I found it impossible to take this book seriously. The reasoning is off the wall, lines of thought are often impossible to follow, and he basically just ends up in a big mess. I have seen Barre tout these ideas before, and he offers no backing for his outrageous ideas, he just says in effect, "That's the way it is because I say so." His argumentative tone and personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with him have gotten him kicked off no less than 7 Internet email lists, by his own count, and this book continues that dubious tradition.
The book is supposed to be a series of "essays," but several of these "essays" are one sentence long. That's an essay? The blurb calls him a Bible scholar, but this book has as much in common with scholarship as a duck has with a bicycle. Don't waste your time or your money on this one. I tend to believe that the reason it's self-published is because no truly scholarly publisher would touch it with an eleven-foot pole.

I just read this review and I would like to respond. I have put my comments in brackets:

Reviewer: A reader from USA
I found it impossible to take this book seriously. The reasoning is off the wall, lines of thought are often impossible to follow, and he basically just ends up in a big mess.

[Here the reviewer hovers over the contents of the book and is happy to provide us with unsubstantiated generalizations.]

I have seen Barre tout these ideas before, and he offers no backing for his outrageous ideas, he just says in effect, "That's the way it is because I say so."

[A reading of the book will show that this is simply not true. The book contains numerous arguments.]

His argumentative tone and personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with him have gotten him kicked off no less than 7 Internet email lists, by his own count, and this book continues that dubious tradition.

[My reviewer is simply slandering me. I have made no personal attacks. As for "argumentative tone"--lists are for debate. Further, I am wondering what is his source of information. In my view, I was censored from many email lists because they were run by Christians, not because of any impropriety on my part.]

The book is supposed to be a series of "essays," but several of these "essays" are one sentence long. That's an essay?

[This is certainly a petty criticism.]

The blurb calls him a Bible scholar, but this book has as much in common with scholarship as a duck has with a bicycle.

[I have a doctorate in Hebrew Bible from Vanderbilt University. I cannot help but wonder what credentials my reviewer has that would allow him to define biblical scholarship. His comment is unhelpful mud slinging.

Don't waste your time or your money on this one. I tend to believe that the reason it's self-published is because no truly scholarly publisher would touch it with an eleven-foot pole.

[The book is self-published because Christians, who wield considerable influence regarding the publication of books on the Bible, would reject it because it attacks the Christian religion. Indeed, I suspect that my hostile reviewer is a Christian and may even be dependent of the Christian religion to earn a living, not unlike the Christian people who censored me. Finally, it is hoped that next time a reviewer will not follow the example of this reviewer who did not find it necessary to discuss the contents of the book.]

Janosov's effort in documenting the history of the Stegmaier Brewery is admirable. The book, especially those passages relating to the early history of the company and the actual brewing process, was well-researched and interesting. I was, however, disappointed with the lack of attention to the history of the 1920s-1970s. Those years were simply glossed over. In actuality, they were arguably the most important - and at times tumultuous - years for both the brewery and the family. Some detail by Janosov concerning the family, a la Ron Chernow, would have made the book that much more interesting. There are enough Stegmaiers still around who could have, and would have, happily given the professor a plethora of stories.

James Gibbons Huneker's "Egoists" is a diverting compilation of essays, exploring the personalities and lives of some of the greatest artists, poets, litteratures, philosophers and mystics who have advocated the creed of individualism, in opposition to the sentiments of equality, brotherly love and socialism. The essays combine entertainingly critical and analytical insights with a melodic prose style characterised by a sweep and grandeur of rhetoric, and many a flowery turn of phrase. A little dated, perhaps, but fun.

After reading The Innocents, the first Wil Hardesty book, I looked forward to Bearing Secrets. Big disappointment! The story begins with the apparent suicide of Max Pfeiffer, a '60s radical, and a call to Hardesty from Pfeiffer's daughter, Holly. At that point the thing goes downhill rapidly. The plot is not a bad idea. Where Barre disappoints is, first, in the seemingly unending problems between Wil and his wife, Lisa. One feels it is time for them to get on with their lives. It is distracting after a time, and the reader must find it hard to identify with either of them, much less sympathize.

Second, the plot is risky. I know I couldn't write it convincingly. But Barre, making a half-hearted effort at some level of believability, fails miserably. The characters are cartoonish, the story told in jerky movements so that we don't know where we are (geographically and chronologically)most of the time. Keep an eye out for Monika and Behr. How did Barre dream them up?

As for the next one in the series I just can't say. I think I may have suffered enough with this overaged surfer dude and all his angst. I realize that a fictional detective needs his/her conflicts and tensions but as much as I liked Wil (and Lisa) at the end of The Innocents, I couln't help thinking "here we go again" at the beginning of Bearing Secrets.

Avoid this one.

Based on the other review I guess I missed it on this one. I really liked The Innocents so I bought the rest of the Wil Hardesty series. Boy, do I wish I had not. If you do decide to read Bearing Secrets be sure to have a pen and paper in hand and write down each character and how they relate to the book. You will need this as it is very confusing. I don't think I have ever read a book that I stayed so lost with the people in it. It goes back seventeen years and brings you up to date. There are just so MANY PEOPLE and groups involved. I ended up reading several pages twice to try to connect who was who. I guess I will read the next one as I already have it and hope it is like the first one and not the second.

Although this one starts off a little slowly, I'd recommend it as one of the best mysteries I've read recently. The plot does a wonderful job of intertwining the past with present, with a surprising and satisfying finish. Wil Hardesty does well again in the lead role, and the 60's backdrop for the historical part of the mystery is well done. Don't miss this one!