Jack London Books

I really enjoyed this collection of stories that deals with the travails of adventurers in the wild. The stories take place all around the world in some of the most remote, inaccessible, or infrequently traveled places in the on earth.

The travelers in the stories deal with everything from elusive inhabitants of the rain forests of South America to extreme temperatures and lack of water.

This was an exciting book to read. I'd recommend that anyone going on their own adventure into the wilderness bring it along for the car ride or their trip on the airliner.

The literary quality of this book is fair. However, most of the stories have nothing to do with "survival" or "the world's most dangerous places." This is one of the most dishonest tiles I have ever seen. Come on. Where are the "stories of survival?" For example, you may or may not find it interesting to read Edward Abby's ruminations on floating through Glen Canyon, but there is no implication whatsoever that this is one of the world's most dangerous places, or that there was any issue of survival at all. The same can be said of 2/3 of these accounts.

The best part of this book was the cover. A wonderful picture of a sunset in the mountains. Had the cover made it clear that the "author" did nothing more than take excerpts from other books I never would have bought the book. The excerpts were taken so that you never really knew who you were reading about. His choices left me feeling used and I am sure he ruined several good books for me. None of the stories related in "Wild" has convinced me to read the whole book. What a shame!

Don't be fooled by the title of this book: "Stories of Survival from the World's Most Dangerous Places." Several of the stories are taken from fiction books. Another chapter is from Bill Bryson's, "A Walk in the Woods," which most likely has already been read by several million people. Other chapters are from books such as "Famous Ghost Stories" and "The Book of Fantasy." And yet another story is a leisurely, week-long canoe trip through Glen Canyon prior to its flooding--hardy a story of "Survival" or a "Dangerous" place. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. If you are looking for a book packed with true stories of survival, this is not the book for you. Shame on Clint Willis for trying to pawn this book off to the adventure readership. Trust me! I won't be fooled again, Clint.

This is yet another in Clint Willis's ongoing series of adrenaline, adventure, survival, disaster, storm, etc. series in which he seeks to capitalize on the rage for danger and excitement that is currently sweeping the literary market. In my search for material for a class on adventure writing I teach, I have read all of them, and found them a mixed lot with some real gems thrown in. This particular anthology is no exception, though I wish Willis would stop over dramatizing his titles. A more realistic name for the collection might be, "Exciting Moments in the Wilds," or "Wildernesss Moments."

Questionable names aside (giving titles to books is an art after all) this collection has some stand out and downright bizarre pieces that are worth reading. If you're looking for a good old-fashioned adventure story with plenty of excitement, try Dave Robert's "A Wilderness Narrrative," or Joe Kane's "Savages." For more than you ever wanted to know about tropical diseases and the dangers of traveling in the Amazaon jungle, try Redmond O'Hanlon's "In Trouble Again." But if you're looking for something really different, something that will not only entertain but make you question your sense of reality, read Barry Lopez's "Pearyland," in which the main character (a student Lopez met in an airport) steps into another, parallel world, or "The Willows" by Algernon Blackwood. The Willows in particular carries a disturbing undertone of unease and menace. The things that happen in this story shouldn't, and there is no real explanation for them.

Other, less off the wall, though no less entertaining pieces inlcude Edward Abbey's "Down the River" and Evelyn Waugh's "The Man Who Liked Dickens."

All in all, this is a worhty addition to Willis's growing pile of anthologies, thanks to the solid contributions from familiar and well-established names, but when will Willis dare to include the work of lesser known, though no less talented writers?

What is it about the human mind that makes us have a morbid curiosity about death, particularly violent death. I for one don't know, but it is there in a great majority of human beings and I seemingly am no different to anyone else. I approached this book with more than a little trepidation but after reading a dozen or so pages, I found it hard to put down.

The book and author claim that 21st. century investigation methods have at last solved the Whitechapel murders. I personally found it inconclusive. The author puts forward a well structured and well thought out case but I personally feel that the timescale is against any investigation. I am sure that there may have been compelling evidence at the time of the murders, evidence that was either discounted, or never written down by incompetent, or by today's standard, poorly trained officers. Other books on the Ripper have intimated that because of who, or what these women were, their deaths were not taken seriously enough by the police, until that is they realised they had a serial killer to deal with.

I found the book a really interesting, if unhealthily morbid read. Perhaps the time scale of one hundred years plus took some of the brutality away from the deaths of these poor unfortunate women, I am not sure. What I do know is that there will always be a fascination with Jack the Ripper, whoever he was . . .

I am a Londoner, grew up interested in the JtR case, I am also the spouse of a retired cop, so I know something of law enforcement protocols. I've read alot of books about this case, last one before this was Patricia Cornwell's work. Hers was a great read, but I felt she had forced some facts to fit her theory and I was not entirely convinced. I liked this book. I liked the fact this author considered all the traditional suspects, he gave the impression he was not trying to make facts fit any one of them in particular. This book gave an impression of impartiality which was refreshing. The long coroner reports could have been edited down for ease of reading. The cover picture suggests modern forensics would be a part of the study, when actual forensic samples are not available, hence the 4 star review instead of 5. Many enthuesiasts will be disappointed that long held beliefs such as the authenticity of the Ripper Letters is dismissed. Many enthuesiasts will hate any book that does not fit their idea of who was guilty of these murders. No 21st century forensics here, just old fashioned impartial detective work - that is a compliment by the way! If you are interested in examining what actually happened back then, and you are not totally stuck on who you think must have done it, then this is a must read.

this book is a complete and total rip-off. the publishers blurb tauts new victims and a new suspect. in reality the "new" victims are old news and their new suspect is a flat out lie there is no new suspect only a vague theory about the ripper being a seaman which is also old news. save your money there is literally nothing to this book but a well written and misleading publishers blurb.

After reading a review that gave a five-star rating to this utter disappointment of a Ripper book I was compelled to write a few words of my own. Having been an enthusiast on the Ripper case for some fifteen years and collecting all the books on the subject I considered worthwhile I have to say that "JtR: The 21st Century Investigation" by Trevor Marriott was one of the worst I've come across (which is saying a lot remembering all the Harrison/Cornwell -style achievements). It reveals absolutely nothing new of the case, no 'ignored facts' whatsoever.

Anyone who has read "The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook" (which definitely reveals everything you need to know about the coroners inquests and all other official files, newspaper articles and such authentic material), or Philip Sugdens excellent "The Complete History of JtR" will find very little rewarding in this book. Mr Marriotts deductions throughout the book sound more or less vague: "Martha Tabram is not considered by many to be among the Ripper victims, but to my opinion she might as well have been one", and so on. Every basic fact, speculation and reference is offered in a very matter-of-fact, uninterested and selective style.

Keeping in mind that the theory of JtR being a sailor, and thus being able to avoid capturing more easily was put forth already in 1888 and countless times since, mr Marriotts 'discovery' on the final pages of the book seems hardly worth the trouble. His tireless search of all the vessels whose arrivals and departures on the numerous docks of London and vicinity coincide with the time of the murders gives us dozens of ships from England, Germany, Holland etc, all of which have more than insufficient crew lists to begin with.

In the end the reader is left with a feeling not unfamiliar to the spirit of the book in general - "Okay, JtR might have been a sailor on one of those ships, then again he might not have..."

Whether you are an expert or a novice on the Ripper case I seriously doubt that you can find anything of true interest in this book. To me it was both a waste of time and money.

Not without interest but many of the conclusions pompously put forth by Mr. Marriot are hardly convincing. Indeed the leaps of logic made by the author, a former police detective, rather worry me about the competence of the police in general. And while claiming he looked at the evidence with lofty impartiality it seems clear he views the evidence through the prism of his theory that a merchant seaman committed the crime and moulds the evidence to fit his foreordained conclusion.

Particularly weak is the final section when he pins the crime on one Carl Feigenbaum, who indeed did commit a murder but one that seems to me to have little relation to the crimes of Jack the Ripper. He also tries to tie him into all sorts of murders around the world based on newspaper accounts of murders that were considered (however arbitrarily) to be like the Whitechapel murders. The fact that he can't even prove his suspect was even in the appropriate countries doesn't deter his arrogant certainty that he has finally unmasked Jack. Thus his remarks at the end of the book that he is the only one to look uncritically at the evidence and to have solved the case for everyone but those obsessed with the mystery of the case comes across as both as feeble and unintentionally revealing of his own foibles.

Still not worthless, though by all accounts that are better books on the subject out there.

This is a quirky, individualistic, passionately eccentric book in which fiction, fantasy, and fact are inextricably mixed up. I enjoyed it.

There is no way for me to ask Jack London about the truth of this book, but Jerome V. Lofgren was kind enough to answer some questions I had, and to give me permission to quote them.

(DPBS) "The Search for Jack London" is told in first person by a narrator who claims to be Jack London's reincarnation. Is this simply a literary device or (as the blurb material suggests) do you truly believe this?

(JVL) What I personally believe is not the issue here.. From the onset in my prologue and in the text itself I put forth that if you believe in reincarnation read it right from the tap. If you don't believe in reincarnation at least accept it as a literary technique to tell a beautiful story (Such as The Star Rover).. This is not a dissertation on reincarnation but an effort to understand Jack and Charmian London.

(DPBS) The story is framed by "the annual banquet celebrating Jack London's birthday... the Jack London Foundation gathered as they had each year in the Sonoma Country Club." Is your description of this meeting intended to be: factual? A dramatized version of real events? Fictional?

(JVL) A dramatized version of real events. However, the actual confrontation with Clarice Stasz took place on September 30, 1987 at a BBQ hosted by Russ and Winnie at their Glen Ellen home with Earle Labor, Milo Shepherd their spouses and Clarice. It was a very foggy night when Clarice hoved to out of the fog to launch her broadsides at me.

(DPBS) In the portions of the story which are told in Jack London's voice, I can, here and there, pick out actual quotations from Jack London's works (a snippet from "To Build a Fire" first Klondike episode, a snippet from "The Cruise of the Snark" in the passage where he meets Ernest Darling, etc.) Are the parts told in London's voice _largely_ pastiches of quotations?

(JVL) As Russ Kingman commented repeatedly, anyone who gets immersed into Jack will encounter the, "Dreadful Parallels." My question to you is what other voice would Jack speak in?

(DPBS) The narrator quotes the late Russ Kingman repeatedly and at length as having very definite opinions on various controversial aspects of Jack London's life. Are these actual quotations from Russ Kingman's writings? If not, do you represent them as factual and as being accurately representative of his views?

These are Russ' actual words. Russ went over this manuscript several times and gave his approval of my actual representation of him. As Russ commented, "I come off as a Southern Baptist Preacher, as of course, I was."

(DPBS) In places, you mention events in Jack London's life that are not well-known to his biographers (his affair with the Native American woman, Ruth). Are these actually buttressed by material you found in your researches?

(JVL) Russ asked the same question in the book. And I answered by pointing out how it came to be in the story. Jack never wrote of or spoke of that period from January to May when he was alone in the cabin, "a time when he came to himself." No matter how Charmian tried to weasel it out of him he wouldn't tell. By the way Russ was satisfied with my answer.

(DPBS) Is there a reason why you do not provide notes or explanations to make it easier for the average reader of this "biography" to pick out which things can be considered recognized facts, and which are imagined, guessed, dramatized, invented, or received via occult methods of communication?

(JVL) This piece was written as a historical novel. Irving Stone used this style in his "Sailor on Horseback" without notes or explanations. There are over 20 biographies of Jack London with Stone's the most popular. Most died a quick death. Why? That puzzled Russ and me. So I set out to write a different "biography" where the world, past and present, are viewed through Jack's eyes. Not only is the old Jack revealed more fully but the present world of the friends of Jack London is revealed so that the general public can visit Glen Ellen and appreciate the Ranch and the Jack London Foundation.

This is a quirky, individualistic, passionately eccentric book in
which fiction, fantasy, and fact are inextricably mixed up. I enjoyed
it.

There is no way for me to ask Jack London about the truth of
this book, but Jerome V. Lofgren was kind enough to answer some
questions I had, and to give me permission to quote them.

(DPBS)
"The Search for Jack London" is told in first person by a
narrator who claims to be Jack London's reincarnation. Is this simply
a literary device or (as the blurb material suggests) do you truly
believe this?

(JVL) What I personally believe is not the issue
here.. From the onset in my prologue and in the text itself I put
forth that if you believe in reincarnation read it right from the tap.
If you don't believe in reincarnation at least accept it as a literary
technique to tell a beautiful story (Such as The Star Rover).. This
is not a dissertation on reincarnation but an effort to understand
Jack and Charmian London.

(DPBS) The story is framed by "the
annual banquet celebrating Jack London's birthday... the Jack London
Foundation gathered as they had each year in the Sonoma Country
Club." Is your description of this meeting intended to be:
factual? A dramatized version of real events? Fictional?

(JVL) A
dramatized version of real events. However, the actual confrontation
with Clarice Stasz took place on September 30, 1987 at a BBQ hosted by
Russ and Winnie at their Glen Ellen home with Earle Labor, Milo
Shepherd their spouses and Clarice. It was a very foggy night when
Clarice hoved to out of the fog to launch her broadsides at
me.

(DPBS) In the portions of the story which are told in Jack
London's voice, I can, here and there, pick out actual quotations from
Jack London's works (a snippet from "To Build a Fire" first
Klondike episode, a snippet from "The Cruise of the Snark"
in the passage where he meets Ernest Darling, etc.) Are the parts
told in London's voice _largely_ pastiches of quotations?

(JVL) As
Russ Kingman commented repeatedly, anyone who gets immersed into Jack
will encounter the, "Dreadful Parallels." My question to you
is what other voice would Jack speak in?

(DPBS) The narrator quotes
the late Russ Kingman repeatedly and at length as having very definite
opinions on various controversial aspects of Jack London's life. Are
these actual quotations from Russ Kingman's writings? If not, do you
represent them as factual and as being accurately representative of
his views?

These are Russ' actual words. Russ went over this
manuscript several times and gave his approval of my actual
representation of him. As Russ commented, "I come off as a
Southern Baptist Preacher, as of course, I was."

(DPBS) In
places, you mention events in Jack London's life that are not
well-known to his biographers (his affair with the Native American
woman, Ruth). Are these actually buttressed by material you found in
your researches?

(JVL) Russ asked the same question in the book.
And I answered by pointing out how it came to be in the story. Jack
never wrote of or spoke of that period from January to May when he was
alone in the cabin, "a time when he came to himself." No
matter how Charmian tried to weasel it out of him he wouldn't tell. By
the way Russ was satisfied with my answer.

(DPBS) Is there a reason
why you do not provide notes or explanations to make it easier for the
average reader of this "biography" to pick out which things
can be considered recognized facts, and which are imagined, guessed,
dramatized, invented, or received via occult methods of
communication?

(JVL) This piece was written as a historical novel.
Irving Stone used this style in his "Sailor on Horseback"
without notes or explanations. There are over 20 biographies of Jack
London with Stone's the most popular. Most died a quick death. Why?
That puzzled Russ and me. So I set out to write a different
"biography" where the world, past and present, are viewed
through Jack's eyes. Not only is the old Jack revealed more fully but
the present world of the friends of Jack London is revealed so that
the general public can visit Glen Ellen and appreciate the Ranch and
the Jack London Foundation.
ÿ

As a playwright and screenwriter, I'm especially fascinated by a novel that presents rich and exciting characters in a situation that's rife with mystery, passion and a compelling plot. Jerome Lofgren has managed to tweak this reader's imagination in a way that made it impossible for me to set the book aside, and equally impossible to read it only once. I predict this story will be given at least one more lifetime in motion picture houses around the world. Paul Roland, Ashland, Oregon.

Setting aside all personal beliefs and preconceptions about how life "really is" is a prerequisite for journeying with J. V. Lofgren not only through elliptical parts of his own life, but through the life of the famous American writer, Jack London. To experience the numerous stories and people in this book is a unique reading adventure. The twists and turns are fearsome as Lofgren brings himself and Jack London to life with panache in an eloquent and passionate gallop into strange times and places. Lofgren believes himself to have been Jack London in a previous life and sets out to inform us of his experiences alaong the way. To quote Lofgren, "Whether my soul ever energized the body of Jack London or not is important only for my personal understanding. That was then. Now is now. I'm satisfied that my soul once lived a life as Jack London not because of what others have said, but because of my own personal remembrances." This book contains an enormous cast of diverse and strange characters all of whom interact with Lofgren himself and Jack London as Lofgren's reincarnation. There are spirit people and mediums, professionals of every stripe and color with their own beliefs and conceptions few of which they are willing to give up in favor of the author's basic contention, "...that my soul once lived a life as Jack London." And all, he adds, are "subjective elements for which I cannot provide objective proof." He also insists that this work is not creative fiction or a product of his imagination. The southwestern writer Carlos Castanada comes to mind when reading Lofgren's work with all its psychic nuances and far-flung reachings into the "great unknown." Jack London was born on January 12, 1876 in San Francisco at 2 p.m while Lofgren was born November 29, 1933 in Isle, Minnesota at 7:52 p.m, and as we travel through Lofgren's world, it is clearly the journey that matters, not the destination, which is indiscernible. In the end, Lofgren seems to believe, with Carl Jung, "...that there were two truths, scientific and psychic, and the great tragedy of the 20th century was the over-emphasis upon scientific truth and the supression of psychic truth." As for one character's suggestion that the book is a "love story," referring to Jack London's relationship with his last wife, Charmian, in fact the real love story is between Lofgren and Jack London and Lofgren and Lofgren, a kind of triangle. So fly away into this good night if you dare, but expect to meet a few

Eighty-three years after his death, Jack London's work remains in print throughout the world, and his popularity abroad vastly exceeds the accord he is given in America. Over twenty biographies have been written, yet the man behind the persona perpetuated by the press has remained elusive. Jerome Lofgren, however, brings both London and his wife to life with remarkable perceptiveness and intensity in his novel IN SEARCH OF JACK LONDON.

As Lofgren's personal life disintegrated around him, having come through divorce, bankruptcy and blindness, his spiritual life opened to new possibilities. As his questioned his purpose in life, he began a spiritual journal that led him to conclude that he is Jack London reincarnated.

Lofgren recounts his work with hypnosis, visions and research, drawing a web of intimacy seldom matched by most biographers. Interestingly, Lofgren focuses on the loving relationship between Jack and his second wife, Charmain Kittredge. Most biographers have overlooked the significant role Charmain provided as both a partner to London and a preserver of his work, journals, photographs, and so forth. Further, Lofgren seeks to correct many of the misconceptions of London, often perpetuated by other biographers.

Rather than a typical biographer, Lofgren's goal is to write "about different subjects, different matters, but there will be the essence of the strength from the London lifetime." Indeed, he succeeds in creating a reflective work filled with the emotional insight sadly lacking in most biographies.

Regardless of personal beliefs, this contemplative, thought provoking view of America's most published author will provide unique insight into the life of Jack London.

I followed an online recommendation to this book. As a lover of Alan Moore's From Hell (a graphic novel about Jack the Ripper) and a lover of London's dark side, it caught my interest. But for me the writing was ultimately more turgid than dense, more aligned with the author's inner thoughts than the character's - and somewhat too clever to easily digest. (For example - and this is from memory since I don't still have my copy - if you can work out the exact meaning of "He knew he would finally act when his hands were firmly in his pockets", then you might enjoy this book more easily than me. Otherwise I can't recommend it.)

This novel is an interesting read (I agree with the other customer reviews to a certain extent, but I'm always eager to learn new words and read with a dictionary close at hand) but rehashes the same old theory of the Royals' involvement. Sir William Gull was aging, in poor health, and debilitated from a stroke at time of the murders. I seriouly doubt he was physically able to murder anyone. He has been discounted as the Ripper MANY times as have the Royals, John Netley, and Walter Sickert, who is the Ripper according to Patricia Cornwell. Her theory will be detailed in her forthcoming book.

I attended the Jack the Ripper Conference in April and chatted with Donald Rumbelow, author of "Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook," as well as other Ripperologists. Don is of the opinion that the Ripper was "John Smith" or "Joe Schmoe," definitely no one famous, and his identity will never be discovered. I tend to agree with him.

I would recommend this book for its entertainment value but not for actual Ripper information.

Paul West's novel is an often intriguing, luridly fascinating meditation on the sensational Ripper murders, the very nature of evil itself, the obligations and prerogatives of art, and, ultimately the responsibilities of the artist toward society, and his fellow human beings. West's novel, by his own admission in the foreword, is an exercise in creative license writ large. Using the highly speculative, but nonetheless fascinating "Royal Conspiracy" scenario for the gruesome murder spree that took the lives of five prostitutes in the seamy Whitechapel section of London in 1888, the aesthetic core of the book concerns the Impressionist painter, Walter Sickert's almost Hamlet-like agonized ruminations over his role in bringing the scourge of the murderer upon his forlorn and debased victims. Most of the novel is comprised of Sickert's incessant brooding upon his perveted erotic attraction to the vulgar, dissipated women and their squalid environment, as well as its relationship to his art; his self-loathing and condemnation as a coward who not only fails to act to save the women from their ghastly fate, but, disturbingly, experiences a trace of sordid pleasure as they are butchered in front of his very eyes. West has a formidable vocabulary with which to realize his novel's profound artistic ambitions, but unfortunately that very asset ironically leads to the undesired effect of weakening the work's message and impact. West seems intent on flaunting his facillity with polysyllabics, with the result that "The Women of Whitechapel" is often over-written, with many abstruse, impenetrable passages, several re-readings of which fail to bring any light of clarification or comprehension, much to the reader's frustration That is a shame, too, because there is much that is admirable and thought-provoking in this otherwise seminal work that delves deeply into all the issues resonating from the Ripper crimes, including the institutionalized evils of misogyny, as well as the social and economic iniquities of the Victorian England which is its setting.

"The Women of Whitechapel" is a book that relies on elaborate, even obtuse language in an attempt to capture the spirit and ambiance of Victorian London stalked by a killer. The story is all to familiar to recount, and West relies on a very old and totally disproven Ripper theory (Dr. Gull in a carriage killing off friends of Prince Eddy's secret Catholic wife.) The twist is throwing into play the character of the painter Walter Sickert (another non-placer amongst Ripper theories) to shape the narrative. West's prose is a little over-reaching, but the story, perhaps because of its very familiarity, flows quickly. No surprises here; just $50 words and a tired tale.

the book is much more than a slash-and-gore filled crime genre mystery. West gives the Women of Whitechapel voice here and plumbs to the depths of a world of sordid artists and royals. There's a harrowing psychological tale to be told here, no matter who committed the murders. And besides, it's much more interesting to imagine the royals doing it than your average guy on the street.

I read this book, and it was one of the worst books I ever read. Since London was paid by the page, he used a much flowery language as possible and the plot was way to repeticious. It was not sad at all, and I could predict the next thing that was going to happen. He could of restricted that book from the 101 pages to the length of the first chapter. I would not recommend this book to read.

it will make you cry! damn its sad...

I read this book, and it was one of the worst books I ever read. Since London was paid by the page, he used a much flowery language as possible and was way to repiticious. It was not sad at all, and I could predict the next thing that was going to happen. He could of restricted that book from the 101 pages to the length of the first chapter. I would not recommend this book to read.

I read the book in English Class and the ending is so sad.You should buy the book at amazon.com the movie is different from the book you should buy both from amazon.Its about this dog named buck who gets stolen and sold to a guy who auctionsdogs buck gets sold to two people named fancois and perrault that were on an trip with sled dogs and............HA you have to read the book

This book answers a lot of questions that previous biographies only touch on or omit entirely, namely, what happened to all the women who surrounded London throughout his life and career. Ms. Stasz does a good job filling in the blanks about his mother, wives, and daughters, and brings them to us nearly a hundred years later as three-dimensional people who had great influence on London's life and work. ...

Clarice Stasz has extended her inquiry into women whose lives are dynastically joined--notably the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. While this study departs from interrogating the realm of the rich and famous, it sustains the author's interest in the way in which women are influenced by a close connection with fame--in this case, linkage with America's charismatic first millionaire writer. Stasz's skillfully interwoven subjects range from his mother--whose love London persistently sought--to his wives, daughters, female relatives and intellectual associates. She tells a good story, not only about the women themselves but also about Jack London. She also provides fresh material, gleaned from interviews with London's descendants as well as archival material. Jack London's life has yet to be treated in a definitive biography. Stasz's well-researched study of the women in London's life and career offers a significant first step in adjusting the many erroneous or incomplete aspects of London biographical efforts. I strongly recommend this new contribution to London studies.

Statz excelled at making London a turgid, boring figure in her last book - the unreadbale and hugely maligned American Dreamers. How she manages to continue to publish is beyond this reader and great fan of London. She has attacked other writers on London but it is about time she aplogised to us readers for having to wade through such a boring tome. Post-modern, pseudo-feminist .....London must be spinning in his grave. Give up Clarice - some teach, some write. You must be able to do one, surely?

It's hard to believe this is the same book as the Bennington person reviewed. This is a clearly written, engaging book that uses sources no one has seen before. The writer shows London's private life with sensitivity, and not with knee-jerk feminism. She also reveals some unseemly behavior by Jack London followers, which may really be the source of Bennington's spiteful comments. The world expert on London, Earle Labor, reviewed this book most positively in a California history journal, and concluded it was "enthralling." I agree.

This book has been the introduction and standard critical biography since it first appeared in 1974 and then in 1994, updated and expanded by Jeanne Reesman. I don't know what another reviewer means by "high tower" academics; these authors have spent their careers studying Jack London from his earliest work to his last. They offer balanced and insightful analysis of the man and his enormously popular and artistically compelling works. I read it cover to cover.

a great man brought low by very mediocre analysis and the kind of slavish academic tone that seprates writers from ivory tower hacks - reesman and labor - when's your masterpiece due any way mate? Get a life like London and don't waste us fans of LOndon's time. I got stuck with the tab this time.

Dover's 'Classic Mystery Stories' edited by Douglas G. Greene contains the following 13 short stories:

The Murders in the Rue Morgue by Edgar Allan Poe
Three "Detective" Anecdites by Charles Dickens
The Biter Bit by Wilkie Collins
A Singular Abduction by Rodrigues Ottolengui
The Leopaard Man's Story by Jack London
The Phantom Motor by Jacques Futrelle
The Million-Dollar Dog by Samuel Hopkins Adams
The Bag of Sand by Baroness Orczy
The Denton Boudoir Mystery by Gelett Burgess
Naboth's Vineyard by Melville Davisson Post
A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell
The Ordinary Hairpins by E. C. Bentley
The Archduke's Tea by H. C. Bailey

One of the characteristics of the collection is its way of selecting the pieces. The book's selection, it is suggested, is compiled on the strength of the sleuths they depict. The result is a curious mixture of well-known classic stories and very obscure tales.

The book begins with Poe's classic, one of the most famous detective stories in the world. Then, comes Dickens' journalistic work (published in his own magazine) about the accounts told by the three police detectives who recounts their strange experiences during their jobs. Next comes Collins' comic short (written in his trademark epistle style).

I don't intend to give too mcuh information here, but let me say a little bit more. Post's story features Uncle Abner (very American) while Bailey's Reggie Fortune (very English). The contrast of their method of 'solution' is interesting, but you might have already read either, or both of them. Orczy's is about a lady detective (and narrated by anoher female), but fails to fully capitalize on the gender role. Maybe she will be remembered better as the creator of 'The Man in the Corner.' Bentley's tale here is about sleuth/painter Philip Trent. But of course, Trent was once unwittingly involved in half-jokingly titled 'Trent's Last Case' which is actually Trent's first, and best case.

As I explained so far, though I do not question the qualities of the tales themselves, this book has a very inconsistent tone. On the one hand you have Susan Glaspell's story, which sounds more like a feminism writer's drama (maybe it is), in which a murder per se is not the real concern of some characters (and the author). On the other, you get Jacque Futrelle's superhuman The Thinking Machine, who solves a 100 % pure puzzle (Do you believe in the story of a car that virtually vanishes like that???).

Though I enjoyed reading this book, I kept thinking -- Who are the target readers of the book? So I suggest that you read the content of the book above before buying. Several of the tales here are easily available elsewhere, or probably you have already read them. And the book has no notes, and the biographical commentary about each writer is adequate but thin.

While reading this biography on Jack London, I often found myself unable to put the book down! The way the author, Alan Schroeder, describes London's experiences paints a clear picture in my mind. I think anyone who enjoys Jack London's works would enjoy his biography because there is so much to learn about his life and the experiences behind his stories. One unique thing about this book is the way the author tells you about these things. He tells you exactly what happened to London to compel him to write some of his greatest books. For example he wrote one of his most famous books, John Barleycorn, about his experiences with alcohol. You will read many exciting stories of London's life and learn that he grew up in a poverty stricken environment. He didn't grow up with a passion to write, in fact he never even completed any form of formal education (he never finished high school or college). He taught himself by reading books from the library. These are just a few of the interesting facts there are to read in this book, so pick up a copy to find out more!

1143 pages of Jack London stories, and barely a word of anything else. The editors of this volume have done little more than reprint a large selection of his Yukon stories plus a few sea stories -- they offer no useful commentary of their own on his work. Note that this is NOT "the Complete Jack London." Since he published some 50-odd books in his lifetime, you couldn't get all that into a single volume.

The glory of this book is London's vivid descriptions of the Yukon and its inhabitants during the Klondike Gold Rush. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he wasn't nearly as politically incorrect in his accounts of the natives as I'd feared he was -- he's no Kipling of the North -- but his descriptions of both people and places often seem fresh and insightful. That said, this book contains essentially all of his Yukon stories, and they are not ALL great -- worth reading thorough, nevertheless, but nothing surpasses "To Build a Fire" and "Call of the Wild." (Both of which are in this collection, of course.)

On the purely physical front, my paperback edition was poorly bound, and pages were falling out before I was 2/3 through it.