This is the first time I agreed with all the reviewers, whether they panned the book or loved it. No it wasn't well written, the bad guys aren't all going to grovel in front of the FBI, the rookie black agent and his romance are not well addressed, the black characters are either all good or all bad, all characters are pretty stereotypical with the good guys idealized and the bad guys demonized. and yes the plot is more like a series of vignettes that tie together too neatly at the end.

But so what? This is a fun book. It wasn't meant to be the Bard. The characters in the trenches are likeable and the witticisms are often hilarious (they almost steal the book). The FBI doesn't get a lot of respect these days and no wonder since the general impression is the administrators care more about improving their careers than removing crime and in so doing, all too often forget good case solving technique and procedure. However this book gives hope to those of us who want to have good feelings about the FBI, that there are those agents who believe in what they're doing, not solely about career advancement.

This book stayed with me a little longer than the typical 3 books a week that I normally read. I've read Paul Lindsay's subsequent books and they're an improvement over this book in terms of character and plot development. If you like this book, then you should get the rest of them. I've asked Amazon to notify me when his next book is out.

P.S. I hope the former FBI agnt who reviewed this book (and gave it a positive review and whose reviews of other books I enjoyed), had a spell check feature on his computer when he wrote reports in his capacity as an FBI agent.

As a former FBI agent i enjoy reading authors perspectives on the FBI. Lindsay, also former FBI, spent alot of time developing characters and procedural drama. I found the book to be entertaining and very authantic, made me remember what it was like to work for the Bureua. Also entertaining was Lindsays' portrail of the relationship between agents and management was much like the bureacracy i worked under.

This book was enjoyable. Don't go into it thinking it is Shakespere it is not. It is a great action book that keeps you guessing....

This is a great source when one is concerned about choosing the right, necessary and useful equipment. It is easy to read and right to the fundamental information. Nonetheless, I find the book should do a better job regarding illustrations and photos. Another potential problem is that the projects in the second part of the book might be quite difficult even for serious beginners. Perhaps, the authors should have included a few inspirational (less demanding) projects besides those ones. Putting those few details aside, I thing I did well in buying this book.

The title really says it. I don't really like woodworking classes, because there never seems to be enough time in each session. Just when you get rolling, it's time to go. This book helped me take steps to get out of the classroom and start creating my own shop at home. I like the fact that the authors not only advised which power tools I needed first, but they reasoned why I didn't need other power tools, some to begin with, some not at all. That's great when you consider the money involved.

Getting two perspectives from the authors (woodworker hobbyist and master woodworker) is nice. I got a sense of learning from true, personal experience. It's not the only book I read in the shop, just part of my foundation. If they came out with another one, I'd read it.

As a neophyte to woodworking, I found the book helpful in determining what I needed to get started. The suggested order of purchasing tools was helpful in that it made me plan my purchases on the most versatile tools first, without initially spending money on single use or specialty tools. Also, the projects outlined at the end of the book were useful in outfitting my shop

I purchased this book after seeing the author interviewed on television and reading the reviews. I cannot understand the number of 5-star reviews this book was given. The only plausible explanation is that they were all written by Mr. Streitz himself. Whether or not Oxford was the son of Elizabeth I is irrelevant. This is one of the most poorly researched and poorly written books I have ever tried to read. I finally gave up after the third time he told of event that probably happened, but for which there is no proof yet, stating that sometime in the future "someone" should do the research. No, Mr. Streitz, that someone should have been you, and the time to do the research is before you write the book.

Bottom line - unreadable drivel.

According to this book, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is not only the author of Shakespeare's plays, but much of the rest of the Tudor canon. He, not Golding, translated Ovid. He wrote Euphues. He wrote The Spanish Tragedy. You name it. But that's just the literary part. It turns out he is not only the son of a 13 year old Princess Elizabeth but also the parent (with his mother, the Virgin Queen) of the Earl of Southampton, the young man of the sonnets.

You might think this is Oxfordianism run amok. You might be right. Moreover, the book suffers from many of the usual defects of the Oxfordian cause. The author is an amateur. His professional credits listed on the dust jacket include service in the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and co-authorship of the musicals "Oh, Johnny" and "Madison Avenue, the subliminal musical". And the book is self-published and suffers from numerous typos and mis-usages, especially in the first part, where credibility is won or lost.

However...the book offers many plausible arguments and some hard data as well as speculation. If you have any interest in the Authorship Question, you should read this book. (If you don't have any interest, you should take an interest; final confirmation and general acknowledgement of Oxford as Shakespeare would illuminate and transform both Tudor history and literature.) Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James and many others long ago pointed out the implausibility of the Will of Stratford story that continues to be taught in school. Searching for the true author, the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney fitted the glass slipper to de Vere during the First World War. And the professoriat has been trying to ignore it ever since. I suppose they fear looking foolish, and anyway the deconstructionists of the last 40 years have made clear that authorship is of no importance.

One academic, Roger Stritmatter, has recently given attention to the Earl's Geneva Bible in the Folger Library, where marginalia in the Earl's handwriting correlate very strongly with bibilical references in Shakespeare. The greatest need is to find more professors of English renaissance literature and Tudor history willing to break ranks and finally give attention to the mounting evidence in favor of Oxford as the author; they have relied on professorial hauteur long enough.

In the meantime, amateurs should carefully proofread their texts.

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" by Paul Streitz (published by Oxford Institute Press, 2001) is an extraordinary and provocative book. It is likely to be considered totally unacceptable to "Stratfordian" Shakespearean scholars, who believe that plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare can only be the work of the celebrated man of that name, born in Stratford-upon-Avon and christened "Gulielmus Shakspere" in 1564. By contrast, the book will be welcomed by "Oxfordians" who believe that the same plays and poetry should instead be attributed to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born in 1548.

This authorship question has been growing for several decades. Streitz has now contributed to the debate by compiling historical evidence to suggest that Elizabeth I was the mother of the Bard, that the biological father was Thomas Seymour, and that the 16th Earl of Oxford (John de Vere) was his foster-father. These suggestions may be considered preposterous by many critics, but Streitz obviously would not have dared to publish his book if he did not have some substance to advance them.

Consider the so-called "Virgin Queen". Streitz notes that "in over four hundred years, there have been no critical investigations of whether or not Elizabeth had children". Evidently there had been rumours circulating in 1549, when Elizabeth was just 15 years old. In a letter addressed to Edward Seymour, the Lord Protector, the princess herself referred to "shameful Schandlers" (slanders) that she was "with Child". In a second letter she appealed again to the Lord Protector, requesting that "no such rumours should be spread". Apparently she succeeded in this regard. Now, 450 years later, Streitz is the first person to link the "Schandlers" with events in the summer of 1548, when a child was born in suspiciously secret circumstances to a "very fair young lady" of about "fifteen or sixteen years of age". There is no proof that this young lady was princess Elizabeth, but Streitz considers this as a possibility in the context of events which he strings together to make a possible if not proven case. Notably, suspicions are associated with "the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the birth of the saide Edward, now Earle of Oxforde" (to quote from a late 16th century document)..

There is no doubt that the 17th Earl of Oxford was given opportunities to study in Cambridge (in 1564) and in Oxford (1566), and that he travelled to France and Italy (1575). Further, there is no doubt that Edward de Vere did write poetry, but not every modern scholar would accept that the de Vere poems correspond to the quality and style of those attributed to William Shakespeare. By contrast, Gabriel Harvey, a contemporary of the Earl, was absolutely flattering in 1578: "Thou has hast drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy...thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes spears" (from Latin, 'tela vibrat', which can be alternatively translated as "brandishes spears"). Oxfordians venture to say that it is not coincidental that the name Shakespeare can itself be translated into Latin as 'tela vibrat'.

"Shakespeare's Sonnets", with a publication date of 1609 , have been interpreted in numerous ways. Streitz provides novel interpretations, suggesting not only that they include cryptic references to the 17th Earl of Oxford, but also that they were written by that dignitary whose dignity was diminished towards the end of his lifetime.

A poem with metaphorical references to bees is extraordinary. It includes references to henbane, hemlock and other substances, including tobacco. The line "wordes, hopes, witts, and the all the world [is] but smoke" leads to the statement "Twas not tobacco [that] stupifyed the brain". If the verse was indeed written by the Earl of Oxford, as Streitz suggests, perhaps at times he wrote under the influence of a substance more "bewitching" than tobacco: "from those [leaves] no dram of sweete I drayne, their head strong [fury] did my head bewitch"

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" makes very interesting reading, even though one need not accept everything contained in it. There are intriguing facts, such as the Queen's grant of 1,000 pounds per annum to the 17th Earl of Oxford. That was an enormous sum of money in 1586. The obvious question is why? Was it really a gift from a benevolent mother to a playwright son? Streitz suggests that the anomalously large grant was intended to support actors and playwrights to prop up political power at a time when Elizabeth I had to be extremely careful against Catholic opposition at home, and the prospect of a Spanish invasion.

To assess the merits of the book, it is strongly recommended that it be read in its entirety. Even if one is willing to absorb and accept only parts of it, those parts may help to "flesh out" an understanding of relationships between Elizabeth I and the 17th Earl of Oxford, in the context of literary debate.

Reviewed by J.F. Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

I used to love Spider-Man--and for the same reasons that everyone else did. He was fun, daring, brave and most of all, human. He failed at times, he had doubts--he was just like us. But somewhere along that way, the character changed. I lost that connection that I once felt for Peter Parker and it never seemed to return. Up until ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN was released, I hadn't read a Spidey comic since he was flying around as Captain Universe (I remember the days fondly when the true identity of the Hobgoblin was a predominate concern). But for some reason, the other current Spidey titles didn't seem to interest me.

But that changed with the release of PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN: A DAY IN THE LIFE. Written by Paul Jenkins, this collection of two separate Spidey series (WEBSPINNERS: TALES OF SPIDER-MAN #10-12 and PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN Vol. 2, #20-22 & 26) has rekindled that interest. With the same contemplative and insightful style that made his take on THE INHUMANS such a compelling read, Jenkins manages to inject poignancy and humor into this classic character again. We see the personal struggles that have weighed heavily on Peter's conscience. We relive the tragedies that besieged his life and the events (and the people) that shaped it. And best yet, we see him persevere and continue fighting the good fight.

If you like Spider-Man and would like to maintain a sense of history, especially in the wake of the "Ultimate" Spidey reboot and the film, or just want to read one of the best Spidey stories in years, I strongly suggest you pick up this TPB (trade paperback). And I'm not saying that you should disregard ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN--you shouldn't. It's a great series, too. What I am saying is that this collection is one of THE definite Spidey stories that I've read, and a great way to get back into a character that had seemingly lost his way.

Check it out!

I used to love Spider-Man--and for the same reasons that everyone else did. He was fun, daring, brave and most of all, human. He failed at times, he had doubts--he was just like us. But somewhere along that way, the character changed. I lost that connection that I once felt for Peter Parker and it never seemed to return. Up until ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN was released, I hadn't read a Spidey comic since he was flying around as Captain Universe (I remember the days fondly when the true identity of the Hobgoblin was a predominate concern). But for some reason, the other current Spidey titles didn't seem to interest me.

But that changed with the release of PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN: A DAY IN THE LIFE. Written by Paul Jenkins, this collection of two separate Spidey series (WEBSPINNERS: TALES OF SPIDER-MAN #10-12 and PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN Vol. 2, #20-22 & 26) has rekindled that interest. With the same contemplative and insightful style that made his take on THE INHUMANS such a compelling read, Jenkins manages to inject poignancy and humor into this classic character again. We see the personal struggles that have weighed heavily on Peter's conscience. We relive the tragedies that besieged his life and the events (and the people) that shaped it. And best yet, we see him persevere and continue fighting the good fight.

If you like Spider-Man and would like to maintain a sense of history, especially in the wake of the "Ultimate" Spidey reboot and the film, or just want to read one of the best Spidey stories in years, I strongly suggest you pick up this TPB (trade paperback). And I'm not saying that you should disregard ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN--you shouldn't. It's a great series, too. What I am saying is that this collection is one of THE definite Spidey stories that I've read, and a great way to get back into a character that had seemingly lost his way.

Check it out!

What makes Spider-Man a fascinating character is not his great powers, but the man behind the mask, Peter Parker. Spidey has enjoyed tremendous success ever since his conception nearly 40 years ago. Throughout all this time, the most unique thing about him was not the colorful suit he wears while swinging, but the simple average, all-so human Peter Parker. Stan Lee, his creator, knew that a long time ago and what better way to bring this character to life but through mastery of one of the hottest British writers of all time, Paul Jenkins.

Jenkins became a household name with his unbelievable work on the INHUMANS, but it is here in his take on Spidey that he truly does shine. His characterization is par none, he takes you on a trip into the Spider-Man saga and fills in points of history, with original art of that time, but never truly changes anything for the old reader. He makes things come to life with his words. The take on going back and forth in the past sure does display his powers as a writer. This is a man that was set to write any hero and make him out to be more human than the people you see walking the street everyday while going to work.

The whole story delves completely on Peter Parker and how his life as Spider-Man has come to be in the recent years. This is a man who has been through much and still persevered to tell the tale. He is your average guy who you might bump into while playing softball in the park or the guy next to you in the movie theater. He is a living, breathing human being and not a comic book character. At times, a person might think that he's probably too human with all his flaws and gestures. The TPB starts off with how the Chameleon, one of Spidey's first foes views him. This trip goes without saying is an in-depth look at Spidey and Peter Parker that has never been explored before. This culminates in Chapter 3 where Spidey is defined as the true character he really is. The following 4 chapters take you on a ride of how Spidey came to be through the eyes of Peter Parker. Flashbacks on his life as a child help create the man he is now and the hero he then later becomes. Jenkins takes you all the way, with a day in the life. The witty humor and the pretenses don't leave you laughing out loud, but keep giving you that smile that you carry on throughout the story. Anyone could be Spider-Man given the right circumstances, but it is only Peter Parker that makes the character who he really is. You feel the loneliness that he feels and the sadness that he carries each day with him. The loss of his loved ones, his uncle and his wife. You just learn that no matter, to be who you are, you have to learn how to laugh. In the end, that's what helps us being ourselves. That's what makes us appreciate our life for what it is. This is a smart piece of fiction, superbly written by Jenkins and drawn by the industry's top artists.

Spider-Man is a comic character, but Peter Parker is a real man in all sense of the word.

Overall, this was a good read -- especially for existing programmers who are looking more at ADO.NET for things like architecture, usage, differences with ADO 2.x, etc... The book greatly simplified ADO.NET in my mind, and gave some great starting points in my own research.

My only problem with the book is that there are quite a few errors in the text that, in my opinion, the editors should have caught. For example, if you're new to OOP, you'll probably want to know the difference between overloading a method and overriding a function. This book on several occasions uses one term where another should have been used and vice-versa.

Overall, however, this is the best book on ADO that I've read so far...

_howard

Although there's a lot in this book that you could find in the documentation if you looked long enough, there's also lots of new stuff that I haven't seen anywhere else.

Perhaps the reviewer who says it's just a rehash is talking about the ADO.NET Programmers Reference, which I've also got and it's really just a printed and commented summary of the documentation.

Unless you have loads of time to scour the documentation and endlessly experiment, this is a great way to learn ADO.NET.

Let's face it, ADO.NET introduces some brand new concepts and design philosophies that even classic ADO experts are not familiar with.

I found that this book provided me with a great ADO.NET foundation to build on. I have read many ASP.NET/WinForm development books and I am of the opinion that ASP.NET/WinForm developers will benefit from a book like this *before* diving into their ASP.NET or WinForm developement books.

A very gentle, caring book for children of about age 8, who can expect to start going through puberty. Covers issues of: why puberty happens, how the appearance of bodies change, hormones, breast development, erections, menstruation, deepening of voice, pimples, masturbation, body hair, wet dreams, and circumcision. This book follows on from, and is in the same style as "Where Did I Come From?". Extremely popular, all children should have easy access to this volume from age 8 onwards.

This is a great book about puberty which is perfect for showing to your child. I will do it when I have some. It goes into good detail and doesn't talk any nonsense. It's very upfront. I mean, it's not like "Oh, your period feels good." It talks about how women might get depressed or groggy, which I think is important for them to know. it talks about erections, masturbation, periods, and even curcumcism (sp?). It also talks about wet dreams and the feelings you may get towards other girls. A great and useful guide.

I am a child therapist. I have used this book with my own children and with clients. It is both factual and humorous (riotous drawings!), allowing a bit of levity for parents and children discussing a delicate subject. Highly recommended.

I find this book extremely confusing. Many names were utilize throughout the book which makes it hard to follow. As an individual who is not familiar with the Mongolian history, the author fails to elaborate or explain the details of why a character does something. In this sense, I find the book disappointing. It is also disappointing that it does not go in depth of Gengis Kahn's warefare strategy. TWO THUMBS DOWN!

There isn't a plethora of books devoted to Genghis Khan out there and this may stem from a lack of historical information. No doubt, a large part of accepted knowledge is lore or estimation. Having an avid interest in asian history as a whole, I eagerly started this book. I was soon keenly looking forward to the kernels of interesting narrative that dot the book throughout. However, the uninspiring space between those kernels is daunting and requires determination. It may also require a tally board as one attempts to keep up with the family, allies, liaisons, enemies, followers, and friends of this Mongol warlord. Read it for the knowledge gained, but don't waste a rainy day, La-Z-Boy, fireside opportunity on the effort.

Those who want an exciting and romantically embelished account of Temujin's (Genghis Khan) life should stick with Harold Lamb. His account is certainly more fun, but also laced with poetic license that at times becomes outright misleading. Lamb is an introduction to the story of the emperor of all men.

But Ratchnevsky is the top of the line reference to Temujin and his amzing life. He weighs the evidence and directs the reader to the lesser known aspects of Temujin's life.

Nowhere else will you find mentioned that Temujin probably had disappeared for ten years to China before his comeback in the late 1190ies.

Few point out that Temujin was not the most daring of men, more of a planner than a fighter and not above saving himself first.

Rachnevskies book paints a less glorious, but much more realistic and human picture of the man who changed the world forever. Temujin's actions have been accounted for in many sources, but few allow us to understand his motives.

Instead of inventing awe inspiring moments, as Lamb does, and putting words into the mouth of the man, Rachnevsky presents the different sources and versions diligently; and strangely, this allows a better understanding who this great Mongol was than all the literary fancy of Lamb or the sycophantic impropabilities of Malik Juvayni.

Lamb and Malik Juvayni have their own merits, and are a must have for all who want to explore this amazing part of history, but without Rachnevskies scholarly integrity, true understanding would elude most.

Not for the casual reader, but Temujin deserves on less than full attention.

I bought two of Paul's books on the strength of ... reviews and I have to say that both were hugely disappointing and a complete waste of money and time. This guy has a knack for recycling widely published material (I mean books, magazines, television, you name it) and packaging it in a way that is decidedly NOT entertaining or engaging. This book is not about how God wants you to be rich and there's nothing in here about how you can enjoy material and spiritual wealth. It's Paul's explaination of how technology drives growth in a free market economy along with copious supporting evidence, prescriptions for changes in government policy, etc. While I agree with much of what he says, its nothing new and, frankly, he doesn't write very well. Life is short: Don't waste it on bad books.

This book was not good at all, because of two things ~ it use big words that would require a MBA or a PhD to interpert this.

Second, the author was not clear in at all. But then again that is my opinion.

I was expecting a how to book not a historical piece on economics

The title is a bit misleading, but it's one of the finest books on money you'll ever read. Some of the negative reviews on this book have evidently been from those who read the title but not the book. It does NOT teach or perpetuate the belief that everyone is supposed to be wealthy if they're a Christian.

What it DOES do is give the average person a GREAT explanation for why things are they way they are and why many economic changes are misunderstood simply because people don't look at a big enough picture. (For instance, a machine takes the place of three workers causing them to lose their jobs...bad news? No, because when those 3 workers find new jobs, the GNP goes up. A simplistic summary of one of Pilzer's examples, but you've really got to read it to appreciate it.)

Also, he gives EXCELLENT suggestions for everything from our school system to transporation to healthcare to communications, etc.

An absolute WONDERFUL book about how our physical resources are truly UNLIMITED and that the only "lack" we have is the lack of appropriation.

This book is so snarky and consistently negative I can only wonder why the author has written about HK movies for this long! There are several good books on HK flicks out there and no reason to buy this misguided publication.

A middlebrow book with highbrow pretensions. I picked this book up at the airport hoping for a nice light read on the plane, and ended up wishing there was an 'EJECT' chute as I was halfway over the Pacific. Rarely have I ever read a book so bristling with enmity and disdain for its subject matter, and with such terrific cultural ignorance one wonders if any research was done other than hanging around the 'western' concessions and expat hangouts. I had thought that such 'colonial' condescension had passed with the times, but apparently it is still alive and well. That is the tone which informs this entire tome and permeates every review therein.. which is terribly unfortunate, given that the author's rather rare and privileged position would have afforded him valuable glimpses behind this once vibrant filmic community ( one can always hope for a second flowering, considering the recent output and the success of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, though not made in HK)... if only one had chosen to see with fresh eyes, rather than attempt to shoehorn every filmic tradition into tired Hollywood conventions of narrative film making.When faced with situations like this, one should give pause to one's examination of the subject at hand, and call into question the yardstick which is being used to take its measure.

Also MOST notable for missing the boat on Wong Kar Wai.

at a glance this book seems like a treasure for those who love HK movies and want a handy reference. But once you start reading his reviews, you realize that despite his opening claim that he actually loves these movies---he hates them. He's analyzing them like they're supposed to be the next James Joyce of films, but most HK movies are high octane fun. Start looking at the logic of things and these movies tend to fall apart (as do most all movies).

He loses the sheer exhilaration of the viewer.

So please, someone out there who actually loves these films---put together a comprehensive plot/review of HK films.

The "sloppy and disappointing" reviewer has it right on. If anything, the book is worse than that review indicates. The tapes were either transcribed by a particularly backward sixth-grader or someone who simply didn't care. There are mistakes on virtually every page, there is no index and narrative flow is replaced with a patchwork of jumbled memories. This is truly a crass, opportunistic rip-off.

If I see one more author write about the Sixties and excuse total unconcern for truth and objectivity with "If you can remember it, you weren't there!" ... Whenever this statement appears, you can prepare for gross errors of fact. And that's what you get with this book: A jumble of interviews with no evidence of fact-checking in site. This book isn't unique in this respect, of course. Lots of "rock encyclopedias" get birth dates, causes of death, family relationships, and other easily verified pieces of information wrong on every page. But this author solicited the help of devoted fans, some of whom are highly knowledgeable regarding the Mamas and Papas, and still managed to produce this disappointing and unenlightening muddle. Admittedly, Michelle's recount of her deathbed interview with John is not to be missed. But nearly everything else is either covered elsewhere (John's and Michelle's books, Denny's stage presentation, and Jon Johnson's biography of Cass) or questionable in integrity and intent. Particularly galling is the amount of mud slung at Cass Elliot, who of course can no longer tell her own side of the story, with no evidence of any attempt to contact anyone who might. Conspicuous by their absence are her sister, Leah Kunkel, and her last manager, Alan Carr (who was still alive when the early parts of this book were being researched). All in all, I could have done without this book. I was a teenaged Mamas and Papas fan in the Sixties: I was there, I do remember it, and this ain't it.

This book is just barely worth reading if you're a Mamas and Papas fan, but honestly you'll get more of a sense of the people and the times from John Phillips' autobiography, Papa John. The oral history format used here is confusing since there are no connecting bits by the editors to keep a strong chronological flow going. We hear a lot from Michelle and Denny, and not much from John. There are a couple of bits from Cass with no explanation--maybe they contacted her at a seance? It's made clear that Michelle wanted this book to serve as a corrective for some things that John had said over time, and I do like hearing her side of the story. But the book is so badly edited and proofread, it makes you wonder what other mistakes have been made. There are typos galore, filmmaker D. A. Pennebaker's name is misspelled, and whoever transcribed the tapes of the interviews did an especially sloppy job. Among other problems ("ideal" for "idea"), the imaginary word "innamorate" appears once; I can only guess that what was actually said was "enamored of..." Behind-the-scenes people like Bones Howe are given some space, but I would have liked to have read more about the actual music. As a big fan of the musicians, I was really looking forward to this, but it's very disappointing.