Nicholson Books

This book adds little to our understanding of this period. Yes there were many that opposed Hitler - some in thought, few in deed and almost none in action - over 300,000 people are estimated to have participated actively in the muder of the Jews - including those that sat at desks - those that drew up schedules and those that killed - so there were a few hundred that opposed Hitler after 1933 - and why didn't they succeed - because there were so few and they were fumblers. There were actually millions who opposed Hitler in Germany - they didn't vote for him but after 1933 it was too late. This book lists high ranking officials that made some attempt at plotting against Hitler. But one would barely know the context if one was not familiar with it from prior knowledge. A dull read with little added to our knowledge of why Hitler succeeded in his deeds and why no one stopped him - even when it was too late.

This book is very well-written with a lot of interesting information about major and minor members of the German resistance. In addition to good story-telling, Fest provides interesting analyses of the reasons for their failures. It is a sad story, but the moral courage of many of those in the German resistance is inspiring.

Joachim Fest's book should be required reading of all military and political leaders. All leaders must realize that the danger of losing one's morality often happens imperceptibly slow. "Plotting Hitler's Death" is a gripping account of how the German elite attempted on numerous occasions to topple Hitler. The irony of the assasination attempts is that the German Army,never trustful of Hitler, is the institution that comes closest to killing Hitler. At the same time, Mr. Fest protrays in exacting detail the internal conflict that these men experienced: loyalty due to the oath they swore but the realization that Hitler's regime was criminal.

I have to concede that at first I was highly skeptical that Fest, not just any German, but a German from the Nazi generation, would write an honest account of the German Resistance (I admit to harboring prejudices against Germans; my parents are survivors of the Nazi death camps). I expected Fest to exaggerate the motives of the Resistance, asserting that they were purely on humanitarian and moral grounds. After I read the book, however, I realized that I allowed my prejudices towards Germans get in the way. Fest makes no pretenses about their motives. They were wide-ranging, a few on humanitarian grounds, some because they saw they were losing the war, and for some it was the combination of several factors. It was an interesting and informative read. One criticism I do have is that there is a serious omission. Fest fails to tell us that many in the Resistance, even such notables as von Stauffenberg, Carl Goerdeler and Martin Niemoller sympathized with the Nazi view that there was a "Jewish problem" -- a problem that required a "solution." True, they were horrified when they learned that the Nazi "solution" to the "Jewish problem" was extermination; nonetheless they did harbor a fair amount of anti-semitism. As the brother of Claus von Stauffenberg testified: "In the sphere of internal politics, we had welcomed the basic tenets of National Socialism for the most part. . .The concept of race seemed sound and very promising. . ."; their objection was merely that its "implementation was exaggerated and carried too far." [the quote is taken from Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners."]

The author of this book, Joachim Fest, is one of the better know of the German World War 2 historians so I was expecting a well researched and factual book. What I found was just that. Fest first takes us through a history of a number of the failed plots and people responsible before sending the second half of the book on the plot that actually got the closest with a bomb blast injuring Hitler. Fest describes the set up of the plot, what was to take place after the assassination in regards to taking control of the German government and the assumptions of what would happen with the war. We also get a chapter on what happened to the members of the plot once it failed.

Overall this is an interesting and well-constructed book. The information is laid out in an organized and easy to understand method. The writing is better then you expect from a historian, it flows through the story. The book is a good one volume accounting of the attempts on Hitler's life and, unless you are a true historian of the issues, is about all one needs to understand and appreciate it. If you are interested in World War 2 this is a good pick up.

The name Karl Popper is almost tantamount to "Philosophy of Science." Popper's famous theory of falsification influenced numerous 20th century philosophers of science, including Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Articles summarizing his long acclaimed career usually begin with and comprise 75% or more of pure Philosophy of Science. Newcomers to his thought may think Sir Karl did nothing else. Those same people will be thrown like bricks from mules by this little essay-disguised-as-a-book entitled simply, in stylistic conformance with Routledge's "Great Philosopher" series, "Popper."

First, this little essay does discuss Popper's contributions to the Philosophy of Science. No tract on the man could ignore them. But the subtitle of the work, "Historicism and its Poverty," should provide a clue as to the author's focus. As such, Popper's philosophy of science remains relegated largely to the book's first 14 pages. The author, a novelist who read philosophy at Cambridge (and whose Wikipedia page, as of this writing, neglects to mention this book), weaves it in with biographical details. So, those looking for a detailed introduction to Popper's philosophy of science will not find it here. A possible clue as to why appears on page 15: "Recently, there has been a reaction - for example, on the part of Lewis Wolpert and David Papineau - against the idea that we need, or can sustain, a philosophy of science along Popperian lines. Whether or not this challenge is justified, I cannot judge." This may suggest that philosophy of science isn't the author's forte. Hence the focus elsewhere. In any case, the book then launches into a detailed examination of Popper's refutation of what he called "historicism" as outlined in "The Open Society and its Enemies" and "The Poverty of Historicism." The discussion remains an interesting one throughout, regardless of the de-emphasis on philosophy of science.

Popper took umbrage with social theories that paraded behind imaginary auspices of science. He accused communism and fascism (ancestors of Plato's "essentialism") of doing so, while claiming that their political theories and actions represent "the destiny" of humanity. These "systems" do not constitute science due to their protectors' insistence that they remain unfalsifiable (here philosophy of science sneaks in). In other words, communism and fascism don't allow objective criticism to seep into their ideologies. They thus put themselves above criticism while condemning critics as political heretics or misguided fools. According to Popper, nothing considered a science can allow such myopia. Worse still, the ideologues of these quasi-scientific systems claimed possession of predictive and prophetic power over world events. Such prophesies were treated as laws, and Popper agonized over the intelligentsia's dismissal of Hitler as a mere phase on the road to communist rule. That event alone shows the potential damage of literal unshakable ideology and shortsighted reliance on theory. Popper strongly refuted any attributions of "crystal ball" or clairvoyant powers to science. In the end, he thought that democracy and science, practiced "correctly," could help "correct," but not provide a panacea, to the world's political problems.

"What can and cannot be done," the book's final section, criticizes Popper's stance. The author argues that Popper's reliance on democracy and science may itself be an ideological stance similar to the ones he accused the "quasi-scientific" systems of holding. After all, he argues, democracy and science are not neutral. He also mentions the ever increasing and ominous dominance of global corporations that may affect democracy's effectiveness as "rule by the people." Ultimately, the essay depicts Popper as a skeptic and "an indeterminist who is determined to accept no argument that our fate is not only fixed, but also predictable." Like Popper's conception, this book moves in unpredictable ways. It shows a side not often seen. And though many will see it as an incomplete depiction of one of the twentieth century's most distinguished philosophers of science, it remains an intriguing read nonetheless.

This small book deals only with the political and not the scientific part of Popper's work, thus mainly with 'The open society and its enemies' and 'The poverty of historicism'.
It is an excellent introduction for this part of Popper's work.
The author clearly explains that improvement or self-correction through freedom of speech (criticism) is only possible in democracies and not in dictatorial (fascist) or pseudo-scientific (marxist) systems of government.
For me, he correctly recognizes the possible limits of Popper's proposition of 'piecemeal engineering' of political, social or environmental problems: "Is piecemeal engineering grand enough to deal with global pollution, genocidal oppression of minorities and pandemics such as AIDS?"
He also sees clearly the actual dangers for democracies: "How are major corporations, with transnational funds and managements, to be controlled by democratic authorities whose writs run only to their frontiers?"
Also some interesting facts (rare) about Popper's personal life.
A very worth-while read.

I will ditto the previous review... an outstanding short summary. Raphael does an outstanding survey and treatment. He grandly collapses pages of Popper into individual "magic paragraphs". My only complaint is that Raphael often uses a past and almost passive tense, which really saps some of his sentences' potential electricity.

I would dearly love to see a full Raphael treatment of the entire Popper library.

Another short book from The Great Philosophers Series. Although Popper is most famous for his philosophy of science, this book dwells mostly upon his political theory. I suppose that is okay, but this approach somewhat misrepresents why Popper is an important philosopher for us today. After all, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of this century. I get the feeling Raphael was not comfortable with science writing, which makes me wonder why the editors put him on this project. Don't get me wrong, the writing was accessible and informative on Popper's political theory, but it just seemed a bit misplaced, given what I take this series of books is concerned with.

I've not read any others in the "great philosophers" series but I have read a few of the "x in 90 minutes" and " on x" series (very similar in that they run about 70 pages each and are meant to serve as brief layperson's overviews). From what I know of this type of book, this one is quite badley done.

As a long time fan of Popper, I sympathize with how Mr. Raphael must have felt in attempting this project. Karl Raimond Popper was a thinker whose ideas lead him from and to many topics. From ontological speculation (realism) to epistemology (critical rationalism) to the progress of science (conjecture and refutation) to ethics (a very bizarre and unfortunately not so discript pragmatic liberal humanism) to politics (democracy with again, not so discript piecemeal engineering). If you read his autobiography "An Unended Quest", he even has a philosophy of music!

For all that, Mr. Raphael could have done 10 times better than he did. Out of all the ideas above, Mr. Raphael talks about only conjecture and refutation (in 10 intro pages that compares in attitude to a kid being forced to eat her brussel sprouts).

The next 49 pages are spent discussing Popper's views on the impossibility of historical prophecy. Not that these views arent important but in light of Popper's humongous contribution to the philosophies of science and epistemology (and the non-contriversial nature, at least in todays world, of Popper's anti-historicism) focusing, by in large, the whole book on it is putting pages to bad use.

What caused me, though, to give the book 2 stars (I may have given it 4 otherwise) is that the book is marketed as an introduction to the ideas of Popper for those who've either never heard of him or never read of him. Had this book been marketed as an intro specifically to his anti-historicism, it would have been much easier to swallow. As it is, the reader taking this as an apropos introduction will be infinitely misled.

Fortunately there are better introductions. Bryan Magee's "Philosophy in the Real World: An introduction to Karl Popper" is, with maybe 40 more pages than this volume, a much better, more accurate, and proportional volume written by someone who knew Popper as a teacher and friend. For the student who has more time, Geoffrey Stokes "Popper: Philosophy, Politics and the Scientific Method" is a book that examines, first, Popper's political philosophy and works backwards to reveal how his philosophy of science gets him there. The best introduction, however, is going to be Popper's own "In Search of a Better World".

Oftentimes, biographers try to surmount an Everest of information by immersing their subjects in a garden of superfluous prose and praise; Montfiore does the opposite rather successfully however, by painting a truly colourful man, regardless of his supposed faults and triumphs, in the most prosaic way possible.As such, he wonderfully weaves a smooth story about two of Russia's grand despots for the reader to grasp and subsequently fathom.

If all you knew about Potemkin was the fact that he built fake villages for Catherine the Great, then this book will tell you a lot more. In fact, the author goes into the origin of that particular myth, and shows it to be false, and propagated by enemies of Potemkin, and repeated, uncritically, by subsequent historians.

There is no question that Sebag-Montefiore is biassed in favor of his hero - this is not an objective biography, and doesn't try to be, or claim to be so. Some people might think that the author of a historical biography should be an invisible, impartial figure, but you don't get that with this book. You hear a lot about the author's travels to research his subject, which contrasts with the dry style of more "serious" historians, who never leave the library. Any author of a biography is likely to be biassed, so why not be upfront about it?

This is a very readable book - there are lots of anecdotes, and a lot of quotes directly from the correspondance between Potemkin and Catherine. The book makes a direct claim that the two were married, in a secret ceremony, and even describes the ceremony, even though the author cheerfully admits the lack of evidence for this.

The really good thing about this book is that most of it draws on primary sources, many of which have not been available before, and the author brings these, and their authors to life. This means that it is a ground-breaking historical account, and popular history at the same time. Like all good biographies, it teaches you a lot about the historical context, so you will learn a lot about how Catherine was able to defeat the Turks, and significantly expand the size of the Russian empire. Seeing Catherine through the eyes of her lover's biographer is a new slant on a subject who has had a lot written about her.

I really enjoyed this book. It's popular history that is both historical (in terms of its academic integrity, and its research) and popular (in terms of its interesting subject, and lively writing style).

Unlike physics, writing biography or history is often an exercise in opinion. It gains credibility by being informed of the historical record, but affairs are frequently so complex, and knowledge so incomplete, that opinion may prevail by default. Unfortunately, opinion can also prevail in the presence of substantial fact, and this seems to be the case with Sebag Montefiore's "Prince of Princes: The Life of Potemkin." This prodigious work with over a hundred pages of references and notes, many citing sources never before seen, makes a contribution by bringing these to light. On the other hand, it shares with its useless 1938 predecessor, George Soloveytchik's "Potemkin: A Picture of Catherine's Russia", an overwhelming hero worship of its subject. This leads to an intolerant opinion and dismissal of material not supporting the author's love. Thus, unfavorable material on Potemkin is out of hand labeled, and often with some emotion, "untrustworthy," "prejudiced," "venomous," containing "weasel words," etc.

Sadly, Montefiore's efforts are compromised by incomplete and out-of-context quotations of Prince de Ligne that self-servingly change the meaning to the opposite of its original intent. For example, the author writes on page 382, "Ligne knew 'very well what legerdemain tricks are', but the achievements were real." However, the quotation he cites continues, "...for example, the empress, who cannot rush about on foot as we do, is made to believe that certain towns for which she has given money are finished; whereas they are often towns without streets, streets without houses, houses without roofs, doors, or windows." One hopes that this was a mere oversight, but the reader is helpless to tell and is inevitably left wondering about the reliability of other citations.

There is also confusion of the Lake Ladoga/Upper Volga cruise of 1785 with the celebrated 1787 inspection trip south. The author has the English Ambassador Fitzherbert composing on the Volga trip some tricky verse when in fact the incident took place two years later on the Dnieper River, and Count de Segur was the impromptu poet.

There are many sweeping statements presented as undisputed fact such as the French and Indian War "...set off the events that would lead to the Seven Years War..." (p. 35), the Russian army brought the Prussian army to the "very edge of destruction" during the Seven Years War (p. 40), the Black Sea fleet was well- made (p. 370) and then refutes himself in footnote 33 on page 589, etc. Most historians would take issue with every one of these statements and with dozens more as well.

The author seems to be confused about the issue behind the "Potemkin Villages" story. The Potemkin Village controversy was not over the achievements in the Crimea and lower Ukraine seen during the land portion of Catherine's 1787 journey (though these too were questioned) but over what was seen earlier during the Dnieper River float. It was the "villages" seen from the river that were alleged to be "fake," (though once again questions were raised about achievements elsewhere as well,) and contrary to advertising claims on the book's dust jacket, the work is completely unpersuasive in laying the Potemkin Village matter to rest.

The book also frequently seems to loose focus with numerous biographical asides of secondary characters, some quit lengthy.

There are just too many issues with this book from weak editing to questionable facts, injudicious hero worship, outright errors of fact, an almost Russia partisanship and defensiveness, a peculiar view of history, etc., to make it acceptable. Alas, a trustworthy biography of Gregory Potemkin remains yet to be written.

Potemkin : Prince of Princes
by Simon Sebag Montefiore
This book about Potemkin is as broad, expansive, and fascinating as the man himself. It's beautifully researched, based strongly on the correspondence of Potemkin and Catherine the Great, as well as the archives of Potemkin.

Gregor Potemkin was a minor noble who was on the periphery of the conspiracy that brought Catherine the Great to power in Russia in 1762. Younger than Catherine, Potemkin remained among the people who served her, and was seen as a humorous and turbulent young man with a gift for amusing the Empress.

In 1774, they became lovers, and lovers on an epic scale. The letters between them are humorous, loving, passionate, and filled with the details of running an Empire. Potemkin, brilliant, well-read and gifted was a companion for Catherine in a way that none of her other favorites were. He and Catherine were tender towards one another til his death in the early 1790's, even as they both eventually turned to other lovers. Rumors spread that they were married, and Montefiore explores whether this might be true. His conclusion - it's impossible to prove, but their language of love uses the phrases husband and wife in far more than casual way. And the way that they worked together to run an Empire, wage wars in Crimea, and make Russia a stronger Imperial power was one of partnership, not of master and servant.

Potemkin is a fascinating figure - by turns filled with manic energy and diffident - a sensualist who wanted to reside in a monastery, a mass of contradictions. But the book makes a sense of the man - passionate and intellectual, filled with curiosity for innovation, with a gift for friendship. He led the effort to conquer the Crimea, giving Russia an outlet on the Black Sea, which led to important shifts in power in the coming century. Sometimes hiding behind a mask of indolence, he set out to build towns, improve agricultural, innovate in river transport, and set a new diplomatic agenda with the Ottaman Empire, Austria, France and Prussia.

Montefiore discusses some of the myths of Potemkin, especially the infamous Potemkin villages, and tries to show how the foreign ambassadors around Potemkin had reasons to diminish the progress Potemkin had made in changing the newly acquired lands in the Crimea. Occasionally the author is perhaps too willing to dismiss Potemkin's more outrageous behavior, but is frank and honest about his failings as well as his triumphs.

The book is beautifully written, with an energetic and clear prose style. Often you get only books about the dominant figure of a place and era, such as Catherine the Great in Russia during this time. This book add substantial details to the picture of the Russian Court, Russian politics, and of Catherine herself. A highly recommended book for anyone interested in the period. If you need an entree into the period, let me recommend Henri Troyat's Catherine the Great.

A joy! What a pleasure to read a good book.

Yes, this biography is flawed. And anyone who abjures imperfect work should avoid this book. But if you care to learn how one man and one woman's passion enlightened and modernized the Russian empire, you should read this book and accept it for what it is--an insightful psychobiography rather than history.

Montefiore documents the frenetic and flawed love between Catherine, Tzarina of the Russian Empire and Potemkin. He shows how their love bound and locked their souls together in a dance played out through letters that left each no less desperate, but somehow more complete. Catherine tutored the younger Potemkin, mentored his fine mind, and then recognized her protege-lover first as her equal and then as unparalleled founder of the empire that she could adeptly run, but never of her own device create.

Also, Montefiore shows how Potemkin looms as freethinker over the feudal landscape of 18th century Russia. Not through courage or moral principle did he embrace new ideas and pariahs but rather through audaciousness. Potemkin thirsted for new experiences. He craved proximity to ancient truths, and to their exponents--whether they be Rabbis, Mullahs, ArchBishops or defrocked Priests. And his actions transformed that landscape as he built cities, ships, whole provinces seemingly with nothing but the power of his own will.

I am left with a question for the author. What role did self-preservation, and obsession to protect Catherine play in Potemkin's unbounded efforts to extend the Russian empire southward? Did his actions protect his sovereign from intrique and possible deposition? Was he driven by vision or necessity?

I started the book because I like Mexico stuff. However I discovered shortly that I couldn't bond with the characters. So I eighty-sixed it. It could be a very good book. Or not. What was really cool was the blurbs on the back cover. Jerry Stahl used "riveting," "searing" and "wire-taut" in one sentence. Wow! Stokes Howell used the word "hallucinatory." (I guess since he used it Jerry couldn't.) The picture of Joy in the back reminded me of that girl in the French movie that found that box of old toys. A little older though, obviously.

This book found its way into my Amazon.com inbox after *The Tribes of Palos Verdes*, Ms. Nicholson's first novel, came into my mind "out of nowhere," seven years after I read it. I consider long-term memory retention an indicator of a good story.

I bought *The Road To Esmeralda* because I found Ms. Nicholson's style engaging in her first novel. I like to read things in little pieces. I like to be able to put a book down for 72 hours, pick it up again, and resume the dream with minimum brain boot-up time. (I suspect this comes from my own experience as a technical editor.) When I flipped through the pages of this most recent novel, I saw that it is written in the same structured way as *Tribes*. It is also divided into parts, code named by colors of the spectrum as the wavelength increases. Cool! This reminds me, for some reason, of Solzhenitsyn.

The book's main protagonist, Nick Sperry, is a "frustrated male drunk in the tropics." Ms. Nicholson sure got that tune right! (Here is a female author who knows how the male mind works, at least when it is not operating properly.) The other protagonists all have serious problems, too, with the most eccentric of the lot, Karl, evidently the least insane. The interaction among characters is balanced, and flashbacks are well done. As a non-fiction scribbler more comfortable with manipulating equations and generating schematic diagrams than visiting with the muses of fiction, I have the profoundest respect for Ms. Nicholson. She's one of the best authors I have ever stumbled across.

And now, a warning! If you want an uplifting book, this is not it. It starts out dark, and gets darker all the way. Is there a "moral"? Maybe. One might read politics into it; one might see it as xenophobic. The ending goes "over the top." However, it is by no means an impossible scenario in this paranoid new world. But let's not kid ourselves. Many factors contributed to the ruin of Nick Sperry, but alcohol abuse was the root cause. If there is a message here, I suspect it could be, "Stay sober when traveling in foreign countries."

Ms. Nicholson does a great job of conveying the tone of a south of the border escape as such it almost is suffocating at times and doesn't let the characters breathe in the opening moments of the book. But as the story progresses, it becomes obvious that the intent of the author is to show the characters and how they are being suffocated by where they are headed, metaphorically, spiritually, and morally.
Well written and one of the most absorbing books I have read in a while.

This isn't the usual type of book that I would read and in fact I found it incredibly boring for the first hundred or so pages. What kept me reading was the way the book was written rather than the plot itself. Simple sentences had so much meaning and depth, it really made me think. As the novel moves on and some plot finally begins to develop I became intrigued in the characters. Throughout the book I was not able to take sides with one character over another. Yet, I kept reading because I wanted to learn more about each one of their attributes and the reasons of why they did certain things. I was more interested in the character development rather than the plot to be honest. In fact the ending really fell flat.

Book Review:

The Road To Esmeralda:

The book begins with what appears to be a simple vacation for a
seemingly happy and contented couple: Nick, frustrated writer, but hopeful idealist, and Sarah, a graphic artist, and the supportive, caring, and emotionally stable girlfriend. Together, they embark on a journey to bring them closer to each other and themselves.

Their road trip takes them to Mexico, which offers them a gateway to creative and emotional freedom. What they find instead is anger and resentment against them, not as people, but as Americans. This bitterness and hostility comes from all angles; fellow tourists and locals alike, are ready to confront the America imperialists who are the cause of all the world's woes.

In an attempt to escape the onslaught, Nick and Sarah travel further and farther away, until they land at a quiet beach-front guesthouse in Esmeralda, a beautiful Yucatan enclave. Their hosts, the Von Tollmans, are German ex-patriots, and committed to living lives which excludes involvement
with polluted people and societies, while living off and tending to their land, which caters to this eutopic lifestyle.

Quickly immersed in the owner's fight to save their land, highly coveted by greedy local and foreign businessmen alike, Nick and Sarah become deeply entrenched in the political forces that will soon destroy their personal undertakings and ambitions. The only problem though, is that Nick and Sarah find themselves on opposing sides.

Al, the guesthouse handyman, has his own questionable and sordid agenda. Al, almost sociopathic, begins finding conflict in his own seemingly non-existent moral makeup, while Nick's morals slowly dissolve in an aborted attempt to save his relationship. Sarah and the Von Tollmans, in doomed attempts to maintain their ideals, become prey to the social and political conspirators.

And there the book takes us: down a windy road filled with intrigue, personal digression, moral conflict and disillusion, that soon involves local thugs and drug smugglers, the Mexican and American governments, and the personal and cultural agendas that ripen the conspiracy plot.

This is a story of disintegration, personal dilemmas and fears,
emotional disillusion, and human ambition, both altruistic and sordid. It is a macrocosm with archetypal characters living in their own personal microcosmic world. Each suffering from their own human frailties, and subject to personal fears, they are lost and disconnected. The characters exemplify qualities that supersede nationalism or xenophobia; they are basic and base, each confronted with their own truths and lies, and the bitterness of their own futility.

A great read. Profound. Layered. A good adventure both inward and outward.

Ellen Vinitsky - August 15, 2005

I purchased this title a a gift for a "bugged" friend after reading another of his books and seeing this on his back list.
It shall not disappoint.

I was worried that this book might be to 'British' for my American tastes, but it was wonderful. Well paced, colorful characters, and a good mix of action and humor. Well worth the money.

If there was any more fluff in this book contractors would buy it by the truckload and use it as landfill. The obvious waste of time, energy, and research that went into this book is staggering, on par with the worst writer of our time, Tom Robbins. I admit, I did finish it, even though I regret that waste of life, but the ending was worthless. Mr. Nicholson, in an attempt to tie up loose ends only succeeded in putting a bullet in the head of a horse that didn't even make it out of the starting blocks. The characters were unbelievable as human beings from the start, the author's asides into his depressing and pathetic life were a complete waste of paper, and the story line went from bad to worse to unimaginably stupid. At no one point could I succeed in a suspension of disbelief. Maybe it was the nine year old car thief savant, or the sodomasochist undercover reporter, or the closeted gay neonazi; I don't know, but they all seemed to be part of the cast of an off, off, off broadway musical dreamed up by a necrophilic methamphetimine addict. I think after awhile I just kept reading out of pity for poor divorced Mr. Nicholson, who is obviously so obsessed with Volkswagen toys and writing that he can't seem to keep a normal personal relationship. Poor guy. If he ever reads this I hope he takes my advice and lays down the pen. If I were a psychic I'd say his future lies in the manufacture of kidney pies.

I bought this book at first because I too have a strange passion for Volkswagens. I was thoroughly delighted when I discovered that Mr. Nicholson had a great story to back up the VW obsession, once I got over the horror of destroying all those VWs that is. The strange cast of characters and their individual motivations are brilliantly woven together. The amazing thing is that even at it's most confusing and destructive I didn't want this novel to end. I look forward to trying his other works.

Apparently this is the second Volkswagen-themed novel by this British author. I have not as yet read "Street Sleeper," so I can't tell you if this is the better of the two or not. What I can tell you is that is a mostly amusing tale of a number of Brits all bound together in one way or another by Volkswagens. The main problem is that all across England, there are Volkswagen's blowing up left and right. Who is doing and why, and how they can be stopped is the alleged plot which drives this book, but the reader is mostly along for the ride as the main characters search for meaning in their existence. I get the impression that many of the main characters appeared previously in "Street Sleeper," but how long the interval has been in unclear. It's a little tough to describe a novel which culminates in a rave/VW expo under siege by eight neo-Nazi skinheads and their delusional leader, who is questing after a holy grail comprised of a hand carved VW whose sun roof opens to reveal human bone replicas of Hitler and Eva Braun in flagrante... All I can say is that if you have a taste for the quirky, check it out.

Alice in Exile is by no means a bad book, nor an excellent one. Well-written and thoroughly researched, the author attempts to delve into the life of 20-something Alice Fry as she battles with concepts of love, attachment, and eventually World War One.

The author attempts to play with the social and moral beliefs of London immediately prior to WW1. Alice is well-educated, and her beliefs tend to be slightly bohemian. Edward, her first love, falls deeply for her, sleeps with her, and proposes. His upper-class parents are dismayed at his choice, and are relieved when Edward breaks off the engagement when Alice's father, a publisher, is involved in a sexual scandal over a book he published. Heart broken and pregnant, Alice accepts a job as a governess in Russia for the lecherous Barron Rettenberg. This sets up the trials of Alice, her son, and the Ruttenberg family as they are involved in both WWI and the Russian civil war (1918-1921) that erupted during this period of time.

Some of the biggest leaps of faith in the novel include believing that Alice could fall for her employer. As the reader we see a side that Alice does not see--such as when he considers raping her as she sleeps--and his transformation into believing Alice to be the love of his life does not ring true. The ending is too-pat and unbelievable; and the relationships between most of the characters is not very well developed. The author perhaps spends too much time telling the reader about the characters that he doesn't take enough to develop the characters on the page so that they seem like breathing, tangible people.

The best parts of this book include the struggles of Alice during the Russian Civil War, especially considering her attachment to a landed family in Russia.

I found the first chapter or two of this novel a little confusing, the plot development was a bit vague, and the characters two dimensional....This all changed about 50 pages in, however. I ended up reading the entire thing in about 6 hours. Highly reccomended as a lazy sunday read.

I don't read much fiction, but I saw this book on Amazon and decided to pick it up. I'm glad I did, because then I couldn't put it down. The author has the rare ability to give thorough descriptions of people and places without getting heavy or dull. I majored in Literature in college, and have had a hard time finding really good writing in a novel. There are many interesting stories, but the writing itself leaves a lot to be desired. I would've enjoyed reading this even if it weren't such a gripping story, but it has that, too. I learned a lot about the Russian revolution in a painless, interesting way. Definitely worth the time to read.

On the eve of World War I at a party in Chelsea, young aristocrat Edward Cobb meets and falls in love with free-thinking liberal-minded suffragette Alice Fry. Educated at Eton and Oxford, this son of a baronet, who has just left the army to pursue a career in politics, has never met anyone like Alice. She speaks her mind, smells of cigars and doesn't mind making the first move. Despite their differences, Alice and Edward are smitten with each other and pursue a passionate affair much to the dismay of their friends and families.

When the couple becomes engaged, Edward's family draws the line and encourages him to consider his burgeoning political career and instead marry Elspeth, the far more suitable and proper young woman they have selected for him. Edward finally relents after Alice's father, a radical publisher, is taken to court for public obscenity after publishing an erotic sex manual. Heartbroken and pregnant, Alice accepts an offer to become a governess for a wealthy Russian baron and leaves the country.

When Alice's new employer, the charming and dashing Baron Rettenberg, discovers her pregnancy, he helps change her identity to conceal her shame and Alice becomes a French widow named Mademoiselle Chabon. Time passes and Alice and the baron tentatively begin to fall in love. But when the Russian Revolution forces Rettenberg to flee his manor, Alice is left alone to fend for herself and her young son. Not long after the baron's departure, Alice and her son find the danger too great and also escape.

Meanwhile, Edward's marriage to Elspeth falls apart and he sets forth in war torn Europe in search of Alice, whom he now believes to be the love of his life. In an exhilarating climax, Alice is forced to choose between the two men --- one is her first love and the father of her son, while the other is a man who loves her unconditionally but obsessively.

ALICE IN EXILE is a beautifully moving love story played out in a world ravaged by war. Meticulously researched and loaded with moral and emotional conflict, this story of lovers forced apart by differing social backgrounds and dire circumstances should appeal to fans of both the historical and the romantic.

--- Reviewed by Melissa Morgan

Alice in Exile is by no means a bad book, nor an excellent one. Well-written and thoroughly researched, the author attempts to delve into the life of 20-something Alice Fry as she battles with concepts of love, attachment, and eventually World War One.

The author attempts to play with the social and moral beliefs of London immediately prior to WW1. Alice is well-educated, and her beliefs tend to be slightly bohemian. Edward, her first love, falls deeply for her, sleeps with her, and proposes. His upper-class parents are dismayed at his choice, and are relieved when Edward breaks off the engagement when Alice's father, a publisher, is involved in a sexual scandal over a book he published. Heart broken and pregnant, Alice accepts a job as a governess in Russia for the lecherous Barron Rettenberg. This sets up the trials of Alice, her son, and the Ruttenberg family as they are involved in both WWI and the Russian civil war (1918-1921) that erupted during this period of time.

Some of the biggest leaps of faith in the novel include believing that Alice could fall for her employer. As the reader we see a side that Alice does not see--such as when he considers raping her as she sleeps--and his transformation into believing Alice to be the love of his life does not ring true. The ending is too-pat and unbelievable; and the relationships between most of the characters is not very well developed. The author perhaps spends too much time telling the reader about the characters that he doesn't take enough to develop the characters on the page so that they seem like breathing, tangible people.

The best parts of this book include the struggles of Alice during the Russian Civil War, especially considering her attachment to a landed family in Russia.

I have read the other reviews and I hate to say it but the book wasn't all of that. I had read the Orchid Hunter first which was so good so I decided to read this one. Bad mistake! To me the story was difficult to get into and plus I started to hate the main character Raine. Here is why a woman character should not have to show her booby to get the enemy ask Lara Croft!! This disgusted me and showed me this character had no class. If you want to read a great book with adventure and with a great heroine who does not stoop to showing off her body parts then get The Orchid Hunter!!! A great woman character uses her brains and sometimes maybe weapons but never by flopping her boobs out.

This is a great fun read. I was pulled into this fossil hunter's adventure from the East Coast to the Eastern Continent! Funny, thrilling -- a definite keeper.

Fossil hunter Raine Ashaway is proud of the success of her family, owners of renowned Ashaway All, including herself in finding remnants from the dinosaur age. She is excited to learn of an opalized T-Rex tooth with the owner insisting the entire dinosaur is in the same state. However, instead of a simple purchase and expedition, Raine finds herself in direct competition with rival Kincade who seems to hate her and her family, but she has no idea why; even worse she is attracted to him while he seems to detest her.

Cade and Raine head to Borneo, a divided island owned by three nations to find the full opalized T-Rex. She wants to find the bones before her rival does to keep her family reputation as the top gun while he wants to devastate Ashaway All as much as finding the remains. However, as they wok their way inland on the world's third largest island, a third competitor willing to kill has entered the game. To survive not necessarily win, Cade and Raine must team up or else.

AN ANGEL IN STONE is an exhilarating romantic suspense thriller that emphasizes the action and adventure as much perhaps more than the changing relationship between the lead couple. Raine is a fantastic heroine and Cade is her perfect counter as he does not worship her as a female Indiana Jones, but holds her in contempt until he is forced to truly know her. Readers of action packed thrillers in an exotic place (the descriptions of Borneo augments the tale) will want to peruse Peggy Nicholson's exciting novel.

Harriet Klausner

Dinosaur hunter Raine Ashaway lives for the thrill of the next archaeological find. A mysterious encounter with a young woman named Lia sends her off on a quest into the depths of the jungles of Bornea in search of an opalized T. Rex. She must deal with her competitor, Kincade, who appears to have a personal grudge against the Ashaway family. Meanwhile, another man is searching for the treasure and he's willing to do anything to find it first.

AN ANGEL IN STONE is the first book in The Bone Hunters series. Raine Ashaway initially comes across a bit uncouth when mingling in the museum, especially considering the tactics she uses to thwart the would-be robbers. However, once Raine is in the world she is best suited for, the actual dinosaur hunt, her rough edges smooth out. Her Indiana Jones-like persona begins to emerge and the action truly kicks in.

AN ANGEL IN STONE is the perfect example of the Silhouette Bombshell line. The combination of action and romance is superb as readers travel on a harrowing journey in search of the opalized T. Rex. This was actually my second reading of this story and Peggy Nicholson definitely writes a tale that stands the test of time as it was just as enjoyable as it was on the first reading.

COURTESY OF CK2S KWIPS AND KRITIQUES

Fossil hunter Raine Ashaway, part of a multi-generational bone-hunting family, gets an irresistible opportunity to bid on a rare treasure--an opalized T-Rex. But her family's arch-enemy, Kincade, seeks the same treasure. There is also a third, unknown bidder who will stop at nothing--not even murder--to beat everyone to the multi-million-dollar relic.

As the three treasure seekers converge on Borneo, each with a part of the puzzle, Raine and Kincade take turns outsmarting each other and engaging in verbal sparring and sizzling sex. But eventually they must join forces if they want to reach the dino before their cruel, murderous enemy.

Raine is the quintessential Bombshell heroine--glamorous, powerful, athletic, and with a poison dart gun hidden in her parasol. The descriptions of Borneo will take the reader there. You'll feel the steamy jungle, hear the rushing river, smell the orchids. For anyone who loved Romancing the Stone, this book is for you. I can't wait to read the rest of The Bone Hunters series.

I loved "Everything & More" and "Bleeding London," and while this book started with Nicholson's trademark razor-wire wit, I thought the last quarter or so of the book suffered from awkward, forced and unbelievable resolutions. I also found some of the social observations, which were so keen in the other Nicholson books I'd read, to be unconvincing and even, in some cases, irrelevant to the main story. I will say, though, that his metaphors are great, and I love the irony of a book of collected anecdotes railing against the collecting of anecdotes (among other things). I say skip this one and go right to "Everything & More."

This is a comedy novel about collectors, with an oh-so-perfect title. It begins with a long list of things that collect, in all manifestations of the word, then proceeds to introduce us to a weird cross-section of British society. There is the car wash man with a craving for knowledge who decides to collect the entire contents of "The Books of Power," a strange encyclopedia set, into his memory. His boss, the prototypical used car salesman, with the pitch perfected, and a collection of knickers from his one-night stands (funny, how knickers is so much more tame than the American version "panties," no?). The wealthy auto collector and his wife who collects sexual experiences. And, finally, the narrator, who is writing a book on collectors, and so finds himself ironically in the position of collecting collectors.

The plot is an intricate construction that links all of the above together. I found it almost exactly opposite of a mystery novel, in that you have to unravel the events to get to the point, whereas Nicholson works to weave his characters together to show you the mystery. The book has echoes a couple of other works that I had read in the past, but these are not conscious on Nicholson's part, I believe, but simply the baggage I brought with me. It is similar to Stephen Fry's The Hippopotamus, which should not be that surprising, as Fry's novel was also a British comedy about writers. It had some of the feel of A.S. Byatt's Possession, in that Nicholson continued to explore the theme of collecting much farther than I thought possible, and possession is an aspect of collecting.

It is a short book--only about 200 pages in the American edition--and Nicholson's prose style is breezy and vibrant, easily sped through. The only thing I could find to complain with was the strange narrative shifts early on when I had trouble placing the narrator in the sections told in what I had thought was third person, but later ended up being first person anecdotal. I've got Nicholson's earlier novel, The Food Chain, and I'm looking forward to spending three hours with it sometime soon.

Having read 'Footsucker' and 'Volkwagens'; this is my favorite Nicholson novel so far. (The others were good too.) A great cast of eccentrics showcase the search for the nature of collectors and their collections.

According to the jacket blurb, Nicholson has sold film rights to more than one of his novels. This is the one I'd like to see. The intricacies of the story and the criss-crossing of paths the narrator and the other characters make in this wild trip demand to be seen. I've also read Footsucker (not as erotic as the two reviewers are making it out to be), but this novel has more weight and satirical insight. Thank God, for writers who know how to poke fun at the rest of the world, who have no mercy for the ignorant and the vain, who relish giving it to the arrogant and the condescending and who still have room for a bit of compassion for the lonely, the misunderstood and the off-center misfits of this often insane world we live in. I only wish Nicholson were writing more often. It seems that he's sitting back and reaping the rewards of his satire. Good for him!

This is a story about a writer who is collecting stories about people who collect things. Things such as cars, beer cans, lovers, sounds, knickers,information,even a man who collects Martini Recipes: " I made a series of variations on the Martini theme for this guy. I became familiar with the Naked Martini, the Trinity, the de Luxe, the Gibson, the Perfect, the Gordon, the Somerset and the Queen. We could have had the International but I was clean out of absinthe. I was initiated into the mysteries of the vermouth rinse and the vermouth spray, and told of barmen who merely SHOW the vermouth to the gin. I was lectured on the significance of bitters, the twist of lemon peel and the cocktail onion."(p66 Paperback Edition). In the event, the barmen, our hero, gets irritated with the arrogance of the customer, urinates in one martini which the customer mistakes for yellow Charteuse and promptly hurls the drink into our hero's face who relaliates by throwing the jug full of the special mixture over the customer. A melee ensues. Apart from the sheer joy of the characters and their situations, it does make one reflect on the obsession which is the novel's themes: Imelda Marcos and her shoes, Pol Pot and his skulls, Elizabeth Taylor and her husbands, me and my ? You and your...? A very enjoyable read.

This book covers Jack's life from birth to age 57. Jack Nicholson has such a gift for acting that it is, for me, almost unbelievable. This book will let you in on his life so that you, the reader, can understand how this amazing talent came about. Thank you, Jack, for all of your great work.

While many of us think Jack Nicholson burst into cinematic celebrity with his role in "Easy Rider," the truth is he had already put in ten long years of trying to make it in Hollywood, In fact, 1969 found Nicholson throwing himself into writing and producing until Rip Torn, who was slated for the role in "Easy Rider," left after a contractual dispute and Nicholson stepped in.

We could say the rest is history, but it is not for despite the countless interviews Nicholson has given there is still much to be learned about this baffling and brilliant actor. The author of biographies of George Cukor, James Cagney and Robert Altman, Patrick McGilligan knows how to document a life.

Renowned for playing estranged loners ("Five Easy Pieces," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), Nicholson was born in 1937 and raised to believe that his mother was his sister. He was never certain who his father was. Despite the question of his parents, he seems to have had a rather conventional upbringing in New Jersey.

Much found in Nicholson's past can be sighted in his present: He was succored by the women who raised him as he has been by his many romantic relationships; he followed professional sports as a youth and attended games with a cadre of his buddies; he was careful with money - today he is one of Hollywood's richest actors.

Nicholson and his close friends declined conversation with the author. Thus, McGilligan has relied on already published material, albeit written with a fresh slant. "Jack's Life" is entertaining, yet the career of one of our most gifted actors is still ongoing. I'm waiting - after all, everyone who saw "Batman" knows that the Joker will return.

- Gail Cooke

He is Plutonian regeneration. A shining star in a world full of mediocrity. Thanks Jack. Thanks for the inspiration.

Patrick McGilligan does a good job of examining Nicholson's early career, his work from the late fifties to the early 70's is discussed with insight and detail. The early chapters show a young man searching for his role in an industry he desperately wanted to be part of; and McGilligan focusses on Nicholson's attempt to create a role for himself in Hollywood. You definitely get the feeling that McGilligan had much more access to the people in Jack's life from this time period.
But as Nicholson becomes more famous, McGilligan's work seems to lose focus,and as Nicholson became more circumspect when dealing with the media, McGilligan's sources of info seem to dry up. Writing a biography of a living person without access to them in some way will always cause a bio to have a distance that only the best writers can overcome. McGilligan is not able to overcome this deficit and the book becomes tedious as it progresses to repeated mentions of Nicholson's less than ordinary formative years as the child of a woman he grew up believing to be his sister and their presumed affect on his work and relationships. This is a focus for McGilligan as he tries in some way to gain some kind of psychoanalytic understanding of Nicholson and the book bogs down under the weight of these constant asides. By the time the book reaches its end in 1992, I was thoroughly bored with McGilligan's take on what really should have proven to be an interesting life.

Unlike some of McGilligan's other subject's, this book is titled somewhat innapropriately as there's some life in the old dog yet. There's evidence that he researched the first 57 year's of the actor's lfe pretty well, but the resulting portrait leaves Jack as enigmatic as the famous grin McGilligan seems so fascinated by. The tone is often sensationalistic, particularly when he argues that Jack my be reading of his possible illigitamacy "for the first time here" Nonetheless, it's an enjoyable read, though I didn't feel I knew Jack any better when I turned the last page, and was more enlightened about 70's Hollywood by Jack's friend Robert Evans, Robert Siskind, and others.

It's a shame this book is out of print in the US (I found my copy brand-new in a hole-in-the-wall music store in Berlin), because a study of this particular strain of jazz has been long overdue. Nicholson does a super job of framing the earliest beginnings of jazz-rock in the mid-1960s, when folks such as Jeremy Steig, The Flock and Charles Lloyd were making those links and also making some great music in the bargain. The in-depth chapters on Weather Report, John McLaughlin and Miles Davis (naturally!)come off particularly well ; Nicholson is not one to over-praise his subjects, but his reviews of their work, good and bad, are comprehensive and well-reasoned and he's great at getting their stories from as many sides as possible.

Having said that, I have some quibbles with the book. The distinction Nicholson makes between "jazz-rock" and "fusion" is at best highly debatable and I can't help but wonder if this explains the absence of even a bare mention of certain bands that, to my mind, qualify as playing "jazz-rock" (the most glaring omissions include a lot of UK bands, specifically Brand X, Bill Bruford's Earthworks and Phil Manzanera's Quiet Sun). Like a lot of critics, he can be high-handed in his judgements of certain artists and groups; I particularly disagree with his assessments of Jamaladeen Tacuma and Mike Stern's albums as bandleaders, most of which I think deserved better examinations. But by and large Nicholson suceeds at detailing a particular period within the history of jazz and makes a compelling study that shows that what emerged from the "jazz-rock" period was a lot of music that still thrills!

This book was a valid history of an important genre. I found it more textbook like than other histories, and was at times somewhat disjointed, and the author tended to make sweeping generalizations about the quality of artistry on various albums; however I found the book to have much useful information in it, and as I have been an avid listener to Jazz, Progressive Rock, and Jazz-rock for many years, I was happy to see that someone had undertaken the task of writing a book with this much detail. At times I found the book to be difficult to read but it was worth the effort. The sad thing about books about music is that the book form is very limited in its ability to make a point. This book would make a good companion textbook in a college course,with accompanying audio and video files, or would possibly be a decent outline for a documentary series on Jazz-Rock.

By the mid-Sixties, jazz seemed to have ground to a halt. The surviving oldtimers were just re-working their catalogs. "Progressive" trends had dead-ended into the indeterminacy of free jazz, the popularity of which was not boosted by its elements of black militancy. In the meantime, rock and roll and Motown were happening, forging new musical paths upwards from their blues roots and winning broad audiences. Rock in particular at this time was gaining respect, as The Beatles and Bob Dylan brought thitherto unknown sophistication to rock songwriting, and artists like Cream and Jimi Hendrix would soon state their cases for instrumental virtuosity in rock. Some young jazz musicians sought for ways to meld the fluidity of jazz with the power and-let's face it-fun of rock. This book is their story, and of the artists who followed in their trail.

This book is dense with timelines, trends, and capsule histories. It is the only book on this subject known to me, and I am glad to learn of the existence of many of these forgotten pioneers and overlooked innovators. Saxophonist Charles Lloyd, in whose group Keith Jarrett got a start, carved a niche for himself by playing Coltrane Lite to the psychedelic crowd. Don Ellis played to the same audience using wild time signatures with "groovy" coloration. In more modern times guitarist Scott Henderson tries to lure metalheads to his brand of hard fusion. Of course we also meet more familiar acts, like John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report, and that shifting assemblage of uncredited songwriters, sidemen, producers, and engineers collectively known as Miles Davis.

The story is enriched by a lot-and I mean *a lot*-of eyewitness accounts and reminisces. The improvisational hard rock of Cream turns heads in the New York jazz scene. Vibraphonist Gary Burton and guitarist Larry Coryell follow Cream onstage at the Filmore. Jazz drummer Buddy Rich adds Beatles songs to his setlist, busying up the arrangements past recognition. Larry Graham of Sly and the Family Stone invents bass "popping", which is quickly integrated into the jazz vocabulary. The Mahavishnu Orchestra turns out to be even more daring in concert than on record. The rash young Larry Coryell tries to cut Jimi Hendrix onstage, and is blown out of the song by a massive wail of feedback as punishment. Hendrix especially casts a long shadow throughout this book, as do Cream.

One can always carp about where the author draws the line about who to include. Spirit doesn't rate a profile? Drummer Ed Cassidy had only played with Thelonius Monk, Cannonball Adderley, and Gerry Mulligan, is all. But that's all part of the fun, I suppose. This is a fine account of a little-considered genre. You're guaranteed to be tempted to take this to the record store with you.

Stuart Nicholson's history of jazz-rock is densly written and provides plenty of information about jazz-rock fusion and the musicians who played it. The book is not written as a chronology, but takes each important musician and gives a detailed history and discograpy of their works.

Beginning with early fusion of the mid-1960s through the 1970s and into the 1980s, a whole slew of musicians are covered. In deference to the many less-famous musicians presented here, too much print was given to Miles Davis and Jimi Hendrix, where complete biographies are already available.

One of the strengths of this book is the way in which the author shows how the various artists are linked together, depicting their flow of ideas and influences on one another.

My only complaint is with the front of the book cover, where John McLaughlin or Larry Coryell should have been pictured instead of Carlos Santana.

Let's say you've read Ted Gioia's History of Jazz or watched Ken Burns and you are wondering about the whole new world of contemporary jazz that gets glossed over in those treatments. You're saying to yourself -- Hey! What about Michael Brecker or Larry Coryell? If that is the case, then this book is your answer. It suffices for a slightly out of date icing on the cake of the great jazz heritage that calls for a modern documentary on the prolific stream of contemporary electonic jazz (or jazz-rock) from the mid 60's to the end of the 20th century. Specializing in the Electronic Virtuoso era (Mahavishnu, Return to Forever and the like), you will not find a better documentation of the days when there seemed to be no limit to Contemporary jazz or prototype fusion.

No better accounting of the influence Jimi Hendrix had on fusion is available. Whereas Burns and Gioia rightly trace almost everything back to Louis Armstrong, Stuart Nicholson makes a very strong case for Miles Davis' opening of the fusion floodgates.

I rated Nicholson's book with three stars, however, because of some unfortunate editorial biases and pointless rabbit trails. First, Nicholson draws arbitrary lines between what he considers true Jazz Rock and more commercially driven products. We can agree that those distinctions may exist, but we are left without a clear, objective criterion for what passes for the real thing. Bob James, who demonstrates great authentic jazz capability with his "Bob James Trio" release is otherwise relegated to "fuzak" for example. His best treatment of this issue surrounds Stanley Clarke who made strides to become popularized in his later productions in comparison to Clarke's earliest work. Nicholson fails to treat other worthy musicians with the same care and gets very sloppy, resorting to pigeon holes based on labels and sales. Had he been familiar with the industry, he would have mentioned Dave Grusin---while perhaps the foremost "sinner" of popularized smooth jazz---nevertheless made a mark on the jazz world with his legendary ensemble, The GRP All Star Band, not to mention his soundtrack for Three Days of the Condor. Grusin never gets a sentence in the book.

Worst yet, he bases his full opinion of the Yellowjackets on the Marc Russo era with only a mention of Bob Mintzer's membership in the band. Based on the date of his publication, he should have provided extensive analysis of the transformation of the Yellowjackets with Mintzer -- clearly one of the greatest examples of his very thesis! His discussions over the jazz influences on popular rock take him too far a field. A short chapter on some examples could have opened up space for a more thorough treatment of impact artists like David Beniot, Jeff Lorber, Dave Weckl and Brandon Fields.

Besides the overdone ideology, there are several brilliant moments that answer many questions about almost forgotten artists. Despite its flaws, the book is worth the purchase if this era is of interest to you.