Nguyễn Hoàng Tôn tải xuống LIT miễn phí

Jesus Angel jesusangelgarcia — a bit dated (in my own opinion) but that only speaks of the more "modern" pieces included... the techniques that she presents (and teaches quite explicitly) are timeless, and priceless...

Karolis Strautniekas strautniekas — One day Howard and his sister Awful (you soon discover just how "awful" Anthea is and the reason for her nickname becomes evident)come home from school to find a huge goon in their kitchen. He says he was sent by Archer because Howard's dad hasn't turned in his quarterly payment of 2000 words. Just who Archer is and how 2000 words can be payment for anything turn are the beginning of a quest that take Howard and Awful on an adventure that truly is indescribable. It is a mystery that constantly shifts. Just when you think it's figured out, an entirely new dimension is revealed. It is fantasy where every detail matters. Every detail. Perhaps this preface will show just how indefinable the plot is: This book will prove the following ten facts: 1. A Goon is a being who melts into the foreground and sticks there. 2. Pigs have wings, making them hard to catch. 3. All power corrupts, but we need electricity. 4. When an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the result is a family fight. 5. Music does not always sooth the troubled beast. 6. An Englishman's home is his castle. 7. The female of the species is more deadly than the male. 8. One black eye deserves another. 9. Space is the final frontier, and so is the sewage farm. 10. It pays to increase your word power. And it does. Just read it. I must add that I read this book in one day. One day. I was astounded by the fact that three-fourths of the way through, Jones did a "reveal" about a character I loved which completely ruined my previous love. I hated that betrayal. THEN, she did it again with a different character. Again, I felt betrayed. THEN, by the end of the book, she had flipped those reveals so that I loved those characters as much as before. Simply amazing.

谭 珉豪 126294184825cc — Lysistrata is pretty hilarious, havent read the others. Its amazing how themes from centuries ago still resonate so strongly now.

Isabelle Mccormick izofoz — While I didn't think this was as strong a book as Doomsday Book or To Say Nothing of the Dog (which were each fantastic in their own way), it was thoroughly entertaining and successful with its narrower scope. It's NOT science fiction, unless you define science fiction as being fiction about scientists doing research. It's got Willis' usual brisk style and humor, and it's made even funnier by reading it 10 or 15 years after publication, since a lot of the research mentioned is about fads. The recurring restaurant scenes had me howling. This is one I'll definitely reread when I need a good laugh.

Vikash Singh vikashkrsingh — I have a hard time reading manifesto style books. I tend to find hyperbole for non-comedic purposes irritating. I'm just not very radical, I suppose. This book suffers too from being dated; some of the ideas are obviously still very relevant, but they've since been written about and reformulated in ways I find much more interesting, or at least less shrill. Wolf alternates between really piling on with the statistics and data, and writing melodramatic stories about her own life. Neither tone worked very well for me. Mostly, in a broad sense, I agree with her thesis that the societal pressure on women to look a certain way is purposely Sisyphean and consumer driven. I also thought Wolf did a good job of discussing the ways in which "health" has been elided into beauty; Shape, Women's Health and, for that matter, Men's Health may as well be Glamour. This has only expanded, I think, in the time since Wolf wrote the book. I'm hardly anti-medicine, but the "health" market is probably the next great consumer myth. Also, I thought Wolf did a reasonable job of including the detrimental affects on men in her discussion. True, it was a small focus, but her book was aimed at women and expanding the discussion of men's issues would have been inappropriate. She did repeatedly state that individual men are not responsible for the beauty myth, and that the beauty myth harms men as well. Her writing did have the unfortunate tendency, common to sociological and political tracts dealing with large, impersonal forces, to make it sound as though the problems she was lamenting were being instituted by some evil cabal that runs society from the top down ( I, personally, pictured the Springfield Republican Party w/ Mr. Burns, Count Dracula, Sideshow Bob and Arnold Schwarzenager whenever the writing leaned too far in this direction -- try it, it makes it more managable.) But it's hard to both avoid the passive voice and the tendency to make it sound like these are unchangeable, natural forces, and to avoid sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, so I'll cut her some slack. I will not cut her slack on some of her ridiculous statements, however. For instance, her belief that the beauty myth comes between couples and makes it harder for them to bond is one thing, but expanding that to an assumption that the military industrial complex needs the beauty myth to keep men and women apart because it "depends on men choosing the bond with one another over the bond with women and children"(p. 144) is seriously overplaying her hand. The beauty myth is not the root of war, are you kidding me here? Perhaps the single most irritating moment of hyperbole in the whole book was the paragraph that begins with this sentence: "Nothing justifies comparison with the Holocaust; but when confronted with a vast number of emaciated bodies starved not by nature but by men, one must notice a certain resemblance"(p. 207). If nothing justifies comparison to the Holocaust, then just don't make the comparison. She later compares plastic surgery to torture and dieting to famine in ways that are equally irritating. I know she's trying to shock, and, especially in the dieting/famine comparison, I think there are probably appropriate ways to relate the two. I've been known to point out that Audrey Hepburn's much admired figure was largely a result of childhood malnutrition during WWII. And, just this week, there's been an uproar over the Bush administration's justification of providing starvation level rations of food to detainees by pointing out that Western women choose to diet at that level, as noted here. But Wolf is so over the top that it gets offensive. I also find her haphazard endnotes to be offensive. Several times she mentioned something inflammatory that I would have liked more context to, and either cited it with the least information possible or not at all. Specifically, she mentions offhand that a woman was ordered by a judge to lose 3 pounds a month (or some similar figure) to keep her job, and the endnote for that claim just cites a random Newsweek article, with no elaboration. That's at least a citation, if kind of irritating, but later she states that the AMA in 1978 claimed a preoccupation with beauty is the same as a preoccupation with health, and doesn't bother to cite that assertion at all. Complaints aside, I am glad I read this book. I don't think it's particularly good, mind you, but it is a widely referenced book on an issue that concerns me. I read a fair amount of feminist media that rehashes these sorts of discussions regularly, and in spite of that, this book did make some points, on the health/beauty spectrum and female rape fantasies in particular, that I had not thought of in quite that way before.