I also may be partial to Dr. Dixon's book because he has counseled our family through some very difficult times. However, I have found that by taking Dr. Dixon's advice, it has become so much easier to communicate with,understand,and relate to,my son.I strongly recommend this book to all parents--It will definitely help in the most important job of all--parenting your children.Thanks, for all your help Dr. Dixon!

I wish i had discovered unemotional parenting along time ago. Putting Parents in charge teaches you how to disciple with alot less stress. As a mother of 3 teenages i was always on an emotional rollercoster. My inconsistancies allowed them to renegotiate any punishments. Now by making contracts ahead of time allows them to learn that they make the choices and the consequences. It is never too late to get to know your child and teach them responsiblity.

Excellent book Dr. Dixon. I see myself and my family on almost every page. This has helped me take charge of my kids by putting my parenting energy before they act out, not after they do. My kids have responded so positively to your parenting philosophy,, we have cut down on the struggles a hundred fold,,, Thank you,, A must read for all parents

The stories in Stephen Dixon's most recent collection drop the reader into the middle of the action with the opening lines. Here is a writer that creates a whole scenario with a few choice exchanges of dialogue or descriptions and involves the reader effectively. The conflicts are realistic, the tension convincing, yet ordinary. The charecters are diverse, although all have a certain humanity, which the author exposes without being perverse.

this is a decent book. ok. i mean, its alright, i just dont want to go overboard. started it. read it some, got going, got a little bored. intriqued, is that how you spell that word? not that you know what word i mean if it's misspelled. or maybe you do. anyway, got reading this book, thought of gass or maybe a cross between gass and saunders, not that that is necessarily applicable because the tunnel was after this book and so is saunders but gass started the tunnel a long time ago but who knows when dixon started this but probably not that long ago but usually when talking about comparisons one would mention(one?) the publishing or is it published date. the date it was published. that's what you'd mention. no you, per se, but maybe me. or maybe you, who knows?
anyway, its certainly a nice quick-to-read book, kinda wished it were shorter, not because i hate length, heck i love proust(nice name-dropping there) but because much of it bored me. some of it funny. some parts funny, yes. much of it seemed to me written on the cuff and not as easily edited if edited at all but no insult intended to the author. decent book. decent book that i read and i thought of other authors and said maybe he is like those other authors. maybe he is like them even though he is like himself although the two are not exclusive or whatever. maybe. actually 3.5 stars i guess dunno.

this is the only dixon book I have read, but I will certainly be reading others. At times this book shows its debt to joyce, but certainly not in a way that distracts from its overall beauty. it is hard to write after joyce and still come off as relevant. it seems one of the best ways to live in Joyce's shadow is to acknowledge it and then sit beneath it - telling stories that work because of their simple beauty and humanity rather than their status as opuses or classics (which Joyce's are).

dixon's greatest innovation in this book is his ability to capture the workings of the imagination and its power over the human experience as a whole. he reels off possibility after possibility in hypnotic sucession, leaving the reader wondering what actually took place. There is a chapter, "Frog fears" which alone justifies Dixon's technique, which I've seen described as pretentious. The act of writing a book is pretentious to begin with, and so is every choice of word and action which must be made by the author. The results justify what is done, and in this chapter fear is captured almost perfectly.

this story is very human. it deals with the human experience with compassion, and it feels very good to read.

What to say? This book will come to be revered by scholars in the same way Joyce's works are. It is a big, complex book, not for the average reader. Plot, piled upon plot, piled upon subplot may make this book seem directionless. Dixon doesn't offer us anyway easy out, never brings things to a neat close. There are more loose ends than answers, and some scenes are downright puzzling (for example: the concentration camp scene). The main character himself seems amorphous (or polymorphous??) Dixon seems to sort of "super-impose" him onto other characters... if that makes any sense. It is easy to become disoriented, as chapters veer between past, future and present, the names and specifics of characters subject to change. For me, it was worth the challenge. When Dixon get rolling with is extreme-stream-of-though stylings, it reads like nothing else ever written. Certainly one of the 5 best novels of the 90's. Unfortunately, not many people have heard of this book or read it. You won't find it on many syllabi, which is tragic. I'd like to contact other people who are enthusiastic about this book and discuss it. As I said, I'm still really puzzled and troubled by the concentration camp bits, and I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts. Great novels shoudl inspire great dicsussions.

"30 Ten-Minute Plays for 3 Actors from Actors Theatre of Louisville's National Ten-Minute Play Contest" is edited by Michael Bigelow Dixon, Amy Wegener, and Stephen Moulds. The book is part of a trio of anthologies of 10-minute plays; one of the other anthologies collects plays for 2 actors, and the third collects plays for 4, 5, or 6 actors.

This volume begins with a short introduction that discusses the 10-minute play as a genre. The plays in this anthology are further subdivided into 5 categories: plays for 3 men (3 plays), plays for 3 women (6), plays for 2 men and 1 woman (9), plays for 2 women and 1 man (11), and finally, a single play with gender variability.

As a group these plays demonstrate a variety of dramatic techniques and have a diverse assortment of different characters. The plays deal with many different issues: gender relations, ethnic and national identity, violence, ethics, socioeconomic issues, loss, love, superstition, and more. A few of my favorite plays in this book are as follows:

"Tango Delta," by Jeffrey Hatcher: about 3 secret service agents on a rooftop mission. "Eating Out," by Marcia Dixcy: 3 women talk about their eating disorders. "Sunday Go to Meetin'," by Shirley Lauro: A Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrant girl experiences a cultural clash in 1905. "Cover," by Jeffrey Sweet: explores the ethics of lying. "Lunchtime," by Rob Marcato: about a tense encounter in a public eating area. And "Arabian Nights," by David Ives: an absurdist comedy about language and interpretation.

This is an impressive collection. My only complaint is that there are no author bios (although the brief overall intro notes that these plays are written by American playwrights). A brief sentence or two about each contributor would have, in my opinion, added both interest and educational value to the anthology. Still, it's an excellent volume in a fine trilogy of anthologies.

Three fine books in the Smith & Kraus '30 10-Minutes Plays' series by Michael Dixon, et.al. present winners from the Actors Theatre of Louisville's national 'ten-minute play' contest, provide aspiring students and dramatists with a wide range of plays. These three volumes are divided into plays for 3 Actors (1-57525-278-3), 2 Actors (277-5) and 4, 5 & 6 Actors (279-1). Characters, settings, and details on obtaining performance rights accompany each sketch.

I found this book to be a trial to read and not worth the effort. I read the first 550 pages or so, hoping for some point to the book, but could not bring myself to finish it. The chapter-long paragraphs are exhausting and tedious. For example, one chapter describes how the main character, Gould Bookbinder, loses all the items he usually keeps in his pockets. First, he searches for his keys and we hear in detail about every place that he searches for them and why he searches there. Then, he realizes he has lost his pen, and we go through the whole process over again. Then he's lost his glasses and we search yet again. Then again for his memo book. And then for the checkbook, and on and on. Some may find this attention to detail interesting. Spare me. I realize that literary critics and book reviewers have described this book in glowing terms, but I have to disagree. I am an intelligent person and I love to read, but I feel that this was a waste of my time. If you must, read the first few chapters, but don't expect it to get any better from there.

An impressive and outstanding novel. Dixon is the direct descendant of Joyce and Faulkner tinged with his own modern day 'end of cycle' vision of the middle aged man in the West. Thorough craftsmanship, tremendous empathy with human follies and strengths and great humour. And a damn sight easier reading than Gaddis (who is still greater I think). For those who take pot shots at Dixon, they should remember that they are only displaying their ignorance and inability to understand true fiction. For what is fiction and the art of story telling is what Dixon is all about.

For 24 years now, we have loved and published many of Steve Dixon's stories. Thirteen, to be exact. And in our upcoming SQ Issue,#35, we're doing it again. Celebrate with us. Anne Brashler and Marie Hayes, co-editors of StoryQuarterly.

It's obvious that the reviewer from Helmet, AZ hasn't read the book. He (or she) doesn't mention anything remotely cogent about this novel in particular. It's understandable that he doesn't like Dixon's writing in general, but to slander a writer's new work purely based on personal hatred seems plain wrong.

That being said, the novel "I" is a remarkably entertaining and funny book. Although the subject matter is alarming, and sometimes grim, Dixon's way of telling of the story always shines with wit. I very much recommend it.

Dixon doest it again. One of his best books ("Frog" and the amazing "Interstate" are the others, I guess, but anything by Dixon is something special). A modern writer who has been modern since decades and will be modern in ages. So are the true classics. Pure talent and good proof that you can be clever and moving in the same sentence.

From the cover to the last page, I. is a terrific book. I've read a few of Stephen Dixon's novels. Some I liked very much and others I respected but struggled to finish. This one may be the most affecting of them all, and it's also a pleasure to read. The emotions are rich and varied. The 'stories' are engrossing for the most part, and the overall impact of them as the book progresses is sneaky, powerful, and sad. The final piece truly is heartbreaking and lovely. Lastly, I must say that the McSweeney's m.o. of tricky storytelling and wacky narratives rarely appeals to me. I was surprised to see that Dixon took his book to them. But by the end of I., I knew why he published with them and why they took it: Dixon really presents the 'uncertain' narrative in a way that is incredibly human and that justifies the use of these techniques. All in all, I. may be Dixon's best book yet and it was certainly a good publishing move for McSweeney's to make. Clowes' cover is great, too.

Fast-paced, panicky, comic, stressful, insufferable, and not without moments of grace. On page one, the narrator, a barkeep, is approached by thugs who want to pressure him into using their mob-controlled garbage service. The story progresses from there. The story is told in a matter-of-fact style by a narrator who defines resilience and individuality. A book of desperation but also of hope for the human spirit.

Gould is great as far as character development, et al. But what becomes apparent is the soullessness of the main character. If I want soullessness, I'll read She's Come Undone. Still, though, Dixon's the man. I think he should do something really experimental and, just one time, come up with a new form. This novel would've benefitted greatly from a more conventional structure.

This book is stupid. The idea of the book is okay but the acutal text is horrid. Its a long boring book i wouldnt want anyone to read.

Dixon's INTERSTATE is an intersting read...a novel that held my interest even though I didn't think it could. Confusing at first, but soon finds it's own rhythm, and begins to work on a complete unique path of logic. The first work of Dixon's I've read, I will probably attempt to read the masive FROG, based on the weird strength and twisted characterization found in INTERSTATE.

dixon is a one-in-a-kind writer. a friend pointed out to me: he's either doing something radical or just doing something no other writer wants to do. so love him or hate him, he's the type who doesn't give a damn. this book, like most of his other novels, could be quite torturous to read, but the reader will find it rewarding upon finish reading it.