This is a helpful reference for people who aren't familiar with magazine publishing and gives some useful advice on how to deal with common problems. However, the writing is sometimes convoluted and redundant and the authors' perspective can be narrow. I would expect better writing from people who choose to write for a publishing industry audience.

I work for printing/publishing clients as an advisor for IT strategy. I give this book to consultants new to the media industry, because it does such a good job of laying out basic information in a manner that's quick to read and easily understandable. Its focus is on the different kinds of magazines, the roles and responsibilies within a magazine, and the concerns of the Editor-in-chief. Informative and exactly as long as it needs to be.

I have been in the magazine field for 5 years and then I found myself in a job where I was the only person with magazine experience, instead of being the youngest in the office. I wanted to be sure of everything I had learned in my other jobs and get tips about other things I had not dealt with. This was the perfect book--it had information about all aspects of magazine editing from management to layout to publication. This book is not only for the editor-in-chief (which I am), but it is also for anyone who works at a magazine and wants to have a better insight into the entire magazine process. I readily recommend this book to anyone interested in magazine writing and editing!

In the introduction to this work, Mr. Patterson tells us a few things that apparently do not bias his viewpoint - namely that he is a descendant of the long-deceased King Harold of the 11th century AD, and that the wrong man won at Hastings on that fateful October day in 1066. Needless to say - I was a little surprised and turned off immediately. He goes on to say that huge gaps occur in the historical record, and his novel-esque narrative will have the holes filled by his best guess of what happened. Okay - perhaps it's not a crime, but we're trying to peddle this as history, when, if you do read the text, it is not.

I am familiar with most of the sources used as references (although strangely enough there is NO CITING AT ALL), and the incredible amount of detail into which Patterson occassionally delves is quite astonishing. In all - this is entertaining, but dont' take the man's word for law. His is a story tainted heavily by bias and a great deal of guess-work where it is not necessary. As the old axim goes (and I use it to argue that "history" need be neutral): Don't try to be a great man, just be a man, and let history make its own judgments. Mr. Patterson - present us with the happenings, but don't tell us who "should" have won. You are quick to pass judgment upon something you profess is largely lost in the abyss of the past.

The reason history is so fascinating is because, quite often, momentous, world-altering events occur as the result of smaller, trivial ones. England, one of the greatest world powers in history, would not have evolved as it did without William's successful Norman invasion of the island in 1066. William's invasion may not have been successful but for the fact that his enemy, Harold, the king of England, was required to fight a desperate battle at Stamford Bridge three days earlier against a large invading army from Norway. And Harold would not have had to fight these Norwegians but for the falling out he had with his brother, Tostig, who left the country in a jealous fit one year earlier, and returned with this army to exact revenge.

It is a fascinating story, and recounted expertly in this straightforward but all-too-brief history. Brief, I should add, because there are simply not enough sources from which to draw, but the author does a fine job with what is available.

The reason that there was a conflict in the first place was that the former king of England, Edward, did not leave an heir. For inexplicable reasons--although he was unusually enamoured of the Normans--he decided that the best person to succeed him would be William. He sent Harold, his wife's brother-in-law and his most likely successor, to Normandy to solicit William, and somewhere in there--the author persuasively argues that he was coerced--Harold swore an oath of allegiance to William. But two years later Edward--on his deathbed--requested Harold be his successor, and Harold was subsequently approved by the witan, England's national council. William, enraged, immediately began preparations to invade.

In the meantime, Tostig, Harold's brother and ruler of Northumbria, was having a tough time ruling his subjects. It was so brutal, in fact, that the entire area was on the verge of rebellion. It says something about his rule that the demands of the Northumbrians were in fact met. Tostig was removed, by his brother no less, and became thereafter and until his death, a scourge of England, leading eventually to his alliance with a foreign power, and his accompaniment of this power on their invasion of England.

Perhaps the most fascinating character in the book is Harald Hardraada, the Norwegian leader. After fleeing the country for his life as a young man, he went to Russia where he won the favor of the Novgorodian King. He then enlisted as a mercenary for the Byzantine empire, where for eight years he fought their battles in Sicily, North Africa and the Middle East. He then returned to Novgorod where he married is love, returned to Denmark where he formed an alliance, used this power to forge an alliance with a Norwegian usurper, and eventually became King of Norway himself.

In the summer of 1066 we find him an eager participant in Tostig's plan to invade northern England, but after an initial success, he is surprised by Harold at Stamford Bridge, and both he and Tostig are killed after a long, bloody battle. Three days later--three days--William's forces land in England, and Harold, with his depleted army, makes the long march south. The rest, as they say, is history, and poor Harold has become nothing more than a footnote.

This is really remarkable, fascinating history, and retold here in a methodical, straightforward, and entertaining way.