not really a biography. it's also a little dry.

i also find his assertion or speculation that Paul was a widower reaching.

From a Pauline scholar of Murphy-O'Connor caliber, it is no surprise to find an exhaustive appraisal of the details associated with the chronology of Paul's career. Once the hard stuff is out of the way, however, Murphy-O'Connor gives his readers a fascinating glimpse into the life of Paul. Of great interest is the educational opportunities afforded to a diaspora Jew in Tarsus, the breakdown between Paul and the Antiochian church, the strategy employed by Paul in his missionary work, the precise nature of the "Judaizers" who plagued Paul in Galatia and elsewhere, and the troubled relationship of Paul to the Corinthian church. Paul emerges as passionate, occasionally biased, but always intensely involved and fascinating. References and bibiographic material abound. The bit on 2 Thessalonians is unique and well-argued. Murphy-O'Connor tries to round out Paul's career as much as possible with what can be known of Thessalonika, Ephesus, Antioch Pisidia, Philippi, and the associates involved in Paul's ministries in Asia Minor, so it offers a picture of Paul's relationships beyond the overshadowing portrait of the Corinthian correspondence. It is a book that you will go back to over the years, even if you don't agree with all of it. Enjoy.

Anyone looking for an excellent synopsis of Paul, his travels, and spiritual growth would do well to read this book. We follow Paul as he develops his thoughts and philosophy, and as he travels throughout the Judaic world of the time. In addition, you are also given great insight into the lives of the people he meets and the travelling conditions of the times.

All in all, a fascinating insight into the mind and spirit of the man who brought Christian thought into the world.

I was inspired by the compilation of bird dog stories found within this book. If you enjoy the excitement, fear, despair, and elation associated with the training, ownership and running of all breeds of bird dogs, you will enjoy this book. The authors help you relive the moments you have endured with your own dogs in addition to helping you imagine the hunts you have yet to experience. This is a definite must read for bird dog enthusiasts.

I borrowed this book from a friend and had a tough time putting it down. Great stories from writers who truly love their dogs. A few of the essays are sad, but all of them allow us to share a part of a fellow dog lovers life with his best friend. Definitely a must read.

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 to purchase this book for a class, taught by the authors no less - and I must say the book is put together very well visually. There are some parts of the book that are elegantly written, and explain some things in good detail, but they seem to be in the minority. On the whole, there seem to be way to many assumptioms made while going through the book. When explaining something, they point to an excercise for further detail, in which they ask you to proove what you were going to look up more information on, instead of actually giving the information you were requesting. If you have to buy the book there's no real way around it, but if you're interested in learning about algorithms and have no prior knowledge, I would not recommend this book.