Cõng Nhau Trong Một Cõi Người (Tái Bản 2016) tải xuống LIT miễn phí

Jailson Eustaquio jailsonsantana — Good story, poor writing.

Tomato Wendy tomamato — Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans? I often do, so I picked up this book. Unfortunately, it is dry. How can a place of such spirit, debased fun and naughty history come across like a AAA trip guide? Just drive there and experience the quarter yourself.

Olga Velikopolskaya winecork778c08 — 1. In Chapter VI, Machiavelli explains that the “temper of the multitude” is “fickle”. This means, the people or governed state of citizens, have a ‘temper’ or personality that is easily changeable. Like the attention span of a small child, it is easy to ‘show them a thing’ but difficult to get them to commit their focus to that specific ‘persuasion’. 2. In Chapter III, Machiavelli explains that there are the “well-employed” cruelties and also the “ill-employed”. Well-employed cruelties are down under needs of “self-preservation” and not “persisted” in, afterwards. The ill-employed cruelties “increase in time” instead of diminishing and grow worse out of control from themselves and the one who inflicted them. 3. In Chapter XV, it is said that a good prince must learn to be less than good. A prince should learn to be less than good so that he may use his goodness or lack of in order to maintain “his position” in government. 4. Chapter XVII, Machiavelli asks a very important question, “Is it better for a prince to be feared or love?”, and he reasons that it is “feared” because men are so unreliable and false, that any style of loyalty can change and be unreliable. If it be love, then trust is solely in the hands of the possible offender. If it be fear, then the offender will always fear the consequences of his disloyalty, and since we are selfish creatures, we would naturally be more inclined to follow a leader we feared. 5. Chapter XVIII explains that a prince must be a lion and a fox. a.) A lion cannot guard himself from “toils” because it isn’t so good at discerning the answers to difficulties. A lion is good at “driving off the wolves”, however. A ruler may drive off the wolves, which could be greedy politicians or pushy governors. b.) A fox cannot guard himself from the wolves and so may often become overwhelmed or bullied, by his people, fellow politicians and counselors. A fox can, however, dissect situations and come out with a very crafty plan, as is the mythology of the animal. Fox are survivors, which is an imperative quality to a ruler. One who can “play the fox” has been known to reap “success”. c.) A ruler should have all the good qualities Machiavelli talks about because so much of it is true and, though harsh at times, very smart. A ruler must survive; reach for the best decision, while ignoring misleaders and ignorance. d.) A ruler may dishonor his word when his confidante has also dishonored his word in order to protect himself or his interests. 6. Chapter XIX explains that a prince can avoid internal conspiracies by observing behavior and watching to see whether or not they are “disposed towards him” or “hostile”. A Prince must make himself seem great, but never “odious” to his people. 7. Chapter XXI says that if “two powerful neighbors come to blows”, then a prince should join in with one side or the other because the victor will not trust you and the loser will not join you if the victor decided to attack you next. 8. A prince should elicit advice from his followers by choosing a selected few men to speak with him alone on matters of which he asks their opinion. A prince must let his followers “speak freely” on everything however, and “merely reflect and judge” it henceforth in his own. 9. In Chapter XXV, Machiavelli compares Fortune to a woman because she is in need to be “mastered” and “roughly handled” in order to be controlled at the whims of men. Fortune, like a woman, favors the young as well because they are “fiercer and more demanding”.

Sophie Chahed schahedf349 — i LOVED this almost as much as i loved eggers memoir, a heartbreaking work of a staggering genuis. interestingly, nearly all the volunteers who read this (with expectations from enjoying the memoir) hated it. the story has a fascinating twist halfway through which leaves the reader frustrated, angry, and feeling betrayed. and i think that's what irritated most other volunteers who disliked it. even though i had those some feelings, i instead felt those emotions proved eggers mastery of fiction-writing, that he could bring out such emotion from a "made-up" story.

Paula Mª sapphiregd — I confess. I enjoyed this. It's very Oprah's Book Club. It's very Today's book Club. But it was interesting, engaging, and often funny. I stayed up reading this. Sure, it's not literature. Sure, many of the characters are one-dimensional. (See Amazon reviews.) And, sure, it's NOT "To Kill a Mockingbird". But it was more than readable and quite enjoyable. And light... if it's possible for a story set during the Civil Rights Era can be considered light.