What could have driven Edmund Wilson to betray his friend Vladimir Nabokov? Why was Mark Twain so remarkably mean-spirited toward Bret Harte, going to great lengths to ruin Harte's reputation?

Why did F.R. Leavis indulge in character assassination of C.P. Snow? How could a man so celebrated, so revered as Ernest Hemingway let himself be upset by Gertrude Stein, an old woman who had once been his mentor and friend?

What demons drove Truman Capote to the miserable death that Gore Vidal called "a good career move"? Why did Lillian Hellman bring a libel suit against Mary McCarthy, accusing her of slander and defamation of character? What caused Norman Mailer to physically assault Gore Vidal at a cocktail party in 1974?

Anthony Arthur's latest work, Literary Feuds: A Century of Celebrated Quarrels from Mark Twain to Tom Wolfe, is filled with gossip and vitriolic attacks.

Some of our most illustrious writers have tried to destroy the reputations of their enemies, using wit, humor, sarcasm, invective, and the occasional right cross to the jaw.

For example, consider these quotations taken from Arthur's work:
Ernest Hemingway: "Gertrude Stein was never crazy/Gertrude Stein was very lazy."
Sinclair Lewis: "I still say you [Theodore Dreiser] are a liar and a thief."
Theodore Dreiser: "He [Sinclair Lewis] is noisy, ostentatious, and shallow. . . . I never could like the man."
Mary McCarthy: " Every word she [Lillian Hellman] writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"
Gore Vidal: "It is inhuman to attack [Truman] Capote. You are attacking an elf."

It would be a mistake, however, to think Literary Feuds is only a book of juicy gossip. Anthony Arthur, an accomplished literary historian and critic, demonstrates his expertise in literary history and criticism.

Arthur, who was a Fulbright Scholar and for many years has taught writing and literature at California State University, Northridge.

In the eight essays of this book, Arthur draws on a lifetime of reading and teaching the works of 16 cantankerous writers whom he describes.

Arthur scatters insightful comments throughout the work. For example, "As every teacher of literature knows, comedy and satire are harder to teach than tragedy and melodrama; everyone can feel, but not everyone can think."

Provocative quotations also abound. For example, Gore Vidal, a "born-again atheist," opines, "The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism."

One should not be too eager to search for "opposites" when investigating literary feuds. It does seem, however, that many of the literary artists described in this book are "opposites" in their temperaments, worldviews, politics, or aesthetic tastes.

Those who espouse "realism" or "naturalism" are at cross-purposes with those who champion "idealism" or "romanticism." Rural sentiments clash with urban mentalities; elitism and populism collide.

The outstanding cause of these feuds, however, was pride and the competitive spirit. Mark Twain knew he was a better writer than Bret Harte and could not abide critics who lumped them together as belonging to the same echelon.

Of course, one must not discount that green-eyed monster of envy--the jealousy and bitterness of an outdistanced rival over the fame and financial success of a rival.

Commendable for their style and substance, these true tales of feuding wordsmiths are fascinating, behind-the-scenes glimpses of our (mostly) 20th-century American literati.

Anthony Arthur is the author of Deliverance at Los Banos and Bushmaster, both narrative histories of World War II, and of The Tailor-King: The Rise and Fall of the Anabaptist. He lives in Woodland Hills, California.

Anthony Arthur presents eight literary feuds in chronological order: Mark Twain and Bret Harte, Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein, Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser, Edmund Wilson and Vladimir Nabokov, C.P. Snow and F.R. Leavis, Lillian Hellman and Mary Mccarthy, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal, and Tom Wolfe and John Updike.

Arthur is an excellent writer, and it is great fun to read his elegant prose about badly behaved literary types. I was familiar with some of the authors discussed but not all, as I was familiar with some of the animosities but not all of them. Arthur turns a beautiful phrase and has a knack for finding illustrative, sometimes toxic quotes. One good thing about fights between scribes -- they leave lots of luscious things in writing!

The eight disputes are interesting by virtue of the characters or the topic or both, and the author does a fine job of describing the people involved and laying out the foundation and history of each quarrel. Moreover, he makes insightful comments about the disagreement or the relative merits of the protagonists. I thoroughly enjoyed these tales of intelligent people behaving poorly.

--That is, resplendently at their conniving, back-stabbing, vainglorious best.

Anthony Arthur's polished and scholarly accounts of eight famous literary feuds beginning with Mark Twain and Bret Harte, and ending with Tom Wolfe and John Updike, come across as fairly expressed and finely observed. True, with my fabled ability to read between the lines, I can see in places where perhaps the good professor favors one side or the other. Indeed, part of the fun of reading a book like this is discerning where the author's sympathies lie. (You might want to discern for yourself.) But for the most part Professor Arthur lets the chips fall where they may and keeps a balanced keel through the straits of the tempest-tossed tussles while knavishly enjoying himself like an after-the-fact provocateur.

Notable are Arthur's physical descriptions of the gladiators, usually quoting contemporary sources. Thus the young Truman Capote, who is squared off against Gore Vidal, is "unnaturally pretty, with wide, arresting blue eyes and blond bangs" (p. 161) while Vidal is "Tall and slender, Byronically handsome...luminous and manly" (p. 159). (Uh...nevermind.) Sinclair Lewis, who fights with Theodore Dreiser (physically on one occasion--or at least Dreiser is reported to have slapped Lewis), has a "hawkish nose" and a "massive frontal skull...reddish but almost colorless eyebrows above round, cavernously set, remarkably brilliant eyes..." (p. 49) Dreiser, self-described, has "a semi-Roman nose, a high forehead and an Austrian lip, with the edges of my teeth always showing...." (p. 56) The effect of these descriptions along with Arthur's bright and lively (and very careful) style is to make the literary warriors especially vivid and to impress upon us just how human they are.

Arthur however is at his best in coming up with really juicy quotes to illustrate the matters of contention. Thus Lillian Hellman dismissed Mary McCarthy (Chapter 6) as merely "a lady magazine writer" (p. 141) while McCarthy charged in an interview with Dick Cavett that Hellman "is tremendously overrated, a bad writer, and a dishonest writer..." whose every written word "is a lie, including AND and THE" [my capitalization, p. 143], causing the fur to fly. More civilized was the exchange between Edmund Wilson and Vladimir Nabokov where Wilson expresses his disappointment with Nabokov's novel, Bend Sinister: "You aren't good at...questions of politics and social change, because you are totally uninterested in these matters and have never taken the trouble to understand them." Nabokov replies: "In historical and political matters you are partisan of a certain interpretation which you regard as absolute." (pp. 90-91) (They're just sparring: it heats up later on.)

One of the most interesting bits in the book is from page 32 in which it is asserted that Ernest Hemingway learned part of his style from Gertrude Stein (feud number two) by copying her gerund-driven, run-on sentence constructions. What is especially amusing is that Arthur gives a sentence from Stein and then a similar one from Hemingway--"ing's" flying. The effect was bad in Gertrude Stein, and, although improved in Hemingway, it was still bad. Arthur's book is full of these delightfully sly bits of satire.

He also likes to slip in a few literary jokes. For example, British Don F. R. Leavis, who is in combat with C.P. Snow over the famous "Two Cultures," is characterized as saying of his "fellow Fellows": "They can all go to hell. Of course, some should go before the others. One has a responsibility to make discriminations." (Quoted from Frederick Crews, p. 116) Also: "J.B. Priestley...called Leavis a sort of Calvinist theologian...who makes one feel that he hates books and authors...not...from exceptional fastidiousness but...[as a] result of some strange neurosis, as if he had been frightened by a librarian in early childhood." (p. 118)

All in all, a most entertaining and informative read from a fine prose stylist.

I think Mark wanted to show all the variations of all the patterns, the patterns end up being far too huge and difficult to understand. I had to spend way too much time trying to understand each pattern.

I bought this book and then followed it with Martin Fowler's book on Enterprise Patterns and I definitely liked Martin Fowler's book much better, easier to read and just describes the core of the pattern without trying to elaborate on all the details.

This book may be a good reference aid, but if you want to know the name of the patterns and get a 'feel' of what they do so that you can look it up later, you would be disappointed.

I just wanted to vent my displeasure with some of the errors in the code samples in "Java Enterprise Design Patterns (Vol 3)". One specific pattern I tested was the Ephemeral Cache Item pattern (pg. 325). Not just one simple error but some serious flaws in the code (both as printed in the book and as copied on the CD). The background DeletionScheduler thread is not reducing the currentCacheCounter and more problematic is the fact that the run method (on that thread) only enters a while loop if there are no objects in the cache (quite the opposite from what should be happening). As well there are another 2 lines of code in that while loop that had to be moved. I would think a junior or intermediate developer would quickly get frustrated if they tried to implement that code. As for me, well I would definately think twice again before spending my money on a book published by Wiley. I also believe that if Mark Grand is going to put his name as the sole author on a book, he should take the time (or hire a code monkey) to test the code prior to publishing it. JM2C

This is an excellent well-written book on Enterprise design patterns. Mark Grand presents his topics very clearly and does a very good job of describing each pattern he discusses.

The book starts with a very thorough tutorial on UML that provides a lot of different examples of the various diagrams and the elements of each and how they are used and work together. This part of the book gives a good foundation for the balance of the book, which makes heavy use of UML diagrams in the descriptions of the patterns.

Firstly, the book is logically divided into different sections based on the common uses of the patterns described. Then each pattern description is broken down into various parts. Mark does an excellent job of focusing in on the various things that affect the pattern in use (he calls them forces) he also uses real world examples to describe usage these examples make it much easier for the reader to comprehend what the author is trying to say.

This is not a book that you will just pick up and read in order to learn all about enterprise patterns and how to use them. Instead this is a book that you will read once then use each time you are implementing a pattern in order to see what you've missed and to get ideas on how to better get your job done. From a purely educational point of view the book is very good and will teach you a lot about the patterns in it. From a development standpoint it might be even more valuable in that it can be used as a reference to get alternative ideas or to see what consideration you may have missed in your implementations. I would recommend this book to anyone doing enterprise work currently or who might be doing it in the future.
Now I have to go out and get the first two volumes .

Its concepts are amazing to any programmer but, widely known, I learned just as much from my Instructor in my post-secondary class then I did in this book. The Karel code also gets a little boring. However, to be a good programmer you need to know these concepts through and through, so I do find it useful as an introduction to programming. I don't recommend it to anyone who knows their own logical style well already; it will be useless to you.

The presentation of the concepts of programming and the building of layers of complexity was handled in a competent and easily read manner. However, the software simulator is completely out of date and does not run under windows 98. For beginning programming students with little or no other computer experience, this would be a good starting point...IF the software worked.

This book is very well written and I highly recommend it. It is interesting to read, and very comprehensive. Richard Pattis is my 15-127 professor. (I hope I get an A on the Mastery! ) Thanks.

As previous reviewers have observed, though this book is eight chapters long you really don't need to read the whole book to get the message - because however radical some readers may think it, the basic idea really doesn't amount to much.

To summarise the whole business:

1. Chomsky says that we can only explain grammar by assuming the existence of a mental organ which no-one has identified or located and wich, according to Chomsky, sprang into existence without the benefit of precursor or the influence of natural selection, just "appeared".

2. Pinker and Bloom have modified the gross unlikelihood of any such event by invoking natural selection as the "father" of grammar.

3. Both views of both incredibly unlikely (though not impossible), says Turner, and "trades Occam's razor for God's magic hat".

4. The mythical grammar organ is not needed because understanding how parable works can explain the rise of both language and grammar.

The rest of the book rambles on, and on, AND ON, about not much more than the idea that we can understand why parables are comprehensible by understanding that meaning does not transfer directly from the source (the parable) to the target ("real" life) but goes through an intermediate "blending" process.

This conflicts, somewhat, with the sweeping claims in the Preface:

"In this book, I investigate the mechanisms of parable. I explore technical details of the brain sciences and the mind sciences that cast light on our use of parable as we think, invent, plan, decide, reason, imagine and persuade. I analyze the activity of parable, inquire into its origin, speculate about its biological and developmental bases, and demonstrate its range. In the final chapter, I explore the possibility that language is not the source of parable but instead its complex product."

Well, I came to the book prepared to agree with Professor Turner's proposition, and I still do - but NOT on the basis of this thin volume.

Not surprisingly, despite the small font, in only 166 pages (plus notes), the book tends to skim its subject in all areas. And the fact that the author keeps going back to describe the source -> blending space -> target model - without a single diagram! (how "literary" can you get) - serves to minimise the space available for any other discussion.

It would also help if the writer had a better grasp of the English language. Numerous expressions which he seems to think are every day language read as though they were invented to fit the discussion, such as "he had almost arrived at the point of having the job in hand".
His translation of Proust produces the phrase "I must have overslept myself" - perfect Hercule Poirot, but not regular English, I think.
And he has begun to rewrite the English language so as to use phrases like "When we see someone startle as he looks in some direction ...". Now a person can BE startled, and a person can startle someone or something else, such as the proverbial horses; but I must confess that I was not aware that someone could startle.

My point, pedantic as these criticisms may appear, is that I got the *impression* that the book was written in a hurry and never properly edited by the author. Should that last quotation have actually read "When we see someone start as ..." for example?

In practise, the book itself, short though it is, might have benefitted considerably from the use of Occam's razor.

So, an interesting thesis, *some* good supporting material, but seriously undermined as a whole by poor presentation.

Definitely one for the academics.

I'm giving this book a 5 star rating because of the first 3 chapters. You really don't have to read any more. After that, the author gradually seems to lose his direction and punch, but it really doesn't matter.

The book attempts a very difficult project, investigating the cognitive aspects of story telling. It seems simple enough on the surface, but quickly gets enmeshed in stories about stories. It gets very confusing.

Turner holds that stories are based on the combination of cognitive elements called 'schemas' and a cognitive process called 'projection'. An image schema might be a 'ball flying through the air' or 'a boy talking to his mother.' Schemas have their own intrisic value and emotional content. Via 'projection', schemas transfer their 'content' and 'emotion' onto entirely different schemas such as 'a baby horse talking to its mother.'

Turner's examples are excellent, particularly his parables. For a somewhat more complete study of cognitive aspects, look at Lakoff and Johnson's 'Philosophy in the Flesh'. Lakoff and Johnson avoid the technical term 'image schema' and use the more familiar term 'metaphor.'

Here is a quote from the introduction that gives a good outline of the book's project: "Story is a basic principle of mind. Most of our experience, our knowledge, and our thinking is organized as stories. The mental scope of story is magnified by projection - one story helps us make sense of another. The projection of one story onto another is parable, a basic cognitive principle that shows up everywhere, from simple actions like telling time to complex literaray creations like Proust's 'A la recherche du temps perdu.'...

Turner's contribution may turn out to be the most important among recent insights into the nature of consciousness. Also, less pretense, more content, and a wonderful writing style mark this work.

Instead of providing extensive hitting advice from players past and present as advertised, this book actually concentrates almost solely on the advice of modern instructors. NOBODY before Ted Williams is quoted extensively. The advice of some of baseball's greatest hitters (Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, etc.) is condescendingly limited to a line or two of very general comments. Louisville Slugger could've reprinted the article "The Science of Batting" that Ty Cobb wrote for their 1944 "Famous Sluggers Yearbook," [reprinted in "Ty Cobb: His Tumultuous Life and Times," by Richard Bak (1994)] but they don't. This is largely due to the fact that early 20th century batting techniques are now considered by so-called experts (like Mike Schmidt) to be primitive and obsolete (a biased and incorrect belief). As evidence of their blind prejudice, page 107 shows complete lack of research. To depict Ty Cobb's hitting style to be obsolete, they explain that the reason he could still hit .367 with his "primitive" style was because "...outfielders played DEEPER in those days because THERE WERE NO FENCES. Thus, the gaps for Cobb to slap or punch the ball into were large and many..." (emphasis mine.) THIS IS THE ONLY BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN THAT MAKES THIS LUDICROUS CLAIM. The fenced-in ballpark was actually introduced in 1862, 24 years before Cobb was born!!! The book "Green Cathedrals" by Philip J. Lowry (among thousands of others) proves the presence of fences in Cobb's day. Similarly, thousands of old photographs, many reprinted in baseball history books, prove that outfielders played MUCH SHALLOWER then, too. Now, how can you respect--let alone trust--a book that makes claims like THAT??!!!

I would first like to say that this book is a great book to learn hitting from. It covers the styles of hitting and the mechanics of each style. My stats improved in all my categories after using this books techniques. My average went up, i went from hitting one homer the previous year to hitting eleven home runs the next year! This book is great!

This book delivers it all.It amazed me how indepth this book was on hitting.In addition to the many hitting styles, this book has a whole lot of tips from many all-star baseball players. This book also has drills to improve your hitting and it tells you how to pick up and hit other pitches.I would recommend this book to anyone who is serous about improving their hitting skills.This book is really the ultimate!

If you're new to Photoshop and don't have access to an earlier version, get this book. It covers a lot of ground, is easy to follow and the author knows his stuff for the most part. To know the basics of this book is to know the basics of Photoshop and to be able to use the program well.

If, on the other hand, you have access to an earlier version of this book (or a used copy) I cannot stress enough that about 85% of it is a complete re-hash of earlier editions. It's really kind of shameless the way the publisher markets this book as "new work" with each successive release of Photoshop. All they're really doing is adding perhaps a dozen or so new pages to cover new tools and features, and updating the errata from previous editions.

An example: all the illustrations and sample images used in the book are the SAME ONES used in versions 3, 4, 5, and 5.5 of the book. This is really pitiful in my view. At least grace us with some fresh image content each time!!

Deke, do your readers a favor and either: update the sample images and demonstrations every time with new content (and keep on charging the same price), or simply publish a much smaller "Revision Edition" as each new edition of Photoshop comes out, and charge HALF as much.

To buy this book over and over every year is a total waste of money....

This is the most fantastic book about image editing I ever have. A comprehensive bible for all graphic designers. A++ Over All.

Although I am an experienced user, I have learned a lot from this book. It is very thorough and detailed yet easy and even fun to read. Thanks to McClelland's co-operation with Adobe, it contains inside information that I never spotted anywhere else (this is the 5th Photoshop book I've read), but also constructive criticism towards the Photoshop team.

My only complaint is that some of his examples are (although very extensive) not very practical: I learned the effects of the Exclusion blending mode, but no useful purposes.

But still - along with the very specialised 'Photoshop Channel Chops' - this is the best Photoshop book I know of.

I am always leary when I hear about Americans who try to write books about Scotland. Mr Bruce's book is incomplete, inconclusive, innaccurate in many places and, at best, opionated and not entirely factual waffle. Indeed some of the people included in this book have so tenuous a link to Scotland that they patently should not be included as Scots, while at the same time there are some enormous ommissions in both people and events.

Let me give you some examples from only one page.

For example, Lawrence Olivier, the great actor, is included in this book of Great Scots simply because as a child he wore a kilt on Sundays. (page 247.) At the same time, Sean Connory, only gets a perfunctory mention in passing in relation to other people.

Bea Lille ("known as the funniest woman in the world 1894-1989" p247)was born in Canada and had Irish ancestry. However, she gets in the book because a Scotsman managed to get a part in a play about her life. Oh, and by whose criterion was she the funniest woman of the 20th Century?

And by far, the greatest stupidity of all in this book is it's sporting discussions - stupid because Mr Bruce's misunderstanding about the role sporting life plays in the Scottish culture merely underlines the weaknesses in his book.
For example, on the one hand American football has a passage only to say that there has been "no evidence that Scottish Americans have made any significant development" whilst soccer, which was invented in Scotland and has been played between villages originally hundreds of years ago gets only the most fundamental treatment. From soccer also came rugby in England and a host of other sports which have made an impact worldwide. Why is this never mentioned?

His ignorance about Scottish 'soccer' is displayed in his treatment of the historically significant Celtic and Rangers support, which he tries to gloss over merely by a writing a joke. His opinions on other matters cannot be regarded as being as factual and universally agreed as he tries to present them, eg as to the greatest Scots players, and his basis for evaluation of said players are even more ridiculous. For example, Kenny Dalglish gets quoted for winning some domestic competitions but not for his European triumphs, which are far more significant. (ask an American sports fan - the local divisional title or the World Series, and you get my point!!) Please note, my issue is not with his opinions on who were great Scottish stalwarts, but rather on the way in which they were chosen and the way Mr Bruce presents it as though all Scots share the same opinion.

I could go on at length by his other 'opinions' regarding so many of his choices. As great as he was, Bobby Orr is not the automatic choice of the greatest hockey player ever. Wayne Gretzky is regarded by many as the holder of that title.

In my opinion, Mr Bruce, an American who doesnt understand the Scottish culture let alone the influence it has on the rest of the world, who has 'padded his book out with people who have the most tenuous links to Scotland, would be better placed moving to Scotland and living there while he does some research!!!!

What is interesting is how Mr Bruce has tried to back up his book with the proclamations that he is Scottish simply because he has arms from the Lyons Court in Scotland. The Lyons Court is actually nothing more than a small hotel owner in the north of Scotland who calls himself Lord Lyon and for the princely sum of $1.75 million you can buy the 'title' of Barony of Macdonald and apply to the Lyons Court for a personal coat of arms, not too dissimilar to the arms Mr Bruce has.

If you want a book that accurately reflects the mark of the Scots, try " How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It" by Arthur Herman.

A MESSAGE FOR MR BRUCE

When you write about Scotland the next time remember two things.
1) If it has nothing to do with Scotland then leave it out. We dont need a book on historical influence that focuses on the things that Scottish culture hasnt touched (re examples above on American Football and Lawrence Olivier)
2) If it has to with Scotland, BE FACTUAL, and if you really must be so opinionated, try and back it up with sound reasoning, or you could actually try talking to some Scots who might give you a flavor about what the Scottish people really think!!

Modesty must be an ethnic trait. For centuries no one trumpeted the extraordinary characteristics and achievements of this island race. There were few parades, few national days, few public reflections on our own remarkable "crowd". Now it is done. Bravo Mr. Bruce!

This is the definitive book on Scottish achievement. An exhaustive research, but entertainingly written. A must! And a bargain for any one of Scottish blood.

Does this book exist in your store? If it does how much is it, and the shipping cost, and the location just in case I want to send a check

This book offers a good introduction to Java, discussing object-oriented concepts, Java applets and their uses, then goes into program structure, variables and classes, operators, and so forth. There's also chapters on Applet programming techniques, the Java API, security issues, and Java's future.

I'm not sure if this book is still in print, but if not find a used copy. It offers a wonderful overview of Java.

I tried many java books but could not complete five chapters until i tried this. The author has translated what used to be challenging and soporific topics to me into concise, interesting and unstandable subject.

Here you have a book written 'on the spot' at the time of this atrocity. The finger points at the internationl Jew with out a doubt. The NAZI holocaust pales compared to the pogrom this ignited.

Complete, shocking story of how, and why, the Soviet secret police massacred Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and their five children. As head of the dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries, Nicholas II personified his land and people. His cold-blooded murder by order of Lenin and Sverdlov was thus symbolic of the Communist effort to obliterate a rich national and cultural heritage, and presaged the terrible Soviet bloodletting of later years. Dramatic yet meticulous account by a veteran British journalist and historian, based on the official on-site inquest of Russian investigator Nikolai Sokolov -- the most thorough ever conducted. As special correspondent in Russia for the London Times during the years of revolution and civil war, the author writes with authority and rare candor. He forthrightly assigns responsibility for the historic crime, showing the role of racial-ethnic revenge in motivating the killers. The crucial Jewish role in the Communist takeover of Russia and the early Bolshevik regime is detailed in an eye-opening introduction by historian Mark Weber, and an appendix by the author. Attractive, updated new edition of an authoritative but long-suppressed work. A generous selection of rare and revealing photographs supplements the text.

This book explains to the reader why they were murdered, how they were murdered, and who was responsible for these horrific crimes. The author, who lived in Russia for quite a few years before the Bolshevik Revolution and investigated the murders a year after they happened, is able to provide first hand information and facts about this terrible event. The book was originally published in London in 1920.

I have read the book and found it to be outdated.Many party spots don't exisit and the ones covered seem more like an advertisment for the bar. I wonder if the author was receiveing kickbacks. You be better off going to your local bar and buying a drink before wasting money on this book.

This is a GREAT book - IF you use it simply to search for clubs in a particular area of SF. Say, you are in the Haight-Ashbury area and are wondering if there are any party places around, you can quickly locate them and get a feel for what kind of place it is going to be. The book in itself is not overly entertaining, and not quite critical enough (so I can relate to one of the reviews here). But it's definitely a book worth having.

I LIVE in San Francisco and this book is great! I party, but don't know every night spot by any means. This book tells about a variety of spots that I might not make it too. it is very comprehensive and needs to be cos SF is deep with parties. Like a party phone book!