Although some five books about me, all for younger readers, were written back when I was having my fifteen minutes' worth, this is the best. It is accurate, well-written and comprehensive. I also gave Mr. Olney the use of some family photos not found elsewhere. My own autobiography, on offer by Sterling Lord of Sterling Lord Literistic in NY, awaits a publisher; but in the meantime, try this.

This book truly covers a wide range of Anatomy and Physiology while remaining focused on the healing aspect. This book is excellent for anyone studying medicine on any level. Easy to read and incredibly informative.

With Soulful Divas, David Nathan - a true lover of r&B music - has compiled interviews with many of his favorite singers of the past 40 years. Some of the subjects, like that of the humorously raunchy Millie Jackson and the troubled Nina Simone, make for compelling reading. Most suffer from his endless fawning however. Take, for instance, Diana Ross. By all other accounts, Miss Ross is a difficult person, yet Nathan makes her out to be practically a saint.

Nathan's frequent access to all of the top divas exposes the modern journalist's dilemma: if he fully captures his subjects in print, warts and all, he risks alienating them and being denied interview access to them in the future. Instead, Nathan fawns all over his subjects and gets repeat interviews with high-profile women who are often leery of the press (Aretha Franklin for one). Because of his "tactics", we are able to enjoy his many interviews in one setting (this book). Too bad most of his portraits don't penetrate the surface.

David Nathan has given us all a wonderful gift in writing this book. One of the leading journalists in rhythm & blues over the past 25 years, he presents thoughtful and incisive portraits of some of the greatest ladies of soul (kudos for including two of my all-time favorites, Esther Phillips and Millie Jackson). Rather than merely rehashing career informaion, David lets us observe, through his keen eye for detail, the often difficult process behind the interviews themselves. The chapter on Phyllis Hyman is especially revealing: at one point, David is ready to interview her, but she insists on watching television! We see how the manic depressive behavior that led to her demise seeped into her business relationships. Other chapters, such as the compelling profiles of Chaka Khan and Patti LaBelle, contain equally telling observations.

Entertaining, informative, and often endearing, The Soulful Divas is a must-have for any comprehensive music library.

David Nathan KNOWS his R & B. For close to four decades, the book's author has been a contributor, in some way or another, to the production of over 500 albums of soul music. He has done countless interviews, provided liner notes for recordings, served as producer on several, and even done a little background singing. It is obvious that if anyone knows what a "diva" truly is, David Nathan is that man.

"The Soulful Divas" covers the recording careers of the ladies profiled with little snippets of their non-professional beginnings, as well as individual highs and lows. However, it's these little "peeks" into the artists' characters that make the book such a fascinating read.

Not meaning to reveal much of the text, there are many little known facts reported in each profile. Each of the women has experienced her share of failed romantic relationships, legal battles with recording companies, perceived public opinions, peaks and valleys in album sales, and personal tragedies.

Most tragic of all showcased within the pages of the expose is the late Phyllis Hyman, a diva in every sense of the word. Like Nathan, I am a fan of hers, also, and her untimely demise still brings a lump in my throat.

But, the chapter on Millie Jackson is a welcome find. Jackson is the only diva profiled that is not represented in my musical library, save for a duet album with Isaac Hayes. However, after reading about the singer's body of work, as well as her down-to-earth and honest demeanor, I think that this is about to change.

I am curious about a certain "expletive deleted" symphony that she composed.

Note for the author: The next time around, include Patti Austin in volume two.

This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Heard the taped version of WHAT IF?: THE WORLD'S FOREMOST
MILITARY HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, edited
by Robert Cowley . . . I often speculate about lots of things, and so do the contributors to this book--including Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCollough, and James M. McPherson (to name just a few).

For example, what if:
George Washington had never made his miraculous escape
from the British on Long Island in the early dawn of August 29, 1776?

a Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost General Robert E. Lee's plans for invading the North?

the Allied invasion on D Day had failed?

These and a whole host of other questions are considered . . . the resultant answers are often fun, but at the same time, sometimes frightening . . . as in, Hitler's case . . . had he not attacked Russia when he did, he might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, thus helping it retain its power in Europe . . . can you just imagine the present-day implications for that scenario?

If you're a history buff, this is a MUST read . . . but methinks
that others will enjoy it and become much more interested
in the subject as a result . . . I know that I'm now looking
forward to Coweley's follow-up effort, WHAT IF? 2.