If you like filling lists and pro-forma negotiating "tools" go ahead, plenty of scope for a stiff wrist here, but if you are looking for a book that will really prepare you for a negotiation, forget it.

The problem with books on negotiation is that most are either desriptions of the deals the author(s) clinched (self-aggrandizing), where a common fallacy is made ("It worked for me, therefore it will work for you") or soooo boring and uninspiring, that you would rather read a bus timetable to get some inspiration and motivation (without which you will not be a good negotiator, despite hundreds of check-lists you may make).

This work fits into the second category. I suspect,as with most "workbooks" and sequels to relatively successful first works (such as "Getting to Yes"), that these quick follow-ups are mostly an attempt to capitalize and piggy-back on the previous work and "strike while the iron is hot" by regurgitating the same idea over and over.

Read it (pardon, fill it in) if you have nothing better to do.

Although many of the strategies and prinicples in the book point out obvious everyday issues, it is helpful to see them in black & white. The book's techniques are actually quite simple and useful, but you must have determination for it to be effective. Confidence is something you can't gain just by reading a book; however, at least you can avoid some basic mistakes. Overall a very good book.

I love biographies about famous people but I'm sorry to report this has to be the worst one I have ever read. ... It was one of the only books I didn't even care to finish. Don't waste your money on this one - the stories are half told and the writing is contradictory and confusing throughout.

Firstly, unlike most of the other "reviewers" of this title, this will be a review of the book "Dream On" NOT my personal feelings about Cyrinda Foxe-Tyler and/or ex-husband Steven. Now that you are forewarned, read on:

"Dream On: Livin On the Edge" has many problems & weaknesses. Almost every one of these is due to Ms. Foxe-Tyler's choice of co-authors. Danny Fields has been a close friend of hers for nearly 30 years, & is known to be one of the nicest guys in the music biz. Unfortunately, these traits work against the books' success.

It is the job of the co-author to ask the hard questions, do background research, make the books' subject dig into areas of their life that they would rather forget. As Ms. Foxe-Tyler's confidante, it is obvious that Danny Fields not only failed to do these things, he also dropped the ball in other areas. There are many times in this book where the reader gets the feeling that certain people or events are so familiar to the authors' that they skip right over them, assuming our familiarity to be equal to theirs. When Cyrinda Foxe-Tyler makes an assertion or states an opinion as a fact, Mr. Fields never once questions her or seeks another opinion. While she is entitled to have her say, her word is not gospel on every single subject, & as co-author, Danny Fields is not doing his job by accepting it as such.

Some examples of these problems include: while discussing her childhood, we learn Ms. Foxe-Tyler is the 3rd child of a woman who married 4 times, all to enlisted military men, had her 1st child at 16, moved often to various military bases around the world & is a religious fanatic who abused her. Yet later on we are told that Cyrinda felt she was an "aristocrat" as compared to the "proletariat" members of Aerosmith. I'm not sure how an upbringing as an army brat by a much-married abusive mother qualifies her as an "aristocrat" but Danny Fields never questions the statement. We are told that she feels Steven Tyler's lyrics are "sensitive and romantic and intuitive". It is certainly a stretch to describe lyrics such as "you can't catch me/cause the rabbit done died" as "sensitive and romantic"! I for one cannot recall a single "sensitive and romantic" song by Aerosmith during their heyday.

Speaking of Aerosmith's heyday, this is probably the largest problem with "Dream On"; Cyrinda didn't become involved with the group until they were recording "Draw the Line" which is actually the start of their decline. Nowhere in the book do we learn anything about the dynamics of how Aerosmith formed & their early days. This gap is especially annoying because of her frequent descriptions of animosity between Joe Perry & Steven Tyler. If these 2 men hated each other so, how did the band first gel? When did the anger begin & what were the causes? How did the other 3 band members deal with it? The reader never finds out, so many anecdotes in the book seem missing a good part of their story. Also missing is Steven Tyler's early years. Ms. Foxe-Tyler often calls him a "sick man" who is "consumed by his dark places". She also has nothing good to say about his family. Yet the reader is left wondering how & when Tyler became so sick & disturbed; what forces in his family created the torture she describes?

It isn't just in the Aerosmith department that Fields & Foxe-Tyler leave the reader hanging. Cyrinda lived with David Johansen of the New York Dolls for a longer period of time than she did with Tyler. She was also married to Johansen. Does the reader learn anything about this period of her life? Not in "Dream On"; read "Please Kill Me" by Legs McNeil if you want to hear her anecdotes of her Dolls' days. There is a photo in the book of Cyrinda with Keith Moon of the Who; is he mentioned in the text? Nope. Why the photo then, yet none of her with David Bowie with whom she lived for nearly a year? The most glaring omission of all concerns Foxe-Tyler's alleged drug addiction. She mentions that the 1st 4 years of daughter Mia's life she was addicted to heroin. Yet just a few pages previously we are told she never touched drugs even when those around her were offering. So when did the abuse start? What led to it? How bad did it get? What made her realise she was an addict? These & many many more questions are never raised much less answered.

I purchased this book because it has been reported that Cyrinda Foxe-Tyler is dying from a brain tumor. Because of this, "Dream On" is a worthwhile book, as it may end up being her only defense after she is gone. It is unfortunate that due to using a friend as a co-author she has left so much unsaid.

I read this book and I felt for cyrinda. Its amazing that I read this book (feeling compelled to write to her) and found out she had died the day before. To be honest, none of us know Steven Tyler and how he really is. We don't know if all she says in this book is even true. Still as soon as I recieved it in the mail, I read it all the way through. I could not put it down. I was dumbfounded by the kind of lifestyle this runaway girl lived.
She was brave but careless with her life. It's a sad sad story and I cried. I imagined living her life and it made my heart grow heavy. Maybe people don't agree with her book but its how she seen it. It's her personal life and she aired it and now shes gone. Get the book! Enjoy it! Its a roller coaster let me tell ya. But please keep and open mind because some things are really far out! But hey were talking about the ex wife of a toxic twin, what did ya expect!

I would highly recomend that any fan of Guns N'Roses do not buy this book. It is a complete waste of money. The book is boring and pointless. The author just rambles on and on, until you don't even know what he is saying anymore. If you are wanting a good book about Guns N'Roses, this is definately not it.

The author of this book gets carried away to say the least. He strays far from actual facts and delves into his crazy theories and parallels of Axl and Slash (forget about the other members in the group) and some ancient figures. It got quite tedious at some points and was not interesting at all. Buy another GnR book!

What makes this book interesting is that its not just about the band, their music and off stage exploits, which is what most rock biographies are all about. Rather, this book is about defining the sociological and psychological impact of Rock N' Roll on modern American culture and the role that Guns N' Roses have played in shaping and defining such cultural perceptions. In this book, Sugarman compares the music and exploits of Guns N' Roses to everything from mythology to philosophy to psychology to modern historical events to convey this thesis. The truth is, what I really liked about this book, is that after finishing it, I felt that I not only learned about Guns N' Roses, but more so about the cultural importance of rock n' roll and the impact that it's had in shaping the modern American cultural landscape of the late 20th century.

Therefore, if you're interested in really learning about why G N' R is such an important band and your interest in music extends beyond what you hear on a CD, than I strongly recommend this book.

A word of caution...I have to say that this is not your typical sex, drugs and rock n' roll biography. If you're looking for a book that's just about the drunken exploits of Axl and the band,you'd best look else where. Not that this book does not cover off on these subjects, its just that there is much more to this book than that.

This book reads like a collection of National Enquirer stories. The difference: the Enquirer has writing standards that Gallagher can't come close to meeting. He's gathered disjointed tales of baseball tragedies over the years (plane crashes of Thurman Munson, Ken Hubbs, Roberto Clemente, for example) and linked them all together dubiously in this poorly-written, slothfully-researched quickie paperback. Reading this is like slowing down to look at a wreck on the highway.

If you want to find out about any of baseball's major tragedies, this is the definitive book to read. Gallagher does a splendid job of researching and writing about the many tragedies involving the Angels' organization but he also captures many of the mishaps that befallen the other clubs. The author shows empathy, sympathy and definitely shows he loves human-interest stories that grab at the heart of readers.

"Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" is a nice idea and could have been an excellent book. In it Ulrike Heider attempts a brief survey of three major strands of Anarchism in the United States:

(1) Anarcho-syndicalism (Left Anarchism)
(2) Libertarianism (Right Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism)
(3) Eco-anarchism (Green Anarchism)

In each of these three sections, Heider discusses the writings of important contemporary figures (such as Sam Dolgoff, Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin) as well as interviews that she conducted with many of them in the late 1980s. She also provides a bit of historical and theoretical background in each section. In the introduction, Heider stresses that criticism, especially self-criticism, is necessary in order for any philosophy to adapt and evolve. She therefore adopts a critical approach to her subjects - an approach which I can appreciate in the abstract.

Although this is a nice idea, "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" falls flat. There are many things that I didn't like about it, and I will try to hit on the most important ones. First of all, the book was crippled by its shocking brevity. At ~150 pages, Heider is obviously not going into very much detail at all, considering the vast and interesting topics she is addressing. Most of her biographies of historical figures such as Bakunin and Kropotkin are only a few pages long. Noam Chomsky gets about 10 pages, Sam Dolgoff about 15, Murray Bookchin has about 40, far less than is needed for a thorough introduction to their respective philosophies and writings.

This brevity has even worse effects on her critical approach. Heider, a German Anarcho-syndicalist, seems determined to criticize everything in the Right and Green sections of the book - she does criticize the Left Anarchists, but to a lesser degree. However, her criticisms are usually superficial, and occasionally degenerate into nothing more than snide remarks and name-calling. At several points, she subtly denounces her targets as Fascists by (for instance) noting that their words sound "frighteningly familiar" when translated into German. Constructive criticism is all well and good, but there is very little serious analysis or discussion in the book that that can be put to any useful purpose.

Murray Bookchin was so outraged by Heider's treatment of him that he wrote a response, "A Meditation on Anarchist Ethics" (available online at the Anarchy Archives), defending himself. In it, he accused Heider of selectively quoting his work out of context, misrepresenting his statements and writings, slandering and caricaturing him, and even flat-out lying. This was the first thing I had ever read by Bookchin (being syndicalist myself), and I'm relieved I stumbled across it. It prompted me to increase my suspicions of Heider's criticisms and conclusions and not be so quick to adopt her caricatures of various figures.

In addition, several authors have criticized Heider's scholarship, claiming that her footnotes and citations are often incorrect and she occasionally misspells important names that she should know perfectly if she has done any research whatsoever. I have not checked her citations myself, but have little reason to doubt these accusations.

I have other, less important criticisms, but will end at this point, in the interest of space and time. I'll conclude by suggesting that "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" be read at a library (if possible), if at all. In its place, I suggest Guerin's "Anarchism" and "No Gods, No Masters," which I have not yet read, but have heard good things about. Rocker's "Anarcho-syndicalism" (which I have read) is also useful, although dated.

Instead of using sound science, explaining it, and sometimes extending it like in the other fourteen books, this one stoops to one of the oldest premises of B-movie sci-fi - and it isn't even scientifically sound.

Just because it's easy to shrink people on screen doesn't make it possible. Particularly the way it happens here - accidentally falling in the machine, getting dismantled, and waking up in a compressed duplicate (with the originals still in the machine) and then being able to reverse the process and coming out exactly the same size they were before! How did they even survive dismantling? Even if the process worked how were they able to walk?

The whole premise just shakes me up, even twenty years after first reading it. (Might be all those movies and Hanna-Barbera cartoons.) The only reason why I give this two stars is the familiar, endearing characters.

I can't beleive this book is for ages 9-12. It has adult topics and themes. I don't know what the author was thinking.

If you have ever heard the record of the story available around the 1950s, you will be very disappointed with this version. The music is inappropriate and intrusive. The story is shortened. What I bought the tape for was to hear the accents of the area in which the story was collected, the strong accents of the south. The story was narrated by someone with almost no accent at all, and certainly not the lovely, unique accents of that area.

In Danny's and T.R.'s townhomes The Rosemary Acers there are a lot of rules icluding the no pets rule and when thier friend Paul ttries to hide a cat who walked 15 miles from his previous owner to get to him and then the troulbes begin while T.R. and Danny wacthes the babes house and visits there father while still trying to keep the secret. One specific part I didn't like was how much they talked about women naked and through underwear drawers.Did I really need to know that?When I started reading this book I didn't think it would be this kind of stuff in it.I also didn't like how much they drooled over Mickey all the time. I would reccomend this book to people who want to know what a garter belt is because you will find out.Also if you are a boy there is a lot of stuuf in here about women in here. there all things in here from animals to suprising enndings.I didn't really like this book to well but other peolple might find it funny.

A brave autobiographical attempt to transform the author's high school coach into the second coming of Lomardi. This "Inspirational Playbook For Life" praises such coaching gems as: "I said, 'Coach, I heard something crack and I'm afraid I broke it.' Coach replied, "I think the crack you heard was you breaking that kid's leg. They're getting an ambulance and a stretcher to carry him off the field." Then (with incredible sensitivity and inspiration,) "Coach looked at me and said, "Go on, run off the field and be a hero," and more incredibly, "Well, we'll send him a card next week." The opposing quarterback they were referring to suffered a compound femur fracture in three places, and we learn "They may have to put a pin in his leg." The author's "coach" suffered the final misfortune of a drawn-out bout with cancer...an opponent nobody could knock out of the game. Pep talks evolved to Bob Richards' plagerism and football-as-life lessons. Enter inspiration. Danny White must have read a different manuscript before penning his introduction; for that matter, Couch must have played for a different coach than I did...I played 3rd string for Ravsten and his henchmen; I'd call my paean "Football Through the Earholes: Violent Lessons As Teenage Cannon-fodder "