Indeed, one might criticize this book for having an identity crisis as to whether it is about science or ethics. However, I have come to realize that in genetics, perhaps more than in any other discipline, science and social issues are inexorably linked. Even so, while I found the book fascinating from cover to cover (almost), I would have to say that it tends to be disjointed in places, leaping from subject to subject a little haphazardly. It is almost as if the writer was ticking off items on his "things to write about" list. As such, the book loses its cohesion from time to time. For example, a chapter on the early Soviet Union's biology program is wedged in between accounts of recent searches for pernicious genes and studies of twins.

But this is a minor point. Mr. Watson is not only a top notch scientist, he is an excellent writer. Although the chapter on Soviet biology left me scratching my head, it was amusing, interesting and well-written, as was the rest of the book. And for that, I can forgive a great deal. The proof is in the pudding. Over the last few days, I have engaged a number of colleagues, as well as my wife, in discussions on genetics issues and have found that this book has greatly enriched my understanding of the field and reinforced my interest in the subject. It's also worth pointing out that if you are in the process of building a family, this book is full of the kind of scientific background that will hold you in good stead as you examine options like genetic testing, in-vitro fertilization and the implications of family histories of disease.

I will levy only one direct criticism about this book. It tends to wander aimlessly toward the end. It is almost as if Mr. Watson couldn't decide how to end it, so he chose to do so multiple times. The result is a rather off-putting set of diatribes espousing the author's agnostic and highly utilitarian approach to the subject. (Incidentally, those of you on or near the religious right will find plenty of fodder here.) Not that I minded hearing the author's views, it's just that "I got it already."

However, this is a minor taint to an otherwise excellent book about the science and ethics of genetics. For you armchair scientists out there, I would put this one toward the top of the "to read" stack.

On reading into "DNA", I quickly realized that this was no mere
rehash, but a very cleanly written and highly readable survey of
genetics. Watson, who has the advantage of a central viewpoint
in the field, neatly weaves together a history of the field, a
technical explanation of it, an exploration of its business and
politics, and something like a professional autobiography.

The writing is outstandingly clear and even witty -- Watson comments
in an understated but clearly pleased fashion how another genetics
researcher named his Siamese cats "Watson" and "Crick". An educated
layperson, clearly the target audience for this book, could hardly
hope for a better introduction to the field, and a nonprofessional
would hardly need to know much more than it provides.

However, this is not saying this is an effortless read. Although by
no means resembling a textbook, "DNA" covers an enormous amount of
ground and range of concepts, and anybody who would claim that he
could pick it up in one reading from end to end is either a real
genius or, more likely, a fraud. My initial reading went cover to
cover and amounted to no more than a survey, to be followed up later
by an extensive session in note-taking.

* Having said all these things, there is a subtler aspect to this
book. In the initial chapters of "DNA", Watson mixed his history of
the early days of modern genetics with a discussion of the "eugenics"

movement, an effort to improve the human race by breeding up
desireables and (more to the point) breeding out undesireables.
Eugenics was weak science and strong racism.

That story was interesting, but I wondered if Watson had a
politically-correct agenda. Further reading showed this not to be the
case -- Watson sees the left-outfield politically correct crowd and
the right-outfield fundamentalist crowd as both obnoxious influences
in his field, and in fact he hardly sees them as being much different.

What emerges is that Watson has an "advocacy agenda". This is not to
say this is the sole focus of this work, it's just that genetics has
certain social and ethical implications that are so unavoidable that
they end up having to be discussed as part of a real survey of the
topic. Fetal genetic screening, for example, has immediate
implications relative to abortion rights, and of course human genetic
engineering is controversial on the face of it.

Watson has his views on such matters, laying out skeins of a general
argument about the social and ethical aspects of his work and then
tying them up in the relatively short final chapter. Of course, there
are weaknesses in his arguments -- for example, he blasts the
authorities for making decisions on a political and not a scientific
basis, which seems a bit silly. (A government organization makes
decisions on a political basis?! REALLY?! Gosh! Who knew?!). His
final argument also was the sort of thing that I wouldn't touch
myself, since long experience with Internet forums told me I would get
nothing out of it but a loud, mad, pointless barking contest.

I do not mock him, however. This is not really my battle but it is
clearly his, and if he seems to struggle with it, well, that's because
it's troublesome stuff. And I on the same wavelength with him in one
respect. He does not see the issues in terms of liberal and
conservative. He sees a clash of two beliefs.

The first belief is that anything that poses any potential public
hazard should be forbidden. The alternative is that people should be
free to do anything that does *not* pose a demonstrable public hazard.
The first belief is that of the control freaks of both left and right.
Watson believes the second and I am in the same camp.

He also does his advocacy the right way, stating his views carefully
and embedding them inside a powerful narrative of facts and details,
which lends them far more credibility than hollow assertions of
opinion. In fact, although Watson's views might infuriate extremists,
the book remains outstandingly informative even if his views are
disregarded. The willingness of the author to confront controversy
does not affect the fact that "DNA" is an excellent piece of science
writing.

* I did catch the author in an exceedly minor error that I point out
not to nitpick but because it's an amusing detail. In his list of
inherited dog traits, he refers to greyhounds as "twitchy".

I used to believe this myself, but there's an "adopt a race dog"
program in my locality, quite a few people around here have
greyhounds as pets -- and all report that the dogs are absolute
couch potatoes who take life easy when not actually chasing
something. On consideration, this is the ideal behavior pattern
for an animal that spends much of its life in a kennel, and an
impressive example of the power of controlled breeding. I think
they just *look* high-strung.

And I suppose while I'm at it, I might add another interesting
inherited dog behavior pattern that wasn't mentioned in "DNA" -- how a
Rottweiler will come up alongside you and give you a small but
powerful sideways NUDGE that will literally throw you for a loop if
you're not expecting it. I was surprised by this when I first ran
into it, but it turns out to be an instinctive herding behavior.

She is just unbelievable, and that's all there is to it.

My own personal favorite Tiptree story is "The Screwfly Solution." In this story a sort of psychological plague has broken out in various parts of the world where men are murdering women wholesale. Tiptree introduces us to (and makes us care about) one particular family. In 21 pulse-pounding pages Tiptree gives us the stunning macro-story of the fate of humanity in the face of this terrifying "plague," along with the heart-wrenching micro-story of its effect on one family. It is a masterpiece of economical storytelling, and no SF story has an ending which packs a bigger wallop.

My (close) second favorite story in the book is "A Momentary Taste of Being." In his introduction to the book, John Clute writes of this story: "...word-perfect over its great length, and almost unbearably dark in the detail and momentum of the revelation of its premise...[it] may be the finest densest most driven novella yet published in the [science fiction] field." I can tell you it is my all-time favorite novella. The story concerns a space mission, a desperate attempt by humanity to find a habitable planet (for colonization) to relieve some pressure from a horrendously overpopulated and polluted Earth. The pressure in the story just builds and builds to a climax as intense as any you are likely to experience in fiction.

I think "Love is the Plan the Plan is Death," a story of alien love, is a one-of-a-kind masterpiece of style. Not everybody agrees. Gardner Dozois in his excellent and mostly laudatory essay, "The Fiction of James Tiptree, Jr.," writes of this story: "I can never read [its] galumphing, ungrammatical, childishly-rapturous narration without hearing it in the accents of the Cookie Monster...." Tiptree herself, in typical self-depreciating fashion, described it as being written in "the style of 1920 porno." I think the highly unusual style helps us understand and feel the true alien-ness of the viewpoint character, and I believed totally while I was reading. As John Clute writes, "...[it] has a juggernaut drive, a consuming melancholy of iron, a premise the author never backed away from...."

In "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" three astronauts return from a trip around the sun only to find they have somehow been transported hundreds of years into the future. What they find in the future, and more important, how they react to what they find there, constitutes the most powerful story I've ever read dealing with the gulf between the sexes.

In "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" a horribly-deformed young woman gets a chance at a happy life. This is another story with an unusual narrative style, and frankly, when I first read this story over two decades ago, I found it a bit disconcerting. It works for me now, though. This is a heartbreaking story, fiercely told.

One caution is that I would encourage you to read the stories in the book before reading John Clute's introduction, as Clute gives away some of the story endings in his introduction. And surprise endings are not uncommon in Tiptree stories. I am not talking about gimmicky, meaningless surprises, there for the sake of having a surprise. Tiptree's surprises often ENLARGE her stories, altering the meaning of what has gone before, increasing their power to move us. The book gets my most passionate recommendation.

I have used the cards in story telling and to direct skits, with first graders, highschool students and college students, at resident camp and parties. They are always fun, I only wish there were more decks to choose from!

This game is also great for the classroom where children can learn about the elements of a story including events, characters, endings, etc. There are many ways to play and learn.

An interesting positivist take on the war--also interesting how politically conscious Kidd appears to have been. My general observation is that the Northern accounts seem to be more politicized, more likely to talk about politicians and political beliefs, than Southern.

Kidd started the war as captain of Troop E, 6th Michigan Cavalry, and ended up in command of the regiment. He spends a lot of time discussing recruiting and training, details fighting at Gettysburg and Williamsport, Trevilian Station, Third Winchester, et cetera. Kidd's admiration for Custer, his brigadier, is clear.

A useful account, but not an especially anecdotal or vivid one.

Be warned that none are simple to make, though instructions are well laid out for those with baking experienced. I've especially liked the carrot and lemon cakes, so far.

Still, this book is fully deserving of the perhaps too-often-ascribed label "page turner." You'll be able to put it down, of course, but you won't want to. You'll want to keep going, even if your head is swimming with factoids, innuendo, inside information, and some of the best tossed-off stories of famous people behaving badly. All the "dirt" aside, though, it's the more positive stuff I really relish about this book--the good stuff about Gilda, John, and the rest. There are some nice tributes here, and they really shine.

Of course, if you're a huge fan of Chevy Chase, you might avoid this book, because, as others have said, he gets torn apart pretty well here. To his credit, he admits that he's been a jerk in the past, but still, from year one to now, he's been reviled by most of the cast. For me, I'm still a fan of his work, but I don't think I want to be in a cast meeting with him. With all the stories, positive and negative, it comes down to who you're going to believe. For the most part, the editors let you decide, and haven't seemed to make a decision for you. And in the end, as I said, it won't matter. It's still a good, solid read.

Fortunately, this is one book that matched the hype . . . and
the subtitle: AN UNCENSORED HISTORY OF SATURDAY
NIGHT LIVE . . . Shales (long one of my favorite TV critics
that I only regret that I can't read more often because his
column is not run in my local paper) and Miller bring
together stars, writers, guest hosts, and contributors for
the first-ever oral history of the program . . . they trace
it from 1974, when it was just an idea, through 2002, when
it has long become an institution.

Mike Myers, Chris Rock, Bill Murray, Tom Hanks, Adam Sandler,
Billy Crystal, Dan Aykroyd, Steve Martin, and Paul Simon were just a partial listing of the stars interviewed . . . writers Al Franken, Conan O'Brien and Larry David were also brought into the project.

Lorne Michaels, executive producer of the show, was interviewed
as well . . . in my ways, this is his story . . . I'm just
glad that he was never my boss . . . he comes across as
one tough cookie that lives and breathes his work, often with
little regard for his or anybody else's personal life.

A fair amount of "dirt" is presented (e.g., on John Belushi), but it seems to have been presented objectively . . . there's a great collection of pictures (do I ever miss Gilda Radner!) . . . and it left me wanting what will hopefully be a follow-up book that will profile the many music guests that have appeared.

There were many memorable passages; among them:
Lorne Michaels:
I had to shoot Ford saying "Live from New York" and "I'm Gerald Ford and you're not" for the show. And I suddenly find myself in the Oval Office, and it's just me, the president, and this little crew. There's security too, I'm sure. And Ford does it, but the line reading is wrong,and I realized that it's just the same as working with anybody else and getting them to relax and do the line properly to camera. We'd done two or three takes, and to relax him, I said to him--my sense of humor
at the time--"Mr. President, if this works out, who knows where it will lead?" Which was completely lost of him.

John Landis:
I've seen this attributed to John Lennon, but I know Michael O'Donoghue said it, because I was there when we heard Elvis died. My secretary came in and she said, "Elvis is dead," and Michael O'Donoghue said, "Good career move."

Elliot Gould:
Gilda became a very close friend of mine. She was the greatest. Just the most lovely and sensitive human being you could imagine. Gilda told me that when she couldn't sleep, she would order food at about two or three in the morning, and she was so bulimic she would order enough for six or seven people, even though it was just her alone. And then when the delivery guy came and rang the bell, she would say, "The food's here!
The food's here!"

Yet the book is quite entertaining, and leads us down a literary road of sharp turns. Essentially we are trying to find a killer who has discovered a new angle in the serial killer profession which is offing newlyweds.. Lindsay Boxer, San Francisco detective, (no relation to Barbara) forms a women's murder club to help her solve the crime.

The first strain on our credulity comes when we view the membership list of this club. Would a detective, prosecutor, and medical examiner really welcome a newspaper reporter to their small clique? I have my doubts.

Then there are Mr. Patterson's mental lapses. Suppose you are a typical serial killer who has rented a limousine to be used as a setting for your next job. You take your chosen twosome out to a lonely area, stop the car, and then turn around and shoot them while they are blissfully trying to make children in the back seat. Finally you wash out the car, and return it to the rental agency, pleased that no one will guess what you used the limo for. Well if I worked at the agency I would be a bit puzzled at the bullet holes in the back seat, and the exterior of the car where the missiles probably exited. Then there's the Medical Examiner who feels surprised that a groom wet his pants at his execution. After dealing with dead bodies for years she evidently doesn't realize that when a person dies those two little lower body sphincters relax. This would be trivial carping if weren't that this bodily fluid plays a role in the story. There's more, but what the heck.

As I said above it's an entertaining book with the added feature of extremely short chapters. If you don't like to put a book down until you reach the end of a chapter, you will find that that opportunity comes up every three minutes. Wary of reading long, 500 page books? Not to worry. There is so much blank space in this novel that you will finish it in record time.

James Patterson is a skilled mystery writer, and he writes very well in the feminine first-person voice. His heroine is very convincing. He portrays her as a strong-willed, successful woman struggling to the top in a male-dominated world--an inspector sergeant in the San Francisco Police Department--while maintaining definite feminine characteristics and underlying character.

Lindsey Boxer, the chief protagonist, has run up against a serial sex killer who specializes in young newly-wed married couples, while at the same time she is diagnosed with Negli's aplastic anemia, a serious, life-threatening disease.

She is joined in her struggle to identify the killer by an old friend, Claire, the female Chief Medical Examiner in the coroner's office, who is black and in shape. "Round is a shape," she says. Her other confidant is a reporter on the Chronicle, also a young woman, named Cindy, who also on her way up in a demanding, competitive environment, and joining them later is Jill, an assistant D.A.

Together, they form a Girl's Murder Club, each contributing something to the solution.

This is a good yarn, and it will hold you spellbound for a few hours.

Joseph H Pierre

James Patterson rejuvenates the reader with his style and a new heroine - the plot twistings and trademark short and punchy chapters makes 1st to Die a gripping and fast read; his deft characterization and emotionally charged portrayal of Lindsay Boxer is harrowing and haunting. He is in fact at his peak after Jack and Jill with this offering - the mystery enshrouding keeps readers guessing and raveling the pattern behind the serial killing from the bridal shops to the missing rings and the unexpected twist towards the end.

Patterson shows an observant eye and exceptional empathy towards Lindsay and is surprisingly naunced at capturing a woman's trials of life. Her newfound romance manifested in Chris Raleigh , her partner and entanglements injects grit and reality in the lives of homicide detectives. A fleeting shadow of Kay Scarpetta - but with juicier storyline, 1st to Die stands on its own. 1st to Die is uncompromisingly riveting and suspenseful - kudos to Patterson's consummate narration.