HRH fans - stay away! This is a very, very poor book, with no additional revelations about The Man. This is an exercise in fawning. Skip it, and wait for the HRH movies that rumor has in development at several Hollywood studios.

This book has come under heavy criticism for not covering any new ground (both authors have written about Howard Hughes before). That may be so (the large biblography indicates the extent to which Hughes life and death has already been dissected). However, outside of America there is less of an obsession with Hughes; so if this is the first book you have read on the subject (as is the case with this reviewer), it is actually pretty entertaining - and that is how it should be read: as entertainment rather than heavy-duty information.

Phelan and Chester, after giving a reprise of Hughes' life and death, plunge into an analysis of the chaos he left behind: no will, not much idea of how much money was in the estate, no list of assets, not even a clear place of legal residence. The person press-ganged into the role of fireman was William Lummis, a lawyer and cousin of Hughes.

In ways that only Americans can manage, the determinaton and settlement of Hughes' estate was the subject of an avalanche of litigation and bizarre claims, as a parade of fake wills and fake relatives appeared and then were removed from the stage by a large hook. In fact, the outright looniness of some of these claims makes for the most entertaining aspect of the book, although they were perhaps not much stranger than Hughes' own life.

Lummis gradually managed to consolidate the estate: the last big struggle was with the IRS. The estate (under a billion dollars; the figure varied depending on how and when it was calculated) was eventually divided amongst Hughes retainers and employees, his relatives, and the bulk (after tax) going to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The HHMI had been set up as an elaborate tax dodge, but it eventually managed to rebuild itself as a genuine philanthropic and research organisation. So Hughes (as one commentator noted) did leave a useful legacy after all - but probably not what he expected.

This book might not add much to the pool of knowledge about Hughes, but for those to whom the subject! is fairly new ground, The Money is a pretty good read.

This was the text book for my Cognition class at Rutgers University. It's not organized very well, and is extremely confusing. There are frequent spelling and grammar mistakes, and Glass often makes up his own words, which is laughable at times. Glass obviously has a lot of knowledge about Cognitive Psychology, and a little more attention to the flow of paragraphs would make all the difference. Not to mention a good editor.

This book is a pretty straight forward and easy to carry in lab coats during calls on pediatric floor.The author tried to incorporate most of the common problems faced by the house officer on the call. The organization of priorities and therapy is excellent.The only negative aspect is that it does not replace any textbooks or manuals in pediatrics; one has to read other books for individual diseases and their management. Overall it is absolutely worth it's price and useful for junior pediatricians

James Lundquist's vision of Sinclair Lewis is of a discontented popular author who wanted to be nothing more than accepted by his peers. Instead, Lewis found himself an outcast from the literary giants of his day for the mere fact that he was a best-selling author.

Sinclair Lewis is one of my favorite twentieth century novelists. Lundquist does little justice to the man's life and even less to his art.

Most people who know of Lewis know that he was a heavy drinker and a man unsatisfied with most things around him. He has been described as rebellious, cantankerous, and misanthropic. I think that this view of Lewis is sharpened by the content of his more famous novels. His better known books are satirical works which cast aspersions on all manner of American life. From reading Lewis's works though, I think those aspersions are cast not so much because of what America stands for, but because of how often reality comes up short against the ideal.

Lundquist's biography of Lewis fails to bring out any description of what drove Lewis in his art. Lundquist describes him as a hard worker and someone who loved to write; but, that can be said about almost any successful author.

I will give Lundquist credit though for exploring more than just Lewis's better known books. He even delves into the work that Lewis did as an essayist and journalist when he wasn't writing novels.

There are few authors who are as interesting of a subject as Sinclair Lewis. Lundquist only partially succeeds in capturing the essence of what makes Lewis so interesting. A more extensive effort may have done so; but, I give Lundquist marks for at least trying.

I liked it, yes, but, I liked "Hollywood Lesbians" a bit better. It is a wonderful premise, talking to stars about their homosexuality, but, I believe that it should not have been written unless it was a bit more revealing in it's topic. Kudos to Mr. Hadleigh who is a knowledgable writer. I would have liked to know more though (a lot was hidden even still. the reader is told this. that right there gave me a sign that all is not right with this book).

Books like The Celluloid Closet and Hollywood Babylon abound with rumors about the sexual appetites of Hollywood stars. Boze Hadleigh's Gays in Hollywood, however, seeks to provide first-hand reports. An entertainment journalist since the 1960's, Hadleigh conducted volumes of off-the-record interviews with celebrities reputed to be gay or bisexual such as Cary Grant, Paul Lynde and Anthony Perkins, as well as less well-remembered actors like Randolph Scott and William Haines. In these interviews, often given only with the understanding that they would not be published during the star's life, Hadleigh attempts to get normally secretive actors to speak about their guarded sexual lives. The results vary widely, but even the "unsuccessful" interviews can be fascinating. Some stars like Paul Lynde, James Coco and Cesar Romero, speak freely and provide valuable accounts of what it was like to be gay in an industry filled with double lives and convenience marriages. Others like Cary Grant and Anthony Perkins are more elusive, but not without revelations about co-workers and peers. And one in particular is not so kind: at the end of his interview, an exceptionally ruffled Liberace expels Hadleigh from his mansion with imperial fury. Like his earlier volumes Conversations With My Elders and Lesbians in Hollywood, Hadleigh's work is somewhat journalistically suspect. He claims that for most of these interviews, he was not allowed to tape record or take notes, and frequently the questions seems stiltedly reconstructed and retroactively self-righteous. Still, the interviews are highly entertaining and provide an important alternative view of the film industry's social history. Recommended for both general readers and scholars of gay history / film studies.

Many reviewers seem quite upset by Grant's "out-ing," but if he wasn't at least bisexual, then PLEASE let me know why he lived with Randolph Scott--rather than his wives--throughout all five of his marriages (Only one of which lasted more than 5 years). He shared a house with his (male) lover fom 1933, a year before his first marriage, until his death in 1986--most straight pairings don't last that long--his didn't! And, while you're at it, explain photos of the two topless men hanging all over each other by their swimming pool. Being gay was as much of a career-booster as being communist in his Hollywood. There's a reason the man has two Oscars....

Sociologist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi described Lewis' work as "a travesty of research." Indeed, it is not hard to see why James R. Lewis is known as a cult apologist (defender). A simple internet search provides a wealth of documentation.

An additional buyer-beware: this book does not contain new material. All chapters are drawn from Lewis' previous works, and the material does not appear to have been updated.

Especially those in the U.S.A. Although most chapters are by no means all inclusive, they offer a good source of basic information relating to the founding and general beliefs of each group. The information is presented in an unbiased way (this is the first comprehensive guide to small religious groups and "cults" not done by a christian group), and includes information on the legal boundaries of religion in the US of A, as well as some past cases involving the exercise of religious freedoms. Most of the book goes over the means and methods of various sundry religious movements, such as the Children of God, American Sikhs, Hebrew Israelites, and so on.

This book will make a good addition to any school or library collection, especially since it is not Selling any particular brand of faith, but simply presenting information and allowing the reader to draw conclusions. Anyone with an interest in religion, mind control, sociology or psychology should appreciate the interesting information herein!