It's a shame this book isn't in print anymore. It's an even BIGGER shame that there was never an updated edition. The book came out in the late 1980s, and so much has happened in television since then. Harry and Wally, if you're out there, how about writing a sequel?

Even though it's more than a decade out of date, "Harry and Wally's Favorite TV Shows" is still a valuable reference work for students of pop culture or just fans of classic TV. It covers a great many series that other TV books skip over, including series on PBS and shows imported from the UK. The idea of giving each series a rating from zero stars to four stars also sets "Favorite TV Shows" apart from other similar books. Better yet, the reviews are usually right on the money.

This is one of the best reference guides ever written for all those classic tv enthusiests! It not only has information on shows that had successful runs but those shows that didn't last more than one season or possibly not past the pilot show. It is light easy fun reading and a great book to have in my collection when I ask myself "what was that show..you know with the guy and the girl and that whachamacallit", and you can usually find your answer. If you can find this book used,(since it is out of print and hard to find), grab it and enjoy! Thanks Harry & Wally!

HARRY AND WALLY'S FAVORITE TV SHOWS is one of the books in my collection that has become a well worn friend. Working as both an encyclopedic reference and a highly opinionated tour guide, the book, along with Steven D. Stark's GLUED TO THE SET, manages to give television history the same sort of readable pop cultural analysis usually reserved for the movies.

In fact Roger Ebert comes to mind when I read Mr. Castleman's and Mr. Podrazik's take one everything from the classics like I LOVE LUCY or half season duds like THE BRADY BRIDES. They clearly love television from a refreshing middle brow point of view and are able to convey that to the reader in a wonderful plain language. While the authors do tend to turn their backs on some interesting shows (70's cop shows, in particular, are greeted with a yawn), their reviews of ALL IN THE FAMILY, M*A*S*H, and even THE LONE RANGER are dead on and illuminating.

I hope the puplisher will give this out of print title another go around. Besides, I wonder what Harry and Wally think about SIENFELD?

It's sad to think that more than 20 years have passed since the publication of "Watching TV," a book that achieves a balance of thoughtfulness and entertainment that has yet to be surpassed in the genre.

Harry Castleman and Walter Podrazik took a linear look at television history, going season by season -- all the way from the mesozoic days of 1944-45 to 1979-80. The impact of new shows, trends in the industry, hallmarks in news coverage, the regulatory landscape, and other things important to the medium are discussed in detail, but you never feel as if you're being sidetracked. "Watching TV" conveys the sense of excitement and fun that television can give us, and explains why certain shows heightened that pleasure. At the same time, it takes the medium seriously, keeping the reader mindful of its increasing power as the years went on, and chronicling its success or failure in handling the responsibility that came with that power.

As someone who first read the book not long after it was published in 1982, one of the things that came across for me was the degree to which the networks emerged in the book as having distinct personalities.

CBS, the "Tiffany" network -- leader in news, champion purveyor during the '60s of so much rural drivel, but then turning on a dime, just in time for the '70s, to become the home of the smart, post-modern Norman Lear comedies, as well as "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," and "M*A*S*H." NBC, for so many years the distinguished No. 2 network behind CBS, solid in every daypart and division, driven by parent RCA to lead the industry's transition to color. And then ABC, during the '50s and '60s the perennial No. 3, capable of hits here and there like "The Untouchables," "Ben Casey," "The Fugitive" or "Batman," but just as likely to squander some of those successes with horrendous programming mistakes ("The Outer Limits" comes to mind, and even "Ben Casey," for a while). Then, finding gold in the mid-'70s with "Happy Days," "Laverne and Shirley," "Three's Company," etc.

The book is also fascinating for latter-day readers as a look back at the three-network landscape. The proliferation of cable networks and the rise of home video and DVD give us more choices than ever before. The price we've paid for those choices -- aside from the monetary cost -- is a matter of conjecture. With so many competitors, the broadcast networks have been forced to cut costs to cope with having a smaller share of the advertising pie. The result has been shows like "Are You Hot?" and "Fear Factor."

"Watching TV" gives us an important glimpse of where we have been, and what elements of the past we might want to have back.

Castleman and Podzarik's Watching TV is not only the most lucid, entertaining, and comprehensive of several histories of US television, it is also the most acute and informative. The two men are the Toynbee and Spengler of TV history, and it is our good fortune that they are also clever and elegant writers. Most histories of TV have been tedious affairs, heavy with talk of patents and FCC battles, owing to the serious, public-sphere orientation of their academic authors. Watching TV, on the other hand, concerns itself largely with programming trends, hit shows, and other substantial issues such histories neglect. Larger issues are discussed, but in their proper context. This book remains for my money the definitive one volume history of televison. A pleasure to read and indispensable to cultural historians and students of american media

Although this volume is now dated, and has been followed by two supplementary volumes by the same authors, it is nice to see that it is still in print. Podrazik and Castleman were the first to take a serious approach to Beatles recordings, and they did much of the original research on Beatles record releases in American and England that was used, revised and expanded upon in later references. There is a notable ingredient of fun in the way this material is presented, which should be considered by some later Beatles discographers who seem to take the business far too seriously. After this volume appeared, all discographies that followed were measured by a new, higher standard. Betty Mitchell

Overall it is a mental buffet for the curious, potential law student. It offers a little bit of everything, and it's broad description on all aspects(of the law school process) makes it a great read. However, the only problem that I had with the book was that it had a negative tone in the beginning. That tone was a tad discouraging, but once I got into the actual discussion about the various material taught in the three years of law school, I became intrigued again. The latter part of the book was faboo, and I really liked the idea that the book was written from two perspectives. The schedule in the back was wonderful, and I defintely would recommend this book to anyone contemplating law school.

Having had a chance to meet the talented Mr. Niewoehner during one of his recent autograph session/book reading at my local Jimbo's Bookwormania, I must confess that I was overwhelmed by is wonderous outlook on life and on law school. I found him, much like his book, to be an inspirational journey into legalistics. I, too, would someday love to attend that institution of institutions, Harvard Law School, and I believe that reading Mr. Niewoehner's book twice or perhaps even three times will start me in the right direction. It is, indeed, what I like to call a "must read" for the lawyers of the future!

Yusuf Paradisi

I thought the book, notably the law school section, was superbly researched and written. A true must-read for anyone considering law school and a legal career.

Currently attending a top law school myself, I thought some of the earlier reviews characterizing the book as "generic" or "common" were way off the mark and likely written by dumb poo-poo heads who went to state schools.