Somewhere there must be a gay writer who can combine escapism sex with a PLOT. He sure is not Paul Alexander. The storyline is there in theory: journalist Nathan Dexter goes undercover in the London Leatherscene to expose a slavery ring. He falls in love with a handsome young student who may be out to betray him. LOADS (ahem) of opportunity for rollicking sex and rollicking adventure. All we get is the sex, and after awhile it gets boring. It gets numbing, in fact. Mr. Publisher, I don't need to buy a book for this kind of reading experience, I can get these cheap thrills from magazines.

Okay, let me first point out that I ALMOST didn't buy this book, based solely on the review given here. Looking back on that moment of indecision, I shudder at the thought that I may have missed out on a great book for absolutely no reason other than a bad review. To be perfectly honest, I have to wonder if the other reviewer and I actually read the same book. Based on their comments, I have serious doubts that that is the case. I found the writing to be clear and concise, the plot (yes it actually has one) to be interesting, and the reading experience as a whole to be incredibly worthwhile. Had I not read this book, I would, quite simply, have missed out on one of the better books in this genre. Now, maybe it seems as though I'm according too much to what is essentially a book of gay porn writing. Maybe I am. But ultimately I found this book to be just as enjoyable to read as any number of books of varying themes. A solid read, and especially good if you're looking for more than just a cheap thrill. I can hardly wait to start into the second and third parts.

If you are interested by Domination/Submission or SM, forget this book. If you like stories of private eyes intermingled with sex, rather try the series of novels with the character Alex Kane of John Preston.

For a first glimpse into the 'Idol' world of homo-erotica this book could be seen as a must. Although a sequal (to Chains of Deceit) the reader loses nothing from missing the first novel.

Although the ending is slightly disappointing the levels and variations on the sexual scenes should more than make up for it.

I read the entire novel in one train journey, and bought another from the series for my return.

Fans of John McCain who want to know about the senator's life history will not be too disappointed. It's all there, from his childhood through his military service through his ascendancy to the national spotlight.
Unfortunately, the book is sloppily written and edited. Alexander repeats himself quite often, and he relies too much on long-winded quotes from other sources. Further, the editing leaves a lot to be desired. Phrases like "centered around," as opposed to the correct "centered on" are commonplace and distracting. Alexander's magazine pieces are much better, which leads me to believe this work suffers from poor editing more than the pedestrian prose.

This is a reasonably good resource for MSP guidelines. However, since it was published in 1996 Medicare rules have changed and it is not completely reliable as a resource.

Paul Alexander has accomplished a stunning feat of embodying the antithesis to Holden's ideals. The protagonist of _Salinger: A Biography_ - Paul Alexander himself - shows masterfully that not only can a fictional character exist who hates all phonies, but that the perfect journalistic phony can also strike back with a story about the creator of the phonies-hater. Quite fittingly,in its closing lines the "biography" introduces its phony neologism: "acturally" [sic].

Usually, when I am about to write a review here, and I see
that others have made points I intend to make, I just forget
it. But it seems most appropriate for the point to be repeated
that this book is horrendous, syllable by syllable. Another writer says it shouldn't have been published, and that's a shrewd and exacting assessment. If not for the fact that the sense of debasement that such a master as Salinger suffers if palpable, there's also the issue of editorial scruples: doesn't this publishing house employ editors? Yes, Alexander's prose is poor (why did someone give him an MFA?). But it also includes grammatical mistakes and basic flaws in thinking and logic. Some sentences are repeated, a clear editing snaffoo. He often draws inferences that are unfounded or remarks on some coincidence or set of circumstances that he deems titillating or telling when these can be so easily dismissed.
The main problem is Alexander's infantile way of setting up a
simple dichotomy: Salinger either is a recluse at heart or
is trying to maintain prestige and import by remaining hidden. Is there nothing in between? Are people sure of their own motivations. Ultimately, the idea of thirty years of isolation as publicity stunt is hopelessly naive and insipid. It doesn't make sense and it looks at a man with a mind as great as Salinger's in an untenable fashion.
Also, there's the story of a newspaper article a girl published in a daily paper after telling S. it was for a school paper. This is a rumor, and Alexander's source is simply another magazine feature. This is one cardinal example of the flaw in writing a biography without doing research. Yes, Salinger is a tough ticket, but why didn't Alexander check out this story with those who knew S. at the time, the girl in question (if possible), the daily paper, etc? Instead, he's content to pass off this simple story as gospel on the word of an apparently ill-researched magazine piece.
Finally, a word on the story "Teddy." (Incidentally, I think Alexander's butchering of "Just Before the War With the Eskimos" is the most egregious of the bunch, with fierce competition.) When I first read the story, I, as Alexander did, thought that Teddy had killed his sister, because of the female scream. Many feel it is ambiguous. Alexander is at fault, not as much for his interpretation, but not for entertaining any others. However, I do think it's clear enough Teddy killed himself. That's where the story is heading. Also, earlier in the story, Teddy writes in his journal "it could be today or..." and then he lists a date several years later when he'd be sixteen.Later,
in a conversation with his college-aged companion, he says that he has told professors certain dates on which they should be careful because they could be in danger of losing their lives. So it seems the "it" referred to in the journal, not explained elsewhere, could be his death.
Well, alas, Salinger could be partly to blame. If you try too hard to keep biographies from being published, the publishing world becomes so greedy that any incompetent can sell one. It's too bad such a fascinating man has been degraded in this way.

Paul Alexander pulls together what seems an accurate timeline of Salinger's life. Salinger is a legendary recluse and seriously uptight about leaking any personal information. A biography without his cooperation is inherently non-conclusive and hardly in-depth.

****A basic profile, however, still provides some interest. Alexander documents that Salinger was not a good student in his youth. His instructors evaluate him as having potential but no genius I.Q. or motivation. His ambition to write doesn't surface until he is almost in college.

****In World War II, Salinger serves in the Army, participating in D-Day and marching into Paris after Allied liberation. This is a particularly significant time for Salinger psychologically and in his writing. It's at this time that he develops "Catcher in the Rye". One can see where Holden's exhaustion, confusion, and melancholy come from. In large part, it's the war-weary Salinger channeled through.

****If Salinger is an autobiographical writer and we consider hints given in the Glass family chronicles like "Seymour: An Intro", then Salinger is a professor-figure who wants to cross the street whenever inquisitive, eager students approach. He believes there are no truly interesting questions anyone can ask him -- at least not so imperative as to justify disturbing his reclusivity.

****To be fair, answering all the fans (and fanatics) would be an overwhelming endeavor -- probably much like the circus that surrounds J.K. Rowling on book tours. Salinger is, in a sense, a lone Beatle. There's no confidante to understand what his celebrity is like.

****I'm guessing Salinger was himself a fan of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. It would be rather appropriate since its creator, Bill Waterson, also retreated from the public despite phenomenal success. And as much as Salinger refuses to publish anymore, you'd like to imagine that he has access to the internet and that he's given some thought (if not contributed) to the anonymous "instant publication" happening on the world wide web.

I had high hopes for this book, but was a little disappointed. I bought conspiracy x, expecting great stuff, and it met with my expectations. Cryptozoolgy didn't. First, it's set up with information divided into two parts: the gamers information, and the GM's information. the result is that you have to look in two different areas for information on different "supernatural creatures". Most of the regular freaks of nature are covered--Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, etc. I was pleased to see a few others like the Mokole. The writing is a lot more pendantic than I'd like--but that may be a direct result from being written in character, where teh character is old, stuffy, and bombastically long-winded. If your game will run into a supernatural creature, it might be worth checking this beek out. If not, I wouldn't bother.