5 comments about Stanley Kubrick: Interviews (Conversations With Filmmakers Series).

1. For fans of Kubrick's work, this book is essential. The man only did a few interviews in his existence and semed to despise every minute of them but this book provides some essential information and opinion from one of the greatest filmmakers ever. Hearing his philosophies alone completely blew me away! By the end of the book I was wishing there were more interviews. Get it.



2. You've heard many times that "Seinfeld" was "a show about nothing." That's pretty much what you get here...
   
   Kubrick loathed publicity and hated doing interviews even more. Since he himself had been a photojournalist, of sorts, before starting his career making movies, this is a little paradoxical, but understandable.
   
   I don't doubt that just about every documented Kubrick interview ever done is, in some way, represented in this book - but it still ends up a mighty slim volume. Students of Kubrick will not learn much here that has not already been cited, in secondary source, in the great number of other Kubrick "biographies" and critical treatises.
   
   And you cannot help believing that this is exactly what Kubrick wanted. Over and over again, in this book itself, he insists that the movies he made were to stand on their own merits. Talking about movies meant nothing to him - making them was everything.



3. There is a huge amount of Kubrick in this one. Parhaps the most complete collection of things he has uttered to the press throughout his career. It covers all his fascinations, all obsessions and great visions for the modern mankind - and it unveils the gradual loss of hope, dienchantement with how the modern world develops.
   But, being a collection of interviews, it is also slightly repetitive and many topics are discussed several times, so for non-scholars this can be increasingly boring while they advance.



4. In Stanley Kubrick: Interviews (University Press of Mississippi), we have more of the voice of Kubrick than anywhere else. The interviews go chronologically and run the gamut from short three-page profile throwaways to massive, 30-page question-and-answer marathons. Many are worth noting: Jeremy Bernstein's profile dates from 1966 but is still fresh and amazingly well-written and candid, and Eric Nordern's interview with Kubrick for Playboy is insightful and worth reading for the Master's (mostly incorrect) predictions of immortality and space travel by the year 2001. Another excellent interview comes from Joseph Glemis, who talks to Kubrick about all of his films up to Clockwork Orange, and there are two interviews with Gene Siskel that are worth reading, too.
   
   Simply put, this is a fine volume that should belong to every Kubrick fan. Most of these interviews, if not all of them, are long out of print and the book is 98% worthwhile. Moreover, reading the words of Kubrick is like reading poetry-he did retain the right to extrapolate and modify his answers before any interview was published-with each sentence and word well chosen. Only complaint: there are no interviews with Kubrick regarding The Shining; why this film was left out is curious. Gorgeously printed with a spartan design, sturdily bound, set in Stone serif, rag right, this is a very reader-friendly book.



5. Considering the fact that Stanley Kubrick rarely gave interviews, this book is a godsend. Compiling articles and interviews over a span of several decades, "Stanley Kubrick: Interviews" offers a fascinating insight into one of the cinema's greatest directors. Many of these have been widely reprinted already, but it's great to see them all in one collection. Once you've bought this book ...get the Stanley Kubrick Collection DVD box set!

5 comments about Raisin in the Sun (Cliffs Notes).

1. I bought this for my granddaughter, who is in High School. She read the play and wanted more information about it so I got the Cliffs Notes. They helped her understanding of certain aspects of the play and characters. It was a good buy!



2. -which delves into the heart of an early 60's lower class African American family struggling to live together in a crowded Chicago apartment. A widowed mother tries to teach her son the real values of life and hold her family together at the same time while selflessly trying to make both of her childrens dreams live.



3. I had to read this book for school and I also had to do a report for it, and I felt I was being tortured by having to read it. Nothing interesting ever seems to happen in this book, therefore, I do not recommend this book to anyone, especially to teachers looking to have there students read it. To the teachers, I got a 100 percent on the test, because nothing interesting happened in the book to ask a question about. In closing, if you are looking to read a book, i suggest you pick a different one, if there was a zero star option I would have picked that.



4. This book had alot to do with the "American Dream" Everyone was striving for their own thing. It was all based on money. But in the end they saw that money will not make you happy. We thought this thought was clearly shown.



5. I found this book to be an utter waste of my time. You follow a black family in Chicago through a few days of their lives in which they attempt to buy a new home. Overall the plot was dull and there was no real excitement. The climax was subtle and made no major difference in the readers mind. If you are looking for a good book this is not one of them.

5 comments about The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror; Revised Edition with a New Afterword.

1. David J.Skal's The Monster Show is one of the most important works on the cultural impact of horror ever written.
   
   His book follows the roots of our fascination from the beginning of the twentieth century,through the silent era,Universal pictures in the 30s,World War 2,the 50s,60s and into today.
   
   The symbolic links the genre has to our own history is underlined throughout,and it's amazing how much is uncovered.
   
   Skal does not just provide a history of the growth of human culture throughout the twentieth century,but also alot about the horror film.
   His research into the early horror cinmema was groundbreaking and has been imitated greatly ever since.
   
   This recent reprint adds an excellent afterthought by Skal on the meaning of Horror today,taking a quote from the film,"Gods and Monsters" to sum up it's endless appeal to the filmgoer.
   
   If any criticism must be made,it's that Skal does get too "Freudian" sometimes,and seems to lose topic,but his points are made and for the horror intellectual this does indeed,make a very good read.
   
   Reccomended.



2. David Skal writes like a genie on acid, his mind a stack of tottering file drawers in Bartleby's littered office. His magnum opus, THE MONSTER SHOW, piles on the gore and, in addition, tries harder than Freud to make sense of our need for ritual bloodletting as entertainment. Though it's clear his forte is old Hollywood, particularly the great Universal horrors of the 1930s and 1940s, he knows just about everything on a range of other allied topics. I found his section on the French theatrical phenomenon of Grand Guignol to be the best short account I have ever read of it.
   
   His judgments on individual films and performances are always on the mark; whether or not you agree with his grading system, you must bow to his expertise and the felicity with which he makes his points. He takes his examples not only from mass media but from the fine arts, explaining that the feminist slogan "Your Body is a Battlefield" made famous by Barbara Kruger had its cinematic enactments in any number of 1970s and 1980s child/birth/mutant films from CHILDS PLAY to IT'S ALIVE and DEMON SEED.
   
   I actually think there's not much point discussing Universal's FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA movies without considering the studio product as a whole, for what kept Deanna Durbin from acting in THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, but for Skal, horror is a ghetto into which only rhe big events intrude--the Depression, the fleeing Weimar emigres, the Cold War, the Bomb.Skal doesn't have much of a sense of humor (maybe that's why he has, as so many have noticed, so little stomach for Hammer horror), but he has all the gifts of a born researcher and popularizer. THE MONSTER SHOW is rich and dense as a chocolate cheesecake, and it's a little crazy too, so what more can you ask for?



3. I felt compelled to write a review to counter some of the complaints by other reviewers that Skal leaves out the work of many influential European directors. This is true, but I think largely misses the point of the book, which is mostly a history of the development of the *American* horror film. The first part of the book is a comprehensive history tracing the roots of the Universal horror films from book to stage to, finally, their classic film versions. Given so much of the book is devoted to the establishment of the earliest film horror, it's inevitable that the other, oh, SEVEN DECADES won't get quite the same amount of attention. Whether or not you agree with Skal's politics or approach to the cultural history of horror, I still think "The Monster Show" is a must-read for any horror fan and a great place to start for the fan who wants to learn more about the history of their favorite genre.



4. This book starts out great! It was so interesting to read about the old fashioned horror films and the people who created them. The author made it so easy to read, and I was flying through it all! I could tell that the book was very well researched, and it was nice to see how the author made connections and observations of his own. It is a very good beginner book for anyone interested in historical horror cinema.
   
   The second part of the book is ridiculous. It goes on about silly people who think they are vampires, dumb connections that the author just threw in, and the writing starts to get really silly. It is almost as if the author was told to make the book longer, and he stretched it as far as it could possibly go. It wasn't exactly boring, but unresearched and juvenile.
   
   I would recommend this book for people who are just starting to read about the history of the horror movie. It was really easy to read, and the first half was great! Although the second half let me down, I still think this book is worth the read. (Maybe from the library, though!)



5. It sometimes seems that the history of horror films began with Universal's Frankenstein and Dracula, with an occasional nod to some silent film. It doesn't make much research to find out that there is much more to this history, as David Skal illustrates in The Monster Show. In fact, it is till almost the one-third point in the book that these landmark films are really discussed.
   
   What happened earlier were such crucial films as Nosteratu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Phantom of the Opera. Skal also relates stories of early figures, including Lon Chaney and Tod Browning and some of the literary and dramatic predecessors to the horror film. Only after laying this foundation does Skal really get into the iconic movies of Dracula and Frankenstein. There were other horror landmark films in this era, including The Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Island of Lost Souls, and between the early 1930s and 1940s, others would appear as well, most prominently the Wolf Man.
   
   These films are quite tame by today's standards, but to many overly sensitive and self-righteous souls of the era, these movies practically heralded the end of civilization, leading to de facto censorship. The genie, however, was out of the bottle, and like any good movie monster, it could never be truly killed.
   
   Skal zips from this era to the age of early television, when a new audience got to see these movies (often introduced by figures like Vampira) and the fan base expanded to a new, ardent generation. Then it's on to the era of more modern horror, ushered in by Psycho: not only is horror more gruesome (the result of better special effects and more relaxed ratings standards). As earlier films could be allegories for war or the Depression, newer films could provide symbols for AIDS and birth control. And new or old, sex and religion were always entangled in the themes.
   
   This book is subtitled A Cultural History of Horror, but as fascinating as it often is, perhaps it should be a Cultural History of American Horror made by Major Studios. There is a lot that is omitted here that should be found in any reasonable history of cinematic horror. Val Lewton, the influential horror producer of the 1940s, has only one of his movies really described (Cat People) and only gets a couple pages of text. Roger Corman and his Poe movies are hardly mentioned at all. Most glaringly, Hammer Films, which reinvented horror in the 1950s (when American horror was at its nadir), is discussed in little more than a couple of scattered sentences (let alone any non-English films after the initial German movies).
   
   Despite these omissions, this is still a pretty decent book, but the flaws keep it from earning more than four stars. If you're a horror movie fan, this is worth reading. Skal is pretty knowledgeable on the subject and can add an extra level of appreciation for this film genre.

No comments about The House of Blue Leaves and Chaucer in Rome.

2 comments about Plays: Ivanov; The Seagull; Uncle Vanya; Three Sisters; The Cherry Orchard (Penguin Classics).

1. Plays in general have a tendency to be overly-dramatic. Thus the name "drama". Chekhov definitely used this drama aspect to enhance his plays. He succeeded with some, making them dramatic, awe-inspiring, and amazing. Others? Less so.
   
   I enjoyed reading all of these plays, and I won't deny that. Some, however, are harder to read and to understand than others. It's especially difficult to remember what character is which in each play, especially since in Ivanov, all the names are long and complex. While good plays themselves, I constantly had to flip back to the character list just to remember who that is, a problem rarely found in other plays, such as Ibsen's works.
   
   The plays themselves are good. Each one has its own charm and interest. They're a pleasant read, but a difficult one. It's not something you can just breeze through. Reading these plays needs time and effort, which may be too much for some. If you're looking for any old Chekhov, settle for his stories, like "Ward number six", or even his short little stories (which are great for quick, disjointed reads). If you're looking for plays (not Shakespeare, that is), go for Ibsen. If you think you can handle this, take it on, but be warned that this is not an easy read.



2. I had to read this for a class that I had. I know it is representative of Russian literature, but it's very bleak and depressing. None of the plays have a really happy ending, but they do have good endings. My least favorite of the plays was Three Sisters, and my favorite was Cherry Orchard. Three Sisters, in my opinion is about the most bleak, unsatisfying, and depressing play about life and love I have ever read. Cherry Orchard is, in my opinion well thought out, bad things happen in this play, but there are reasons for these occurances, and it also has the most satisfying ending of all the plays in this book. Seagull, Uncle Vanya, and Ivanov aren't really bad, but aren't spectacular. If you want to read a light-hearted and easy going play, don't read this. They were interesting enough for me to give this four stars, they aren't bad for the most part, but aren't spectacular either.

No comments about Theatre World 2005-2006: The Most Complete Record of the American Theatre: Volume 62 (Theatre World).

5 comments about Stage Makeup (9th Edition).

1. If you are a new makeup artist..or even if you've been doing it for awhile, please do yourself a favor and buy this book. It is extrememly informative and well worth having as a reference.
   
   I own it and you can't have mine!!



2. Well I bought this and it said it was the 9th edition but it was the 8th, and it upset me because I payed that much for a lower edition. but the shipment was in good time and everything but they lied about what edition it was..



3. Overall, this is a very strong text with a lot of detail. Most of the photographs in the book are in black and white. There are a few at the end of the book in color. I would have like for all of the photographs to be in color.



4. This book is filled with helpful information. I only wish there were more helpful coloured photos in it.



5. There is no doubt that this book covers all the foundation aspects of the make up needs of the stage performer as well as film basics. A tremendous amount can be garnered and there are some absolutely fabulous techniques discussed especially for character make up. However, I feel that the way the book is organized, as well as how it clumps what colour fotos it has in the back, prevent it from being a truly comprehensive step by step learning text. When showing how a particular artists is doing something, such as the ballerina, it is wise to talk about WHY they are doing something as well. There is a logical reason for it. For the money paid with this text, and its titling as the bible, I think that these few matters can be easily rectified.

5 comments about Second Act Trouble: Behind the Scenes at Broadway's Big Musical Bombs.

1. This book, while interesting in its subject matter, is not an easy read as stated by an earlier reviewer. It is sometimes dry and rather longwinded in spots. It does provide information to a reader why many shows were not the successes their creators and producers hoped them to be.
   
   A much more entertaining and fascinating book on the same subject is Ken Mandelbaum's NOT SINCE CARRIE: Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops. It is a reference tool, which I own, that I go back to quite often. Second Act Trouble was a book I borrowed from the public library. I am glad I read it, and I found it worthy of my time to have completed it. I enjoyed learning some new facts like Louis Jourdan was the original male lead in ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER, or that there was a brief thought of pairing up Ethel Merman and Mary Martin in 1973 for a musical comedy version of ARSENIC AND OLD LACE with a score by Rodgers and Harnick. However, Not Since Carrie has much more of a personal touch to it. It's like you're sitting down for coffee with Ken himself.
   
   But this is a review for Second Act Trouble, not Not since Carrie. In the end, I recommend this book. However, just be aware that this look at flop musicals is a bit dull in spots and not as exciting as it could have been.
   
   Read both of the books, and decide for yourself.



2. This 2006 compendium of articles about problem musicals that fell apart on or near Broadway isn't a turkey on the order of "Kelly" or Jerry Lewis's revival of "Hellzapoppin", two of the 25 productions detailed inside. It's just misshapen and frustratingly incomplete.
   
   For example, I'm not sure why Steven Suskin's name is on the spine of this book and Lewis H. Lapham's isn't. The Harper's editor has more to say in this book than Suskin does, as Lapham wrote a long piece on "Kelly" for the Saturday Evening Post back in 1965 which Suskin reprints at full length, covering 40 pages in all.
   
   Other sections consist of shorter articles, from the New York Times, New York magazine, and other sources, detailing aspects of other failed productions often written just after or shortly before the play flopped. Suskin's contributions, here and elsewhere, consist entirely of brief introductions and often-snarky asides bracketed into the text.
   
   "...[I]t struck me that these yellowing accounts - mostly from daily newspapers and weekly magazines, which went out-of-print the day or week after they were published - tell pretty convincing tales in themselves. Why not gather the best of them together, and put them in context, I wondered? Thus, 'Second Act Trouble'."
   
   Suskin's idea of context is well on the spare side, though. He doesn't add much of anything about the musicals themselves. Were the songs bad? Was the acting at fault? Did it fail to find an audience? If the original author didn't say anything (and many of them focus as much on the money or key individuals behind the production as on the shows themselves), then Suskin doesn't, either, except to say whether the show was a "total", "partial", or "substantial" loss. It's a big hole, but not the only one in "Second Act Trouble."
   
   Another abscess comes in the form of the musicals selected. They are a fairly narrow selection, all but three from the 1960s and 1970s. Many feature the same composers and producers. One producer, David Merrick, the famously shameless "Abominable Showman" and Suskin's one-time employer, shows up in nearly half the pieces.
   
   Merrick makes for great copy, especially when he promotes "Subways Are For Sleeping" by getting a group of people who happened to have the same names as the New York theater critics of the time and producing an ad with their "raves" for the show. Alas, I learned more about Merrick reading this book than I did about how a musical may find itself on the Great Wrong Way.
   
   It's too bad Suskin couldn't stir himself to do anything more with his materials. Even the illustrations reveal a lack of effort: Playbill covers and handbills for the shows constitute most of the art; with very few vintage photos.
   
   It takes gall to publish a book with other people's thoughts and words and present it as one's own work; even more to make the subject one highlighting other people's failures. Merrick would be proud of his pupil. But this is one show you are better off skipping.



3. I couldn't put it down and if this book had just collected only Lewis Lapham's long, long, "new journalism" article on the disastrous Moose Charnap flop KELLY! it would be worth buying. Lapham spares nobody and takes no prisoners and he got everyone to go on record about Ella Logan who must have been a termagant beyond compare. The producers let her go because they couldn't stand her continual "vulgarity" of all things. Kindly old Mel Brooks comes in, takes a look at her, and says, "Fire her." Sadly she had once been a great Broadway star, the original Sharon in FINIAN'S RAINBOW, now reduced to playing mothers (in 1965). Wonder if she's still with us, Suskin might have played fair and allowed us to air her grievances against the horrid KELLY! people. Oh well, SECOND ACT TROUBLE garners one great story after another, and I can't really say which one I like the best. Great monsters always make fantastic reading, and Jerry Lewis in HELLZAPOPPIN is right up there with Hitler and Stalin! There's one part where--he hates Lynn Redgrave--he has to rehearse a song with her, and he refuses to stand up while she's onstage with him so she's forced to sing while he sings with her lying flat on his back on the ground. Oh my, but after a few more chapters of this sort of behavior you begin to feel that being evil is necessary to make it on Broadway, and the squeaky wheels make the most noise.
   
   Steven Suskin has an elastic sense of what shows are hits and which are flops, and some of the shows he covers in this book I was surprised to see he called flops. Some were critical darlings, some were pure spectacle, and some notorious flops like CARRIE aren't covered here. There are many occasions to wonder. Would HALLELUJAH BABY have been a hit if Lena Horne had played in it? I don't think so. Could Jerry Orbach have saved MACK AND MABEL? Who knows at this late date. Could Liv Ullmann be as horrid and egotistical as she is painted here, on the payroll of I REMEMBER MAMA? There goes another illusion shattered.
   
   The book reveals that during the out of town tryouts for KWAMINA Star Sally Ann Howes had an affair with her co-star, and that this behavior was nothing new for Sally Ann for she had previously (a few months before) cheated on her husband, songwriter Richard Adler) with German heartthrob Maxmilian Schell backstage on the sets of a John Frankenheimer telefilm. I didn't even know who Sally Ann Howes is and I'm still enthralled! Adler eventually comes to forgive Howes in the long decades since, and she seems like an admirable woman in many ways, leaving her home to come back to NY and nurse Adler's son in the final months of his tragic illness. Good for you, Sally Ann, I like a woman who goes after what she wants, why, that's what made me a musical queen to begin with.



4. I was extremely disapointed with this book, having read most of the essays contained therein from other sources.



5. i read this book and after i finished it, i felt i had enjoyed it. but when i went to purchase it, i couldn't remember the name of it.
   
   then, i was asked by more than a few people for a recommendation of a good book. and i would describe this one but not be able to catch the name for the life of me. and i wondered if it was me, or the title.
   
   well, part of it is the title. it explains what the book is about but doesn't capture the humor of its subject matter or the acerbic prose used by suskin.
   
   and then of course, is that snappy, light, humorous tone. it's fine for a start but then, i didn't stay invited in the book. i read it quickly because i wanted to see the other musicals for this perspective. but then i realized i can't tell you very much about the shows.
   
   and after a moment or two, i can't even tell you any insightful line that suskin wrote about the shows. just that tone--light-hearted, well-researched but not probing or enlightening.

5 comments about Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho.

1. This book's meticulous scholarship started a welcome trend for "shot-by-shot" analysis of moviemaking.
   
   Psycho is known for many things, but among them is Hitchcock's determination to use techniques he learned from television production. For a creator and adherent of "pure cinema," this special discipline makes the movie all the more notable.
   
   What a series of paradoxes. The famous shower sequence is cited over and over again as one of the best uses of cutting and montage, and yet classic 50s "two-camera" TV shows would never dream of this approach. Too expensive and time consuming.
   
   The usage of black and white - again classic 50s TV - actually enhances rather than diminishes the horror. As with old-time radio, the viewer has to fill in the lurid colors of blood and gore with her own imagination.
   
   The cover says that this film started a trend toward "psycho thrillers." I suppose that this is true, but it accomplished much, much more than is acknowledged by the mediocre films that followed.



2. What an intelligent, readable, informative book this is. Full of insights about the personalities of Hitchcock, Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, and all the other collaborators in this important and usual film project for everyone concerned. What struck me most about the book is the author's ability to blend his thorough research with a sense of the psychology and drama of what goes into making a movie. I'd have to agree with the reviewer who said that Rebello made reading this book nearly as entertaining as the movie itself. That's quite a feat. What I want to know is when will Mr. Rebello give the royal treatment to other Hitchcock projects as well as films by other directors.



3. For the true fanatic, or just the curious, this is an immensely
   readable account. Far, far more interesting and enlightening then
   any of the turgid, pompous academic treatises on Hitchcock that
   pollute bookshelves everywhere. As definitive a reconstruction
   of how PSYCHO - or any movie, with a few exceptions - was put
   together. However, I suggest Mr. Rebello is overdue for either
   an update
   (though this reprint's front and back cover is definitely an improvement over the original),
   or a companion volume.
   For the completists, I suggest:

   1. More production and cast stills.
   2. Saul Bass's storyboards.
   3. Interviews and/or photos of Marli Renfro, the actresses
   who provided the voice for Mrs. Bates, the diminutive woman
   who stabbed Arbogast. Other cast interviews.
   4. Documentation on PSYCHO's aborted CBS broadcast of 09/66
   and its subsequent showing in 06/67 on ABC - the edits,
   and when it was finally shown complete.
   5. Information on the sequels, and Van Sant's "recreation".
   6. Full descriptions of deleted scenes from the original.
   7. Some of the less inflated analysis on its symbolism, etc.
   8. Most importantly: a cue by cue evaluation of Bernard Herrmann's magnificent score, including its unused parts.

   Ok, Mr. Rebello, make it happen.
   Until then, anyone who is at all fascinated with how an American
   cultural landmark came together, (Yeah, I know, like Hitchcock used to say, "Oh,it's only a movie!")
   GET THIS BOOK!




4. This book is about as in-depth as you could want, but very interesting and good reading. Stephen Rebello begins at the beginning with a rather revolting chapter about the psychotic killer upon which Norman was later loosely based. (Don't let your children get a hold of that chapter!) He then talks about the man who wrote the book "Psycho", and on to Hitchcock's discovery of the book and the making of the movie. There are chapters and sections on practically every aspect of the movie and the making thereof - cast, costumes, shooting, casaba melons, publicity, and the aftermath. At the end there is also a list of the entire cast and little paragraphs about what became of them after Psycho.

   This book is very good if you are a fan of either Psycho or Hitchcock in general, because in telling about Psycho the author tells a lot about Hitchcock as well.




5. I found this book to be just wonderful from start to finish. The research is painstaking, the writing smart and lively, the degree of film industry know-how is evident on every page. In fact, the book strikes me as one of the few I've read on Hollywood to suggest that the writer actually knows his way around movie sets and knows how films get made. This book has none of the absurd (and insulting) armchair psychologizing that mars other Hitchcock books and there isn't a dry or pedantic paragraph in it from start to finish. I thought I knew a lot about Hitchcock and Psycho until I read this book. A job obviously undertaken with love and wisdom, superlatively done by Mr. Rebello. I had the pleasure of hearing the author lecture on Hitchcock on TV in London and in Tokyo and he was the standout of the whole affair!

2 comments about Quotable Will Rogers, The.

1. "The Unreadable Will Rogers" is a better title for this book. The designers opted to print the quotes in solid caps in a pale orange color typeface that is very, very difficult to read. When the quotes appear over a half-tone illustration, the text is, in fact, unreadable. The picture captions are printed in red in footnote-size type and are also very difficult to read. To enjoy this book you will need 20/20 eyesight, a good magnifying glass, and no color blindness problems. A real pity! It might have been a good book!
   James B. Saunders, Astoria, NY



2. From Stevie Harrison, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
   
   Please tell Mr. Carter that I got an A in American Literature class with my review of his book on sayings by Will Rogers. Both my parents enjoyed the book, and my teacher wants me to lend it to her.
   
   Do you have his other books for sale? Is Mr. Carter writing another book?
   
   Stevie Harrison and Rafael Calderòn.