If you'e ever wondered exactly what it is that a book editor does, read this volume and discover what happens when a book goes directly to print without any editing, proofreading or even spellchecking. The result is a confused jumble of facts, so poorly organized that the reader has trouble simply trying to figure out the sequence of events described.

Beyond the many spelling and punctuation errors (the author needs a serious tutorial on how to use apostrophes)and the hideous typeface are hundreds of confused descriptions and misuses of words that leave the reader not only confused, but occasionally laughing out loud. Consider the description of Hyman Altma. Having described him as a man who stood 5'8" and weighed 200 lbs, Kavieff goes on to say of this rather short man "Because of his formidable stature..." In a number of sections, the same sentence is repeated two or three times- which makes the reader wonder if even the author had given it a final reading before sending it off to his publisher.

This mess of a book has one redeeming feature- Kavieff has assembled a very complete and fascinating history of the Purple gang. That's if you can manage to read it, and at least two people I know couldn't. Caveat Emptor.

Paul R. Kavieff has done an excellent job in vividly portraying the history of this vicious Prohibition era mob and its influence on the people and the politics of Detroit in the twenties and early thirties. Despite type errors and editing problems this is the first book ever that deals with the detroit underworld and the under side of Detroit history. The author writes with a flair for putting the reader at the scene of many high profile crimes for which the Purples are so well known. It is obvious that Mr. Kavieff has a great knowledge of the Purple Gang and the Detroit underworld. This is truely one of the best organized crime histories I have ever read! Some of the criticism of this book has been totally unfair! Crime historians and other critics who have read this book for grammatical errors rather than content are missing the whole point of the work. It is obvious that the author did a great deal of original research to put this book together and I salute him as a crime historian for his wonderful effort and ability to put together a organized crime history of this scope.

As another reviewer pointed out, this is an important book because it is the only book on the Purple Gang. How this gang has escaped serious study is beyond me. Growing up in the Detroit area their name has popped up over the years many many times, as some oldtimer recollects or a house that once was a Purple Gang hideout is bulldozed, stuff like that. One time in the Detroit Public Library I went into the history room and they asked for my ID and I jokingly said, "what do you think I am in the Purple Gang or something?" The guy who asked laughed and said "funny you should say that. A writer has been trying to research the Purple Gang, and is having a hell of a time. It seems like most of the police files on them have somehow disappeared". I cannot vouch for that info, but I suppose that it was the author of this book that was doing the research and maybe that explains why there is so little info available. For that reason alone, despite the grammatical errors that others found annoying, I give it 5 stars. I found it a fascinating read.

Having read - and thoroughly enjoyed - the Confluence trilogy, I picked up Secret of Life without even scanning it. Had I peeked,I would have realized that it's the type of sci-fi I have particular trouble with - where the science and technology are the real protagonists, not the human characters (or alien/ artificial intelligences).

The characters are 2-dimensional and largely unpleasant. As a woman, I found the main character Mariella particularly unpalatable (the book reviewer above must have been a man) - a generally unpleasant arrogant individual who's a man's vision of a 'liberated' woman (she mechanically has sex with anyone she meets in a bar, in every other chapter). Ugh.

To enjoy a book, a reader must identify with someone in it. The science is interesting - but I find I just can't finish this one.

I found McAuley's Secret of Life to be both a disappointing and difficult read. It's disappointing because the premise is excellent. A Martian organism with the ability to evolve rapidly by modifying its own DNA is released on Earth. Many exciting possibilities are immediately raised and the opening chapter is full of excitement and drama. The story follows our heroine as she attempts to retrieve a live sample of the organism from Mars and then her efforts to study the organism and release those results to the scientific community.

But the truth is the story fails to explore many of the scientific possibilities of this premise. The organism languishes passively in the ocean, while the story focuses on preaching for the virtue of open science versus the evilness of big corporations. As a scientist myself, this is something I certainly would agree with...but really didn't find anything very new added to this discussion. The science is so "good" and the corporation is so "bad" there's really no tension.

The other major complaint I had (you might not be as annoyed by this) is the writing style. This is my first time reading a book by McAuley and I felt it would have been much better at about 250 pages than the 400+ that it weighs in at. All too often extraneous paragraphs are tossed in on subjects utterly unrelated to the story. Here's a simple example (one of many). The heroine is discussing with someone how they should travel together. The other poor fool mentions something about horses and we then get a paragraph as our heroine internally recalls her childhood pony. What it's name was. How she loved it, etc. They then decide to take a car. In the right hands this could lead to greater character depth...but I found it mostly to be just filler and ended up skipping over many paragraphs like this.

The exception is the section on Mars which is tightly written and full of interesting ideas and tense situations. Sadly for me that portion was drowned out by the meanderings on Earth and the overall lecturing tone of the book.

In 2026, humanity faces a new crisis. There is a humongous biological growth in the Pacific that threatens to destroy the food chain. NASA believes that the Slick is a result of a find by the Chinese on the Martian polar cap. Microbiologist Mariella Anders joins a team of scientists investigating the Martian northern icecap to determine what the Chinese actually uncovered.

However, the idealistic Mariella must contend with bottom line scientist Penn Brown of Cytex, who wants to monopolize whatever is discovered, especially the means to eradicate Slick. On Mars, the Chinese team working at the site where the organism was originally found flees the area as they are now contaminated. The NASA team finds samples of the original organism and Mariella makes a desperate effort to return them to earth, alienating Cytex, the Chinese, and NASA.

THE SECRET OF LIFE is an engaging science fiction novel that once again shows how talented Paul McAuley is in getting his message across within an entertaining plot. Mr. McAuley rips extremists on either side of scientific discovery through his intrepid lead character. The greed and the ban without debate types are skewered and ridiculed for their intolerance towards the common good. However, the secret to what enables Mr. McAuley's books (see his Confluence stories) so good is he rips skin, but does so inside a believable, terse futuristic tale.

Harriet Klausner

F. Paul Wilson's third book in his Adversary Cycle slows the series to a crawl. In this, the third installment in the popular series the reader is taken through a benign tale of mediocre horror and substandard storytelling. Mr. Wilson's ability to weave a tale of intirgue loaded with memorable characters is evident in this novel, but the elements which made "The Keep" one of the most unforgetable excursions into horror are not as evident. This story, unlike "The Tomb" deals with one primary storyline which takes place entirely in the present. Dr. Alan Bulmer has everything going for him, a strong practice, a beautiful wife, and a son. Who could ask for more? His perfect existence is shattered however when he inherits a strange power which enables him to heal by his touch. The Dat-Tay-Vao, the mysterious power which was originally introduced in Mr. Wilson's novel of short stories "Wheels Within Wheels" is soon discovered not to be the miracle it once seemed. Dr. Alan Bulmer's mind begins to slip, he gets lost on his way home from work, he begins to misplace things and his motor skills are failing him. The power slowly begins consuming him. This novel has several powerful moments within it's pages but not to the extent of "The Keep" nor "The Tomb." The book is a quick and easy read clocking in under 400 pages(paperback edition) and should not be missed by any F. Paul Wilson fan. Like "The Tomb" it can be read as an individual novel, seperate from the adversary cycle and the reader will not feel as if they are missing out on anything. The Touch is a decent novel, however, it does slow the pace of the cycle.

The Touch is Book Three in Author F. Paul Wilson's "Adversary Cycle", and while I've enjoyed all three books (The Keep and The Tomb are the previous installments), I still have NO clue what the have to do with one another. The Touch is a marked departure from the Horrific aspects of the two prior Adversary books; It's more in line with Wilson's Medical thrillers. Doctor Alan Bulmer is gifted (Or is it cursed..?) with the Dat-Tay-Vao, which enables him to heal with a touch, but seems to be exacting a terrible price. The characters are realistic and engaging, and Wilson's writing style is brisk; The story moves along quickly, and I was pleasantly surprised that I wasn't able to predict every plot-twist a mile in advance. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of Wilson's Adversary books.

I became a big fan of F. Paul Wilson after reading The Keep and The Tomb. The Touch was the third book of his that I read and I was not dissapointed. The novel began a little slowly with an introduction of the characters but soon developed into a mysterious thriller. I liked the story and how Wilson only lets the reader know what's happening to the main character as he is finding out himself. I thought it was a very intelligent and thrilling book and a very worthy addition to Wilson's Adversary Cycle. The Tomb is still my favorite by far but I thoroughly enjoyed The Touch as well as any of the others.

Although there were some interesting quotes from the likes of Bill Bruford and Robert Fripp, this book takes every opportunity to look at the most negative aspect of whatever is being discussed. He runs through the fascinating timeline that is progressive music, and seems to enjoy taking shots at each of the bands/albums he discusses. The title is utterly ironic, the only thing that seems to matter to Stump is why Prog is no longer relevant, if it ever was to him. A far better book on the subject is Bradley Smith's "The Billboard Guide to Progressive Music" .

Paul Stump's book is a great treat to anyone interested in what Prog rock was really about. In the US, the Prog rock bands that we saw or heard about came to us after being fully formed, after years of practice, after they moved out of the club and university circuit. What Stump's history does well is to show the roots, the trials, and the missteps of various bands coming to terms with both a new type of music and the end of the era that created it. While not an unabashed fan of everything Prog, Stump's taste is excellent and his knowledge of the arcana of the British music scene is impressive. Stump's writing is excellent, sometimes too good. His analyses are dead on, and he takes into account the financial, political, and social explanations of why Prog took off, made millions, and flared out.

Of all the Prog books out there now, this is by far the best and most useful in understanding the music. Those who dislike this book because Stump is honest in his evaluations ought to consider that someone who hated Prog would not have spent so much time and effort writing a book like this.

Though often lapsing into verbosity, Stump's book is an intelligent, non-embarrassing look at the much-maligned genre of Progressive Rock. Prog fans often pride themselves on the intelligence required to create and appreciate their music. However, most books on prog betray their authors' simplistic understanding of the music and the events surrounding it. The authors come off as fanboys, insulting the reader with their poorly supported arguments and sweeping generalizations. Paul Stump goes a long way to correct this trend in prog rock books . He writes well and has done much of his homework. Despite other Amazon reviewers' comments to the contrary, Stump's passion for the music is infectious. He is opinionated, though, so Marillion fans should take note. I really appreciated the attention he gave to the more experimental or avant-garde bands. The likes of Henry Cow, The Soft Machine and Barrett-era Pink Floyd get plenty of copy alongside the more mainstream Yes and Genesis. Stump is no snob, (despite writing for The Wire) which would be a dubious position anyway for a fan of a genre now reviled by snobs everywhere. A few caveats: this should really be called "A History of ENGLISH Progressive Rock" but Stump tells you as much in the introduction. Also, as a non-Englishman, I ran across quite a few words I have never seen before or since. The Music's All That Matters has been very helpful in pointing me towards some terrific bands and understanding some of the ideas behind their music. Now I need to find some Magma albums! Ignore the cheesy title and you'll enjoy it!

This book followed the proven Waite Group Layout and covered most of the old VCL components. However, if you are looking for the excellent reference most Waite Group Bibles provide don't look here. New VCLs, functions, and any useful information about Delphi specific messages and exceptions have been left out. This book is a waste of money for all but the beginner to Delphi

This is a good book that could have been great if the authors would have spent more time updating the information on Delphi 3's new VCL (including to new C/S version). As it stands now, if you have enough money to build a big Delphi library and you are a serious programmer, then you'll probably find occasions when this book will come in handy. Otherwise you will probably be better off spending you money elsewhere.

I bought this book however, it has no coverage on any of the new components that are shipped with Delphi 3 C/S. No Coverage on RemoteServer, ClientDataSet, Provider or any of the new VCLs that you see under Win32 palette page. As far as database applications I see no help in using this book at all. Nevertheless is a good example how Borland should do their documentation

Immanuel Kant has a well deserved reputation as one of the most difficult philosophers to read and to study. His writing style is, to be generous, rather convoluted. One could only imagine Kant's laundry lists: they must be pages and pages in length.

So it comes as no surprise that a Get-Kant-Quick book would be desired by many intelligent readers who do not have the time to translate the English translation of Kant's writings into English. And there are such books out there that will enable one to do just that. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.

Don't be taken in by the inexpensive price - all you really get for your shekels is a cursory summary of Kant's life and thought, with more emphasis on the biography than the thought. A dialogue on Kant's metaphysics follows. Add to that short passages from Kant's writings, and timeline chronologies of Kant's life and the history of philosophy. All this for about $6.00.

For a few dollars more, you can buy Karl Jaspers's excellent short book on Kant taken from his "Great Philosophers" books. The difference between Paul Strathern and Karl Jaspers is that between a backyard barbeque cook and the Iron Chef.

To illustrate my point in this regard, consider Strathern's discussion of Kant's Categorical Imperative. While he takes the first part into account, "Act as if what you do should be a universal law," he forgets the second part, "Treat others as ends and not as means." Strathern gives us an example of Kant being asked by the Nazis as to the whereabout of a Jewish friend. Strathern noted that, according to Kant's own dictum, to tell a lie even to a murderer is wrong. But he then notes that perhaps "his highly active mind would quickly discovered a duty which forbade him to hand over his friend. If Strathern had taken the time to digest the complete Categorical Imperative, he would have the answer. (A Kantian would replay that, although he knows where his friend is, he could not turn the friend over, for the person is an end and not a means to an end.)

Jaspers knew this, and so does Scruton: the difference between spending you money and getting your money's worth.

Well, Strathern is certainly entertaining, if not informative. He gives us the dirt on each philosopher, tells us who was overweight, ... pushed people around, etc. This would be great if we were reading about movie stars or politicians but I bought these books in order to understand something about what these philosophers thought. He does reserve a few pages at the end of each volume to tells us one or two of their ideas and gives us a handful of quotes. A total waste of money unless you hate your philosophy classes so much that you want to hear how awful the personal lives of the philosophers were. A new low in publishing.

So, what are you doing for the next 90 minutes !?

Well, if you were Kant and it was 3pm you would be out for a walk. But, you are not Kant!

So, why not read this crisp, piety-clearing, psych-insightful, entertaining portrait? Rarely will you find such an academically freeing and stimulating 90 minutes. (Especially assuming that you may have been numbed by Kant in the past.)

And, cheaper than most of the multiplexes!

Characteristics of this book (and ratings out of 10). Note that all ratings and descriptions are in comparison to other books.

Difficulty of material: 8 (not necessarily a good thing for everyone), the book is more difficult than most freshman physics texts (calc-based), but there are some derivations that were left out or some were poor in explanation.

Examples: 5, the setup of the examples appear as though they would be excellent, and the setup was a good idea. However, Tipler did a poor job in his carrying out the explanation portion of the examples. Because of this, some of the examples are difficult to follow. This is probably the most important point of the book--examples are crucial to problem solving! Tipler's text doesn't stand up.

Problem Planning: 7, some of the problems have terrible setups, others are simply just vague. In one problem you have to assume a weight for the problem, although this was difficult to discern from the problem description. It was just confusing about how the problem should be approached. Tipler should have actually given the statement "assume a weight," instead of leaving it vague. Another problem had two different masses for answers. That is simply poor planning. The positive aspects of the problem set is that, at least for some colleges, the answers to all the problems can be found on the college's website. Also, there are lots of problems to work, and the conceptual problems are, for the most part, well done.

Compared to Other Books: I have 5 other physics books and this is by far the worst of them. Serway's or Young's books are FAR better. There is far more explanation and the problems are just as difficult (Serway's has even harder material in some aspects). The other texts contains more and better derivations (assuming you are looking for the hardest editions). Other books give much better material for the amount of money asked for.

If you must buy this book for class, I would recommend getting an additional used book (from an author other than Tipler) for reference. You may find you use other texts more than the assigned text because Tipler's text is poor. Also, problems on physics tests are usually from other books--so working problems in other books can only help test grades.

The first equation that you see in this book is that "Tipler= Quality"

At first, this seems a little pompous and presumptuous. But it is alas, oh so true. When I first started physics this year, I had no experience of calculus. I thought taking a physics course based in calc was going to be hard. I was wrong, as Tipler's explinations were so well done that I found the math to be easy. Although its true that most of my physics learning came from my high school teacher, the only thing he lectured on where things that came almost directly from Tipler. This was convinient if I didn't feel like taking extensive notes. By the end of the simester, I had mechanics mastered. With Tipler by my side, the biggest challenge in learning physics was overcoming my own lazyness.

This is the best physics book I have ever seen. The text is well written, the examples are great. What sets this book apart from other physics textbooks I have seen are these advantages. Examples are set up in columns so that on the left, it tells u whats going on in english and on the right, whats going on in math. There are great section summary pages and problem solving guides at the end of every chapter. The problems are each labeled with a difficulty, and they are creative problems. There are optional sections which you do not need to read but enhance what you are learning in lecture and reading. Overall, a great book.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

I agree with the criticisms already made against Fussell's book. Nothing in this vapid book is original (either compared to Fussell's earlier work or to many other rants in the world at large). In fact, once one finishes this book, the overall feeling one is left with upon reflection of Fussell's "observations" is, "No sh-t." I would venture to say that this is one of the most egregious examples of "no sh-t" ranting I have read or heard in a long time.

What's worse is the complete lack of any coherent principle or sensibility in this book. While Fussell rails against elitism and snobbery, he (as one reviewer here already observes) nevertheless displays a clear affinity for the Ivy League and the like. More specifically, he complains about the uneducated hordes, all the while damning their efforts at a college education merely because they are not all attending Yale or Harvard (of course, if Yale or Harvard were to admit more students, he would no doubt complain about that as well). Similarly, Fussell displays contempt toward those not "classically" and broadly trained in poetry, philosophy, or language, but he curiously ignores the fact that a broad, classical education involves the sciences as well (see Newton, Copernicus, Gallileo, et al.).

In sum, the only coherent vision I can find in this book is Fussell's bitterness against all things that he is not, and more to the point, his bitterness over America's valuation of such things. He is essentially bemoaning the fact that bookish humanities professors are not as valued or as highly rewarded in our society as, say, politicians, engineers, lawyers, or rock stars. Although his point has some merit, this book, with all its verbiage and hostility, has almost none.

I had to nod, and chuckle, and grin, and finally get out of bed for a smoke in the middle of reading this book. The reason for the nods, chuckles, and grins should be obvious to anyone who picks this book up: kitsch is always easy to laugh at. And American kitsch is even easier to laugh at because I'm accustomed to it. But then, somewhere, in the middle of the laughs, Fussell gets pretentious. That's when I took the smoke break.

Here's what happened: in the chapter "BAD Colleges and Universities," Fussell argues (essentially) that degrees from colleges outside the IV Leagues are BAD, but degrees from stodgy old Eastern Seaboard Colleges are good. Why? Because state colleges and universities focus too much on creating professionals, and too little on imparting intelligence. I couldn't agree more with this last point. But we absolutely must recall that the IV Leagues (Harvard, Yale, and so on) crank out most of the bad players in our culture, in addition to the good ones. Both Bushes, for example, graduated from Yale. I think we can probably find a state school student who knows more about the classics than they do.

(I could talk about the way the way the Bennetton family managed to convince a friend of mine during a lecture at Harvard that THEIR brand of globalization is good because THEY donate to Buddhist temples, but I won't. Anyway, does the idea that a single clothing line should be a way of "uniting colors [nationalities]" suggest a ubiquitous European kind of BAD?)

Further, Fussell's argument in this regard absolutely contradicts itself. He lambasts small (or new) schools for focusing on athletics over academics, as he should. But he fails to remind us that the IV Leagues (all the schools he elevates to heavenly levels) got that name (and a lot of their dollars) from their at one time excellent football teams. Yes, Harvard and Yale are "Ivy" League schools because of sports, not academics. Check out the Harvard application online some time, too. They actually ask if you're blue blood! Inbreeding makes smarts?

This is not to say that the academics at the IVs aren't great, if the students want them to be. But the students from his model schools are also perfectly capable of being idiots. And students from state schools are perfectly capable of being ingenious.

Further, Fussell fails to remind us how much of the bad actually CAME FROM the "top" schools. Currently they're cranking out people called "cultural critics." In case you're not up on the latest, these cats aren't "critics" at all, and some of them have even managed to convince their friends that Madonna is an important feminist symbol.

Ironically, the so-called "BAD" state schools have resisted the trends toward academic doublethink, and it's often at those schools that a student gets to read, and APPRECIATE, the classics of thought and literature Fussell rightly praises.

Further, Fussell fails to distinguish between tacky and BAD. For example, if the Franklin Mint is BAD, what does that make the Federal Reserve? If Stallone movies are bad, what does that make Hollywood? I would say that Stallone movies are tacky, but Hollywood is BAD. The Franklin mint is tacky, but the Federal Reserve is BAD. Most of what you'll find in this book relates what is tacky in American culture, and that's not really going to help anyone progress culturally, or politically. This must be a book for the self-hating middle class. If you want to know what's BAD in American culture, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. May I recommend checking out the Freedom Press and some free Jello Biafra MP3s that are lying around the Internet?

Yes, it was a worthwhile cigarette.

Morris Berman makes reference to Fussell's BAD, or the Dumbing of America in his treatise for monastic preservation of our culture, The Twilight of American Culture. I was inspired by Berman's text and so sought out Fussell's. It's been a long time since I heard Dennis Miller or George Carlin "rant," but Fussell's book reminded me of a pretentious version of their work. Not that he didn't make me laugh aloud several times in recognition of the foibles that make our society tick. It's just that in the wake of reading Berman's book, I had expected a more penetrating treatment of a very real problem: the calcification of the idea of our culture sans the content. (courtesy of Spengler)

According to the fly-leaf, the Chicago Tribune considers Mr. West "possibly our finest living stylist in English." Well, that may be but buddy he was way out of his genre with this book. The only reason I struggled through the entire book is that I finish what I start. Verbose, convuluted, complex and dry are some of the words I can muster up to describe this book. Reading one of the Greek tragedies that West continually refered to would be easier than getting through this horrid work of historical fiction.

West is a second-rate Faukner. At least Faukner lived in Mississippi. I got money that says West has never even BEEN to Arizona. I will say that this book had a LOT in common with Doc Holliday. Reading it was about as much fun as going to a dentist -- and did you about as much good as a dentist with a consumptive cough and a shaky hand.

Bottom Line: Don't waste your time.

I enjoyed this novel, as I have all of West's historical fictions. As a reader, you have to have a sense of humor, an inkling when someone is pulling your leg for dramatic effect. When reading West, this is doubly important. He's a master at this sort of thing. In other novels, he's made mention of Shakespeare during Milton's time, of Tourette's syndrome in WW2 China, and the conceit of having Lord Byron's doctor narrate his autobiography from the grave. Take it with a grain of salt, enjoy it. I suspect most readers prefer his spin on the fate of Big Nose Kate. It's fiction. It's wondeful.

Besides, West has moved on to bigger and better things. Can you imagine someone staking their whole lives, their entire imagination, their reputation and everything that consumes the soul on Doc Holliday? Life's too short, live a little.

The fact that Paul West, "with so little research" (?), could put together such a fascinating look into the life of Doc Holliday is extraordinary. With typical Westian flair he reconstructs Holliday as Holliday himself wishes he had been. This "fictional" account has permanently altered my idea of who Doc Holliday was. Bravo Mr. West. As for genre, I believe this is a literary book, rather than a pulpy one. It reminds me of Robert Kroetsch's The Studhorse Man and Coover's Ghost Town. For any generous reader, this book is sure to be a pleasure.