I was tempted to think the author had fallen in love with Boulez and wrote this book in an attempt to explain frustrated emotions.

As a biography, it is only a little more useless than John Baxters execrable biography of Stanley Kubrick.

It contains a few interesting facts though.

Joan Peyser, best-known for her 'juicy' but excellent biography of Leonard Bernstein, wrote this quixotic tome 10 years before. The book is quixotic in that Peyser is attempting to tell the life story and background of one of the most enigmatic and secretive artists of the 20th century. After reading the book, you almost feel as if it's literally impossible to write a biography of Boulez. Page after page we are told of Boulez's refusal to reveal himself, and Peyser leaves it at that. She makes no attempt to dig deeper, but simply assumes that's the way it is. She also engages in some ridiculous pop-psychology in trying to explain some of Boulez's personality traits and career moves. Her Bernstein biography is great, but he's an easy subject. Boulez might as well be wearing a chastity belt, he's so impenetrable.

this book along witht the author, Ms. Joanne Nicholson,m is the biggest bunch of Bull Sh--. I would not give my worst enemy this book. Scrach that, first of all I would never buy this book.

I found this book to be one of the best I have ever read so far on color and clothing matters.It is nearly the ideal book on the subject.I found out ,finally, after reading Carole Jackson's book and others,in this book,exactly WHY I didn't fit into any ONE category in the usual way; I am one of those "Cross-over types" according to this knowledgable book = a "Light-Bright/Gentle" type.That Intensity and Contrast levels are so important.With up to date pictures, and less confusing/too much information crowded all together, is would be the best book on this subject out there.I HOPE there is an updated version of this coming out...

A catalogue from an exhibition held at the Folger Library. Despite its name, many of the subjects are post-Bard: he died in 1616, and quite a few items are dated 1650 to 1700. The exhibition was very broadly focused - everything from plates and cups, recipe books, paintings of diners, and so forth. There are lots of good pictures. The appendix transcribes "Mrs. Sarah Longe her Receipt Booke", published around 1610. It combines recipes ("To make rice-puddings") and dubious medicinal tips ("To stop the bleeding of a wound: Take a peece of an Old hatt, and burne it in the fire to a Cole then grind it to powser, and straw it into the wound."

This is a catalogue that was prepared to accompany an exhibition of books and manuscripts that was shown at the Folger Shakespeare Library from September - December 1999. This is not a history of Tudor/Elizabethan food, nor is it a comprehensive bibliography of Tudor/Elizabethan cookbooks. It very much reflects what the Folger owns. The essay by Joan Thirsk is quite good, and it does contain a literal transcription of a c1610 manuscript belonging to a Mrs. Sarah Longe. If you like exhibition catalogues, it's quite a nice one, but certainly not as essential to food history as say C. Anne Wilson's Food and Drink in Britain.

This camera catalog is essentially useless unless one is interested only in basic camera prices and basic cameras. Any camera catalog that contains information about single lens reflex cameras but excludes technical and price information about accessory lenses for those cameras, as this one does, might just as well not exist.

This book is extremely useful to camera collectors of more recent equipment. There are few pictures and the prices are often way off from present sale prices, BUT many cameras (especially from the 1950s to the 80s) are covered here that are not mentioned in any of the other camera guides. This makes this work unique and very useful. The spread sheet format takes some getting used to, but it allows a great deal of information to be given in a small amount of space. I use my copy daily, along with my McKeown's. I hope they issue a revised edition.

This 128-page book seems aimed at young teenagers, but doesn't explain why they should read about this case. It gives a good overview of the case, comparable to Rick Geary's illustrated book, and is a simple introduction to this case.

The author lists many sources in the "Chapter Notes", some of which may not be readily available. Some of the sources are Internet sites. There is no rating on the quality of the books on this case. "Further Reading" does not list Arnold R. Brown's book, or David Kent's "Forty Whacks".

There is a problem in the quality of the books, as shown on page 98. Everyone before spoke of the sweltering hear of those August 1892 days. But one writer claims that this was a "myth" because of one newspaper report! No corroboration is given for this claim. Can you believe everything you read in the newspapers, then or now? Eyewitness testimony is more reliable than hearsay.

The books on the case fall into two categories: she did it (Pearson, Sullivan, etc.), or she didn't (Radin, Spiering, Brown, etc.). The jury said "not guilty" and no one can ever prove otherwise. Arnold R. Brown's book explains it all.

The Lizzie Borden "Axe Murder" Trial - A Headline Court Case, by Joan Axelrod-Contrada, a 106 page book, is a short, one session read. Have a snack nearby because you won't get much of a bite out of this one.

This is one of a series of famous court cases designed for the (I assume) Junior High or High School student studying famous cases. It's just enough to provide a fairly good overview of the basics of the case, sufficient enough to write a school report - simple essays, but certainly no term paper. Joan A-C manages to convey all the primary and essential aspects of the case presented in a crisp, concise order. In almost bullet-like paragraphs it covers the Inquest, Preliminary, Grand Jury, and Trial. Those four proceedings probably account for this particular case being a good one for a class study. It ends with very brief comparisons of the OJ Simpson case and Louise Woodard cases (yawn). However, handled well, I thought, given the consistent brevity throughout, was the information on the investigation into insanity and the question of what dress did Lizzie have on between 9:00 and 11:00 that morning.

The end notes indicate more research than probably was necessary considering the resultant shallow substance. The author extracted information from many websites on the subject, and for the first time in a new book on Lizzie, the Chapter Notes/Biblography citations have a generous sprinkling of the ".org" and ".html" references. "Bordenia" websurfers will recognize many of them and may even be surprised, as I was, for a couple of new and very interesting sites.

The book has a handsome cover but, alas, the many photographs are all those that we've seen dozens of times in dozens of books. The picture of Lizzie taken in 1905,when she was 44-45 and with pinch-nez glasses, is probably the least reproduced of the lot.

I'm always appreciative of anything new published on the case, even if the content is a regurgitation in synopsized format. For me, the striking disappointment is that it is so obviously "series-formulated" that it lacks any incentive or motivation to compel the uninformed reader to seek out other works on this extremely compelling and facinating case. While I give credit and due respect to Joan Axelrod-Contrada for achieving what was obviously the publishers intent with this series, as a book of substance, it ran the gamut from "A to C". (Forgive me Dorothy Parker).

Every lawyer knows better than to simply say what they think, give an opinion, or offer unfounded advice. "Don't tell me what you THINK, tell me the LAW!" This book makes that error on a regular basis. You'll get lots of information on how to write and present arguments, but none of it is actually founded on anything. Indeed, much of it flies in the face of what psychology has told us of the effects of primacy and recency. Another lawyer's error that simply underscores how baseless this book is? No citations.

I have used this book as a text in the legal-writing course I teach. It is one of the most widely used and respected legal-writing texts available. Its strengths are that it is clear, easy-to-read, and practical. It lays out the basics of legal analysis, plus it explains how to write a traditional, objective legal memo and a persuasive legal brief. It always gets to the point quickly, and it covers all the important topics a law student will need in a first-year course on legal writing.

One minor weakness is that some of the sample documents in the appendix do not follow the principles explained in the text.

As for the complaint from "A reader from Honolulu" that the book does not cite authority, that's an odd concern. Very few, if any, legal-writing texts cite authority. What would they cite to? Other legal-writing texts (their competition)? What you are buying when you buy a legal-writing text is the expertise of the authors, not a compilation of research on legal writing. I know that these authors are experts, and the advice in this text is practical and effective.

Ms. Harwell's credits notwithstanding, this book exemplifies what's wrong in the public school LD thinking. To say that LD kids cannot achieve past 7th grade level by the time they graduate from high school is a crime. They can! They do! Get better materials.

I disagree with the reviewer who claimed this book would "keep LD kids stupid." As a fourth grade teacher, I found this book very useful. It is packed with ideas that I can use in my inclusion classroom with ALL students. The reproducibles are easy to use and there are ideas for reading and writing which all of my students enjoy. I didn't read the philosophy of the author, so I do not know if the claim that the other reviewer made (about Harwell believing LD kids can't learn beyond a 7th grade level) is true. Her philosophy does not matter to me if her materials work in my classroom. She makes reading and writing fun, easy, and hands-on. I have been borrowing this book from a fellow teacher for a few weeks and am on-line today to order a copy for myself.

The Pan Am 103/Lockerbie bombing was the largest killing of American civilians by a foreign government since the sinking of the Lusitania. It has been covered for 10 years ad nauseum by journalists - and teachers of journalism like Joan Deppa - in the Oprah Winfrey style "let's get the reaction of a sobbing relative" school of journalism. Deppa herself recognizes, in the introduction, that "this particular disaster was international in the ultimate sense of the word: it seemed from the outset to be aimed at an American airliner, probably in retribution for some action by the US government" the book that follows ignores the whole question of what was the US government response, was it adequate, was the investigation by the US press adequate, how and why in this essentially American disaster the US press mustered nothing more than "sob stories" and mouthing the information handed to them by Regan/Bush spokesmen like Oliver Revell. The has been a lot that has come out - the NSA report of Iranian money, Pierre Salinger's interview of embassy personel, Oliver Revell's (the FBI's counter-terrorism chief) own son's escape from Pan Am 103 ...but you won't find it here.

Deppa systematically devotes separate sections to every conceivable reaction, families, police, journalists, but the government, which she acknowleges is at the heart of the issue, gets a few dishwater pages late in the book that say nothing incisive or new. Deppa's book is more of this self-absorbed journalistic omphaloskepsis, or "self-abuse" - and a lot of "sob story" journalism. There is no hard look at why American journalism in regard to this event has never been above the level of supermarket checkout-line rags. All of the important stories have come from European papers - and the most important ones have never even been published in this country. How this disgraceful state of affairs came to pass ought to be the heart of this book; Deppa can't even see the problem.

How is it that any attempts to produce stories other than the "State Department version", especially in the US, have been stifled or quietly withdrawn. There have been libel cases, threats of libel, perjury charges ...to restain the press (Revell brags about using such threats himself) - and Deppa spends her time dithering over newspaper picture selection! The watchdog - which is the most important role of the media functioning at its best - was muzzled from the start; how did it happen? That is the real media issue - the one that is particular to Pan Am 103. Its spineless tripe passed off as analysis.

There are only two types of story about Pan Am 103 in the US. One is the "cops and robbers" whodunit treatment, the other the "human interest" story. The former have been strictly limited to a State Department version, reflecting shifting politics and occasional awkward revelations that have appeared in European media and could not be kept away from the American audience indefinitely. Recently even significant items - like the Guardian article (7/14/97,p15) about an high-level Iranian defector who implicates the Iranian government - currently not a popular view in the American establishment - are simply not reported on in the US. (For anyone interested a Norwegian security consultant, Stein Erik Sandvold, posted a remarkably unbiased webpage which contains three different published Lockerbie stories - the "official US State Department" version and two from Europe). The other type of Lockerbie story is the "let's get the reaction of a sobbing relative" school of journalism. That is 90% of what has appeared in the US media - and basically it is the substance of Deppa's book. The self-indulgent reflections of journalists who never uncovered anything or produced anything above the level of supermarket checkout-line rags. The only reporters who ever broke stories about Pan Am 103 were in Germany and to a lesser extent the UK. Years after, this is tiresome - and its the only book that is available in the US. The only other book - a reprint of a UK book, was mysteriously "postponed indefinitely" (information courtesy of a very helpful Amazon.com staffer who called the publisher who declined to give an explaination - but one of the non-US Sandvold articles states that the UK publisher is being sued by a US government employee, warning enough?). How this disgraceful state of affairs came to pass ought to be the heart of this book; Deppa can't even see the problem.

It is really disappointing that when Deppa herself recognizes, in the introduction, that "this particular disaster was international in the ultimate sense of the word: it seemed from the outset to be aimed at an American airliner, probably in retribution for some action by the US government" the book that follows ignores the whole question off what was the US government response, was it adequate, was the investigation by the US press adequate, how and why in this essentially American disaster the US press mustered nothing more than "sob stories" and mouthing the information handed to them by Regan/Bush spokesmen like Oliver Revell. How is it that any attempts to produce stories other than the "State Department version", especially in the US, have been stifled or quietly withdrawn. The watchdog - which is the most important role of the media functioning at its best - was muzzled from the start; how did it happen? That is the real media issue - the one that is particular to Pan Am 103. Deppa systematically devotes separate sections to every conceivable reaction, families, police, journalists, but the government, which she acknowleges is at the heart of the issue, gets a few dishwater pages late in the book that say nothing incisive or new. Its spineless tripe passed off as analysis.

The Pan Am bombing was not a natural occurance - like the Grand Forks flood, the Northridge earthquake, or even some airline disasters. Deppa's treatment, which evades issues by using the Pan Am bombing as thought it were a just another natural disaster, one pretty much like another, is certainly taking the easy way out, but it is an insult to the the very people she interviewed and those who died at Lockerbie.

This book is very important for everyone to read, regardless of whether or not you are in the media. I have read the other reviews of Joan Deppa's book, and let me say that when I first opened it up, that's what I thought. But, I also have a different perspective: having known people who studied abroad when I was in college, it was important to learn that no matter how good something seems, your life can change in seconds by people you have never known. There were students on PAN AM 103 who never made it home for Christmas that year. They never made it home for the New Year, and that is only part of the story.

It may be somewhat romanticized for some. For others, it may be nothing more than a brief look at how the media has changed. For others, it gives insight as to how media coverage changed, and when the invasion of our personal lives and "live" television reports started. As well, as when that brief live shot delay came into effect.

If anything, this book may gloss over a few areas, but please do not blame Deppa. Many people have glossed over areas of tragedies, and she is no different. If you think this book just glosses, and romanticizes the bombing, the loss, the grief and the media coverage, then maybe you should wipe the sleep out of your eyes, take a deep breath and re-read the book. It covers a lot more than you think, and a lot of it only sinks in after a second or a third reading.

It is especially important for anyone who reads the book to realize that people in the media make mistakes - Mistakes like running a list of victims before notifying families, asking the useless question of "How does it feel to have lost your child?" to a grieving parent. People in the media are human. They care, some of them more deeply than others, but like everyone else, they have a job to do. Deppa is no different. In this instance, her job was to tell one story of the events that happened around December 21, 1988.

What a load of tripe. shes trying to hang on her sisters coat tails. go back to acting joan cos you certainly can't write. that's for sure.

Boy, was this a bunch of trash and waste of money! It's obvious that Joan is trying to hang on her little sisters coat tails but she just doesn't have the writing skills and someone out there who told her "your books great darlink" should have been a real friend and told her what a bunch of garbage it is. And she continues to write which I just don't understand! This book is boring. Don't waste your money! Buy the Enquirer instead. It'll be more entertaining.

'Past Imperfect' follows Joan's childhood, her swift transition into an international sex symbol... from Hollywood to Europe and back, three broken marriages, the struggle to save her daughter's life & her many love affairs. Films, glamour, fashion... Joan Collins remains one of the most beautiful and sexy lady of showbiz!

It's true there are interesting aspects to this book, but it's simply badly written. I'm not the only person of my acquaintance who's abandoned this book because of the substandard writing. (One friend actually took the book back to the store in disgust.) Maybe mystery readers--and reviewers--generally have lower expectations for prose quality. Still, I can think of several examples of mystery novels that sucessfully combine good stories with good writing. This is not one of them. (I also found the story overblown, its contrivances too obvious, its dialogue often clumsy. But what's most irritating is the writing.)

My mother first stumbled across this book in the library. Her review? "She's no Sue Grafton, that's for sure." I picked it up when vacationing on the north shore of Lake Superior, which is where the novel is set. My own review? Writing that makes you wince isn't acceptable even for desultory "summer reading." Stick with Sue Grafton, Ellen Hart, and the like.

The dying mother of San Francisco newspaper reporter and amateur detective Tyler Jones makes her daughter swear a death bed promise that she will return to their Minnesota roots to "shake the skeletons in the closet" and learn the truth. With the death of her mother, at 39 Tyler feels a bit alone. Her sister Magdalene will barely talk to her because she and her conservative spouse do not wish to expose their children to the family lesbian. The will is read and Tyler gets her mother's entire estate. Magdalene blames it all on her sibling's lesbianism, a sexual preference of their mother's attorney also. In truth, their mother's decision was only to counterbalance their father's decree to disown Tyler years ago due to her lesbian inclination. For Tyler, honoring her mother's last wish is important because her mother had accepted her as she is. Tyler, with her dog Aggie returns to her grandparents' hometown on the shore of Lake Superior with no real idea what her mother wanted her to learn. As she gets reacquainted with old friends, Tyler realizes that her family has passed down through the generations many lies and half-truths wrapped up in mystery and legend. The community, especially the males, remain silent and refuse to answer Tyler's inquiries. With the help of some strong women, Tyler begins to put together a history of misogyny and prejudice festering inside the hearts and minds of many of the local residents. SILENT WORDS is an interesting entry into the mystery genre. Joan M. Drury brilliantly and colorfully explores family relationships, interactions between neighbors, and sexual phobias (especially homophobia) that makes readers want to relook their own personal beliefs and relationships. Regardless of the audience's gender or sexual preference, Tyler Jones, in her second outing, is one of the better amateur female sleuths in nineties literature. Harriet Klausner -----