This is just not up to the caliber of the original books....The behavior and comments of the children in the story convey themessage that learning is unpleasant and museums are boring - - not themessage I want to give to my children. In addition, George climbs adinosaur fossil and the museum director states that this activity isok, because now the children are not bored by having to be at thedull, old museum. This book was a gift which we have removed from ourbookshelf.

This book is " adapted from the Curious George film series". The illustrations are different from the original, and even from the "Illustrated in the style of H.A. REY" both of which I feel are much better.

The story is about CG who goes to a museum and gets into "trouble". It is a very short episode that doesn't really teach anything. Maybe its because I didn't even know there was a film series.

I recommend the 3 book miniature set of originals, and "CG goes to a chocolate factory".

As with all Curious George stories, I disagree with the generalmoral that this book carries. And that seems to be that all's wellthat ends well, or the end justifies the means. I disagree with this philosophy, and especially think it a bad philosophy to teach young children, who, due to their inexperience and lack of reference, need stricter boundaries than do adults or even adolescents. I give This book 2 stars, instead of just one, due to sentimental reasons, I suppose. Curious George was one of the first set of books I remember that had a little more vivid color than the standard red and black library books of my early youth. END

The editor acknowledges something that is glaringly true: there is not enough published materials about the lives of working-class gay men and lesbians. This is the editor's much needed attempt to buck that trend. However, it is written for social workers much more than for the topic population. In addition, it is nowhere as excellent as Leslie Feinberg's "Stone Butch Blues" or Dorothy Allison's texts. Boys gotta do better in this area.

What is odd about this book is how little class is actually brought up. When you read lesbian texts, they spend much time criticizing androcentrism in the gay community. Gay people of color have done the same with racism in the community. But this book attacks classism only to the slightest degree. Many of the articles only spend a page or two on it.

The best thing about this book is its diversity. There are several chapters about gay Latinos. Even in highly white countries like New Zealand and Australia, the author tries to bring up race issues. In every survey done, they try to get input from men of color. Of the research subjects, there is age diversity as well. This is especially impressive in the AIDS era when many older men have succumb to the illness. Lastly, it is very bi-inclusive. Many "queer" texts put "bisexual" in the title and then never address their issues. Though this book has no bi-specific chapters, it does mention men who are married, men who have had relationships with women, etc. Even the cover has a photo of a man with a supposed girlfriend.

Half this anthology is written by the editor. And unfortunately, his pieces are the worst in the text. Though I give this book a mediocre review, I don't discourage people from buying it. It was interesting; just not superior.

Get your facts right, Mr. Biographer. Ravi Shankar is an INDIAN legend and sitar virtuouso; and not Bangladeshi as the author seems to believe (he notes this again in his brief interview with BBC, upon George Harrison's passing).

Makes you wonder how much else is accurate in the book !

Not worth a dime.

Rife with personal bias and the author's "opinions" on Harrison's life and work, as well as other subjects on which the author sees fit to comment, this bio is badly written, bears no touch of an editor's hand, and was not even proofread adequately. Conjecture replaces fact, and much of the book reads like a summation of previously-published articles and books. No new revelations are presented, and important facts and events in Harrison's life are given short shrift or omitted entirely. The few quotes from Harrison's intimates are old, such as statements Pattie Boyd made in the late 70s. Clayon also makes bare statements without any evidence, such as Harrison's having had a "drug addiction", which Clayson never supports with any facts or evidence. This is typical of this sloppy, amateurish mess. Chronology appears to not be Clayson's strong point, either. Worst of all is Clayson's bald statement, at the end of the book, that he simply doesn't like or respect certain [unnamed] persons in music -- and therefore either doesn't write about them or does so as briefly as possible. Eric Clapton thus rates a few paragraphs in this book, despite having been Harrison's friend for thirty years, and having played significant roles in Harrison's personal and professional life. Clapton, whom Clayson states is "overrated", is dismissed in a few sentences. Others only have their names mentioned once or twice. But musicians whom Clayson deems "worthy of respect" are mentioned time and again at length. This sort of naked bias is inappropriate in an allegedly objective look at Harrison's life and work. Clayson's opinions are unsound, his research absent, his writing laughable. While he posits himself as a music insider, in truth he appears to be someone desperately TRYING to be an insider, and attempting to use this book to gain Harrison's approval and respect. Bad form

The writer can be remarkably annoying as he is self-centered and opinionated about everything and everyone he writes about. Get past that. His facts aren't always right and the book is neither proofed nor edited well. Get past that too. This is an earnest attempt at biography of a subject who did not want to have any more writing done about his public or private life. The writer really tries to get inside Harrison's music and his world. He succeeds at going deeper into Harrison than most any other writer has ever done, however, and that is worth three stars. While lacking the insight and research into Indian sprituality found in Geoffrey Giuliano's Dark Horse (which has other faults that Clayson doesn't stumble into), he really applies himself to Harrison's solo recordings in a way that no other - to my knowledge - critic has done ever. When Harrison died (or disappeared), the lack of true critical review of his solo work (between 1973 and 1987 at least) underscored what Clayson had achieved. Which isn't to say that he does a great job writing about those many years of recordings, but he does give them an objective, honest and careful listen, putting them into the perspective of his full musical career.

A British-born Australian immigrant publishes his results about gay immigration to Australia. Gay immigration is a very urgent issue and I'm glad the matter is being documented. But this book left me so sad and dissatisfied. On the one hand, activists globally can learn from Austalia's example. This book starts with a decent chapter on the history of gay Australian immigration. This was also a longitudinal study: something you rarely find in sexual orientation-related research. However, the book is very sloppily-written. It reads like a scrapbook or diary. So many of his discussions are internal and unimportant. There's no way an American scholar could get tenure with a book like this. Usually, I praise gay male authors that remember to include lesbians in their research. But the lesbians involved in the study get scant mention and thus become negligible. Like studies of gay Asians in white-dominated countries throughout the world, this text is filled with cute, young Asian guys having no choice but to partner with size-, age-, and looks-challenged white mates. This book will kinda rub the younger non-Eurocentric gay men of color the wrong way. You would think that binational gay couples have risked thick and thin to be together. In this book, the Australian officials encourage gay couples to cheat on their applications and all kinds of pairs that have no intention of staying together apply for couple status. Most every respondent said the immigration controversy is affecting their health negatively. Further, the author says things about his long-term partner that no spouse should say about another in print. There's no bigamy allowed in Australia for straight citizens, yet the author is not fazed in the least to apply for immigration status for his Thai extra lover. Worse, he gets mad when he finds that his Thai lover is cheating but never criticizes himself for cheating on his first lover with the Thai national. Bottom line: America is so far away from enacting gay immigration (which is a shame) and this book will do NOTHING to help that goal happen, as poor and tragic as this work is.