The information is presented in a sequential format and is easily understood until the last couple of paragraphs of each case where the authors give their opinion of the court's ruling. It is difficult to understand what the courts actually decided. I often found myself wishing there would be a simple statement giving the final verdict. It is a good read until the ambiguous verdict, than frustration sets in.

This book is a great compilation of the story of a young Indianboy who grows up to learn the traditions of his family. It was veryinformative and a great read. It would also be beneficial for people intereted in Native American history or just those wanting to read a good novel.

I have not read a David Alexander novel in a very long time, and reading this 1st novel of this series reminded me why.
Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. Alexander is a very good writer and knows his stuff on weaponry and gadgets, but his downfall is characterization!
I didn't get to know anyone except the leader of the special forces unit named Saxon and a couple of the spetsnaz bad guys. And I didn't care much for any of them!!
The Russian soldier named Batalin was the most promoted here. I got to know what made him tick much more than the lead character here. Saxon was written as a dead-beat dad which seemed rather unsavory to me. No other member of this special team stood out or was introduced as anything other than a soldier.
This lack of depth made the book lackluster to me because when people died - I didn't care! There was no feeling here for any characters, none were really given much in the way of 'real-like people'.
C'mon Mr. Alexander - you have more knowledge of missiles and all the gadgets than you do your characters. This flaw made for a stiff read. The action and adventure was there and written quite well, but lacked the force of other writers in this field such as James V. Smith.
In my estimation, Mr. Smith's FORCE RECON series is far superior in both of these areas that Mr. Alexander missed upon.
But I believe in 2nd chances. I still think that the other novels in this series could perhaps be better.
Who know? But I'll let you know!

This book is too expensive for the contents. The book covers why women strip in clubs, then it goes on through many chapters of explanations, but in the end it tells us that it's because they make good money and fast. The book goes on to explain a strippers percetion of her job, then it goes on to tell us that strippers go through greatlengths to justify what they do and how they blame society, x-relationships, family and others, but never themselves. The book goes through many interviews, all of which are very much common and related. A good girl strips to finance her education, to support her children after her man leaves her or to support a drug habit. Or the most common, but not admitted, just for the money. This good is well written, but the story about all these stippers are all the same in this book and on every television review or movie. I wish this book would have covered something new, useful or insightful.

The interviews were a little interesting, the book was well written and structured, however it does not discuss the relationship of prostitution to stripping, pervasive influence of government and/or organized crime nor the long term effects such exploitive use of a strippers beauty may have had on their relationships since. The concept seems to need a little more in-depth exploration. I also felt that the critical, feministic theory is limited to only a few paragraphs and it should have been covered more thoroughly. I don't think this book does much to challenge a persons preconceptions or prejudices.

Pornography and adult entertainment has truely grown within the last few years. Everything is pretty much accepted, so it's no surprise that more and more books are being written on topics such as these. My problem with this boko and many like it, is that they're all written along the same lines. There are hundreds of strip-clubs throughout the United States, Mexico and Canada. This book covers interviews with strippers to find out why they strip and how they feel about it. All the answers are the same, too bad. It should cover interviews on the men that visit these clubs. Why do they visit these clubs, what do they think about the strippers, how much are they willing to spend, etc. Since all these stripper books are the same, I was hoping someone would cover interviews with the patrons instead of the stripers. Overall, this book was not worth reading.

While trying to be educational, it seems that these stories have been overanalyzed and miss the point. The story is about how one thing leads to another, chasing a butterfly and then knocking over blocks and then letting the class hamster loose. The author tries to write about the stream of events and talk about emotions and sounds all at the same time. "oopsie-daisy!" There goes Elmo's Ball. Bouncy, bouncy, bounce..." Alot of the text could have been left out and left up to the child to come up with. When I try to read these to my 18 mo. old and my 3 year old, I end up "making my own story" to go with the pictures.

While this book is definitely for the toddler age group, it is a fun, attention keeping, silly story. A good transition from "baby" board books to "big kid" books.

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.

1) This is a hagiography written by a friend, not an objective biography. Roddenberry's character flaws (and there were many) are barely touched upon or completely glossed over. (The one-sided, multi-page attempt to discredit detractor David Gerrold is embarrassingly silly, for example.)

2) For a book written by someone who was supposedly Robbenberry's friend, precious little of the story comes from the man himself. Nearly half the book (and almost all of the latter sections) consists of transcripts of memos and letters written by Roddenberry.

3) The editing is sloppy; typos abound, most frequently in people's names. Usually they're just annoying, but when you see uncorrected misspellings such as "Harland Ellison" and "Leslie Nielson," you have to wonder just how well the author knew the details of what he was writing about, and whether he was simply parroting material given to him by others.

I'd recommend sticking with Joel Engel's biography of Roddenberry as an antidote. It too has its slant, but it's nonetheless a far more rounded effort than this volume.