often find verse translations to be tedious. Davis gave me the best of both without the worst of either.

A few surprises. I was intrigued by how very similar the religious sentiment (and especially the pre-Zaroastrian period of the poem) is to that which is found in the Old Testament. And I was amazed at how similar it felt to medieval European stories. In particular I was gratified at how violent and frightening –how similar to the European model– the dragons are. None of these “Chinese dragons in their serene heights holding the pearl of wisdom” nonsense. These Persian dragons want to kill you, just like in real life.

Having read it, I love the Shahnameh, and I love Davis's translation.

This volume is a favorite so far. It is so true to life. When stories die, people become weird; and self-appointed, self-conscious self-important Judases always make a mess of things.

Even though this is not a book I would generally pick to read (I don't handle extreme suspense in books or movies very well), I agreed to read it because a friend handed it to me and told me she wanted someone to read it so she could talk bout it. I am so glad I agreed! I had to put it down a few times and come back later, but once the horror was fully revealed, I found it smooth sailing. Paris wrote this so well that even I, who just can't handle when things get just too aweful, had to keep coming back for more. I will definitely put her next book on my list to read.

I might have given it five stars if not for the wonky comma usage, which I found very distracting, there should have been an editor to impose some discipline.

How would I be different if some small thing had happened differently? How would the whole world be different? If I had been in a slightly better way that day I found out I had to opportunity to attend high school in Wales, maybe I would have gone. If I had, maybe I would be dead already. Maybe I would be a millionaire, maybe a monk. Maybe... who knows? This whole book is built on that question: what would be different if one small thing were different. Atkinson writes a gripping and entertaining exploration of that puzzle.

Beautifully drawn and interestingly executed. I am not as literate graphically as I am verbally, so wordless books are difficult for me to follow, but I was able to understand this, thanks to the simple cast and clear drawing style. I'm not sure what I think of the story, and especially of its ending, but overall the book deserves kudos as a well-done piece of art.

The last book I finished, the day before beginning this one, was the Brothers Karamazov, so there is a bit of a clash. The artwork of Saga definitely wins.

I very much enjoyed this, and I plan to read the next volume, but I do get tired of books that take place far and away but which sound exactly like the people I listen to every day. I like my fantasy and science fiction books to take me away, and that includes the culture, the language, the whole feel. Sadly, Vaughan is firmly committed to sounding and being utterly and only a product of the decade. His writing will sound very dated soon. But it's a fun story!

Odd Thomas continues to delight, amuse, astound, and edify. Koontz handles this exploration of repentance and renewal with his usual humor and almost-hidden insights. I recommend it to people who want to think about an important spiritual topic but don't want their nose rubbed in it.

Very readable translations. Not having read the Greek, I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I can say they are a pleasure to read.

I certainly liked this translation better than [b:The Complete Works of Lao Tzu: Tao Teh Ching & Hua Hu Ching 147310 The Complete Works of Lao Tzu Tao Teh Ching & Hua Hu Ching Hua-Ching Ni https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348090343s/147310.jpg 142168]. Unfortunately, like Ni with his translation, Walker does not give much of an introduction making clear his translation choices, so it is not possible to take what I read here and compare it to what I have read in other texts translated by other people. And like Ni, he does not deal with the history of the Hua Hu Ching. I think the possibility of fraud in the origin of a text is important. I know that the Hua Hu Ching would not be invalidated as a taoist text even if it were not what it claims to be (the writing of Lao Tzu); even if it had been written in Pacoima last week, within the logic of Taoism it would still be valid if it were a valuable source of insight. But when presenting a largely unknown text to the English-speaking world, I think a little explication and forthrightness is in order. The translation is pleasant to read and easy to follow.

I did not like it for several reasons. I have read many translations of the Tao Teh Ching, so I have a lot to compare the first half of this volume to. I know nothing of the original language, so I can make no assessment of the accuracy, but I can compare it to other translations. Based on that, I can say that I found this one to be clunky and unappealing. It was difficult and unpleasant to read. I have never read any translation of the Hua Hu Ching before, but I read this one concurrently with [b:Hua Hu Ching: The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu 147311 Hua Hu Ching The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu Lao Tzu https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347731768s/147311.jpg 142169] so that is my only point of reference. I was unhappy with Ni for not providing some introduction giving us something about his translation philosophy and how he chose to deal with certain words. (He did provide a brief mention of his approach to male vs female references, and I am glad for that.) The trouble is that while I was reading, there were all these odd phrases that I reasonably guess are not direct translations from the Chinese, but philosophically chosen English equivalents. But since he never tells us what the Chinese original of these phrases is, I can not compare his translation of this text to other translations of other texts I am familiar with. I don't know if the Hua Hu Ching is talking about the same thing as other texts. Heck, I can't even always tell when the word “tao” is the original behind a particular English phrase or word, so I can't even compare it to the Tao Teh Ching as I know it from other translations. Also, I wish he had at least mentioned the confusing history of the text and the likely possibility that it was a fraud to begin with. Somehow, it felt like I was being conned. “Trust me, I know what I'm talking about!” I am sure that as a taoist reading this text just as taoist teaching is great–it does not matter if it is ancient or modern, Chinese or Mayan. If it is a reliable text for teaching taoist philosophy, then great! But for someone like me who wants to read it as an ancient text, with some connection to the Tao Teh Ching which I really like, then this volume is pretty much worthless. And why is this text so very different than [b:Hua Hu Ching: The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu 147311 Hua Hu Ching The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu Lao Tzu https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347731768s/147311.jpg 142169]? This is long, wordy, dialog prose; the other is concise verse. Rather suspicious.For a cynical take on the Hua Hu Ching itself, read this short article: http://taoism.net/tao/hua-hu-ching/

Lo

Charming and delightful and true.

I don't have much to say about tis book except that I love it and all the Skippyjon Jones books. (I'm 50 years old, by the way, and I don't have children.) The opening sentences, though, deserve to be mentioned, since they had be doubled up in laughter in the lunch room at work.

Skippyjon Jones was a real High-Wire Henry. And that made his mama as worried as a worm in a wading pool.
“Oh, my fleas,” wailed Mama Junebug Jones. “Come down from that wire before you break all your bones!”
“He can't hear you,” sang his sisters, Ju-Ju Bee, Jezebel, and Jilly Boo, “cause Skippy's up in squirrely world.”

“Skippy's up in squirrelly world.” I still laugh.

I really enjoyed her verse translation. One I stopped letting the strict rhythm dominate and began reading with sense and sound, it flowed beautifully and was a lot of fun.

Magnificent. Books without words can be so much fun, and this one certainly is. The art is beautiful (surprisingly moving, in fact) and utterly captivating. I love the look on the boy's face when he looks at the first photo. The octopus in their living room gave me agood laugh. The starfish scene–I want that painting on my wall.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit. The story was exciting and it had a feeling of authenticity. I know nothing about the peoples the book is about, so I have no way of knowing how well the authors did their homework, but it felt real. Even the fantasy elements did not detract from the “real feel.”

I for one was quite glad that the Danelaw was defeated by the English and driven out, so I read this book from the “other side,” but I still enjoyed it. The characters, even though they are my ancestral enemies, were likeable. Somehow the Gears made me care even about Danes. My only quibble was the word “anchorite,” which was used inaccurately and meaninglessly. It annoyed me every time the word appeared.

Excellent book! The climax–I had to catch my breath after it. The premise–I had to think about it. The book itself–I had to put it down sometimes to take care of business, but I always hurried back.

I respect the author very much for his discipline in dealing with such a subject and not making his own position obvious while doing so. Well done.

Recommend for: Atheists and theists.

Utterly delightful. I often don't like retellings of classic children's stories, because it is the adults who are bored of the real thing, not the children. But this is different. Witty and fun, it would have appealed to me enormously when I was the target age. And it still does.

This is a worthy continuation of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Maintaining the profound truth and tough clarity which is Donaldson's chief characteristic as an author and philosopher, this book can break you heart with grief but hold it together with hope and the clarion call to service and integrity.

Although it is clear that Goodwin has a clear end-point in mind, and therefore an agenda he wants to pursue, it is also clear that he has authored a really worthwhile book. I kind of resent being led too obviously to a conclusion, but his conclusion is difficult to avoid, I think. And I appreciate that he seems to say, although without making it quite this clear, “No one school of economic thought is entirely sufficient in itself.”

I have my own personal Vonnegut story. When I was in high school, for most of those four years I spent lunch period alone in the library (the school had a very nice library indeed). It was easier than any of the other options. One year, while there, I read Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Every book he had published. I hated each one. I would finish a book, think to myself, “Thank God that's over,” return it to the shelf, and take the next one in line. I hated every one. I read every one.

I do not remember having read Cat's Cradle, but I know I did. I know I hated it.

HOW could I have hated this book? It makes no sense to me at all that I could ever have hated it. Cat's Cradle was written just for me. Strange and bizarre without being gratuitously perverse, it walks the fine line between comedy (I didn't laugh one time yet I would still call it hilarious) and satire and surrealism and science fiction. Don't tell me that line is a geometric impossibility; the book walks it anyway.

Also, if I weren't committed to being a Christian, I would become a Bokononist. Maybe I already am one and just don't quite know it.

I think that when I was the target audience for these books I would have liked but not loved them. I would happily recommend them to a child of the appropriate age.

I am not yet sure what I think. Therefore, I will confine myself to a few remarks.

Although Peter's Christian tradition is very different than mine, and has a vocabulary and way of talking about “religion” that is very different from the ways I am accustomed to, I found the dialog by him and his wife to be honest and real. I do not know anything about the author at all, but so often when writers who are not specifically Christian try to write Christian characters' dialog, it is cringe-inducing. Faber knows the people who is writing about, at least, if he is not one of them. I would never find myself talking like Peter, but I know lots of folk who do, and Faber is not mocking them.

I am grateful that the book did not wind up being a hatchet job on the Christian Faith. It's OK that there is doubt and uncertainty, but it strikes me as honest and realistic, not malicious.

Faber brings into question what we mean when we talk about what we talk about as Christians, and I appreciate that.

That is enough for now. Maybe after some thought I will produce a more helpful review.

I really enjoyed this. Roberts did a bang-up job of conveying Adams' tone.

I really enjoyed this book, and at the age for which it is intended I would have loved it. I plan to recommend it to a lot of people, especially to boys who read but get bored easily. The short sections and paragraphs, with the fast and exciting action, makes it a thrilling read. “Thank you” to whoever it was who recommended this to me.