Nicholson Books

I have lived in Germany during world war II and fully agree with Nicholson Baker's view that this war could have been prevented if England and France had not declared war on Germany or if they had agreed to an early peace treaty. From my experience during the war I can definitely say that most Germans were not in favor of any war with the west and even the Nazis would have agreed to a quick peace treaty. This would have prevented the death of millions of people including the European Jews and the destruction of Europe. I have described my life under the Nazis and what we were thinking at that time in my book "HITLER YOUTH TO U.S. CITIZEN", by Friedrich Neuhaus; fcneuhaus1@aol.com, see also the book listing in: www.amazon.com.

Let me start out by saying I am not a pacifist, have heretofore been unimpressed by Nicholson Baker's fiction, and that based on what I heard via word of mouth, I absolutely expected to loathe this controversial book.

Instead I was very much surprised by it.

Giving in very little to what Stephen King aptly terms "author intrusion" and instead allowing the figures from the pre-Second World War to speak for themselves and the too often atrocious acts of violence endemic in the era to sickeningly add to that, Baker provides a 566-page history lesson that is difficult to intelligently dismiss. Dealing largely with the time between the Great War and its sequel, the period that stood as a sort of mishandled entr'acte, Human Smoke makes its case of missed opportunity and human brutality with several thousand brief, hard-hitting vignettes, most of them ominously concluding with a cited date that sees history crawl ever closer to the maelstrom of the 1940's war. (Baker's line near the book's end pointing out that on December 31, 1941 most people who would die in the Second World War were still alive particularly rings tragically loud, and should give a reader pause.)

What Baker got right was his research into events that constitute the seldom-told and rarely known history of the period "between the wars" which was itself a violent time of many minor wars and suppressions of colonized peoples (complete with chemical and biological offensives and firebombings of civilian populaces) all underscored by one missed opportunity after another to de-rail the high-speed rush toward global conflict. Baker also draws many unstated parallels to our world today, fully using history in its most important role as would-be master teacher. In route to the conclusion of his tragedy, Baker cites fascinating minutia found nowhere else: Hitler's pride in the blondeness of his underarm hair, Churchill's imperialistic bloodlust and his admiration for Mussolini, the fact that in his youth Rudolph Hess greatly resembled Clark Gable, Franklin Roosevelt's lifelong anti-Semitism.

What Baker didn't get so right was his lack of acceptance of the fact that at times war, even a war that need not have been, is the path of lesser evil, and that when faced with a choice between submission to tyranny or self defense, the latter option is the only sane course to take. Also Baker's emphasis on the role of the United States as undue instigator of the Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor began to irritate me very much. While again and again Baker cited American actions in the 1930's that met with Japanese disapproval, he seems to forget that by his own recounting the Japanese were by then already brutally at war, and that the island nation regarded eastern Asia and the Pacific rim as much rightfully its own as Americans of the previous century had looked on expansion to the shores of California as their manifest destiny. In short, while the Japanese may have been angered by US backing of China and US a military presence in the Pacific, this alone did not compel Japanese militarism, which was already in evidence.

Many might also be surprised not only by Baker's negative take on such revered World War Two icons as Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, but by the very statements these men made, in their own words, in their own speeches and books. How Baker can be so often criticized for his iconoclasm when he is merely using these figures' own expressed statements defies logic.

Baker brings a cast of literally thousands into Human Smoke as he describes the actions and attitudes not only of the figures most familiar to us, but also of men and women who are virtually unknown today. Baker revisits the words of rabbis, pacifists, philosophers, warriors, politicians, newspaper reporters, researchers, priests, college professors and many others from diverging walks of life, and allows them their say in this present century, and as such it is difficult to argue against the facts as he presents them in this chronicle of a march toward tragedy.

Is Baker ultimately right in his criticism of the human conduct which caused the Second World War? I found he made valid points and joined with him in wishing wiser avenues had been taken, but unlike Baker I find that firstly I am in no place to criticize those leaders and everyday souls who provided us the post-Second World War society in which we placidly dwell, and secondly, I pessimistically indict humanity's "smallness" its xenophobia and nationalism, love of war, greed, and violent longings, and state for the record that I don't think the mass of men are capable of the courageously peaceful dignity Baker seems to suggest should have been in evidence in the 1920's and 1930's, which would have derailed the hectic rush to violence.

Simply put, human beings are beasts at heart and I doubt we'll ever change, so to criticize us for being what we are is fine, to expect better outcomes in days ahead is an idealism destined for disappointment.

Human Smoke is the most unusual book on World War II which I have read. The reason is the format. Award winning American pacifist author Nicholson Baker has told the grisly story by using a Wikepdia approach to his narrative structure. In succinct paragraphs he tells how the world entered the Dantean hell of World War II. A war in which over 50 million people died of battle, bombing, starvation, disease and execution. Baker's
book is perfect for people who have limited time or short attention spans. It is a technique which would do well in textbook histories used in the classroom,
Baker begins his book by looking at prewar Europe, Japan and the United States. He keeps his opinions to himself letting the paragraphs of current events at the time tell their own story. We learn among many other facts that:
a. Great Britain failed in its policy of appeasement towards Hitler.
b. Great Britain was not prepared in a military way to go to war with Germany to aid Poland in September 1939.
c. Winston Churchill was a war hawk who called for war against the Reich. Churchill was no saint! Baker's intensive research reveals him as inimical to the work of Gandhi in India; the advocacy of poison gas against the enemy; the proponent of a blockade against German held Europe despite massive hunger and starvation among innocent women, children and other civilians. The reader will admire Churchill's tenacity and determination to defeat the Axis powers. Churchill was a complex genius!
d. Hitler did not want to conquer the USA. He did want to rule continental Europe with England reigning over the seas and her colonies. Japan was to hold sway in Asia.
e. Charles Lindbergh was an anti-semite and Nordic supremacist who led American First attempts to have the US follow a policy of isolationism.
f. FDR worked behind the scenes to support Great Britain through his Lend-Lease plan.
g. Baker tales the story of Quakers like Rufus Jones and Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick who were opponents of the war. Many went to prison for their refusal to be drafted and participate in a bloody holocaust.
h. Hundreds of voices speak in these short snaps of the historical newsreel. The voices range from the evil cries of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to Jews trapped in Germany such as Victor Klemperer. Holocaust victims, world leaders, famous writers such as Christopher Isherwood and Stephen Zweig all have their say.
The book teaches us that the so called "good war" was an unspeakable tragedy with millions losing their lives. Baker's work will immerse you with the sights,sounds and actions that led the globe from peace down into the murky and bloody pit of total warfare waged with horrific modern weaponry. The book ends in December 1941 as America is sucked into war's maelstrom of death by the attack of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
As one who has read hundreds of books on World War II this is one I highly recommend and will use often in my own research on the war. The title comes from a remark made by Nazi General Franz Halder. As Baker states on page 474 in quoting Halder: :...Halder told an interrogator than when he was imprisoned in Auschwitz late in the war he saw flakes of smoke blow into his cell. Human smoke he called it."
Nicholas Baker dedicates his fine book to all the pacifists who were for peace and not war. This reviewer also hopes we all honor their memories by serving the blessed cause of peace. Read and learn!

Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization is Nicholson Baker's history of the lead-up to World War II and the United States' involvement in it. Rather than provide a continuous, blow-by-blow account of things, Baker uses hundreds of brief news items, averaging perhaps half a page in length. These range from 1892 to the end of 1941 (the vast majority of the book deals with the thirties and forties). As Baker recounts a wide assortment of events, he has several questions in mind. As he states in the afterword (p. 473): "Was [World War II] a `good war'? Did waging it help anyone who needed help?" Ultimately, Baker challenges World War II as the exemplar of just war.

Baker's prose is engaging. He quotes whenever possible, and doesn't editorialize much. The brevity of his entries keeps the book moving at a fast pace. Baker draws heavily from newspapers, diaries, memoirs and public statements, and ties each news item to a specific date. This helps keep the material honest.

A lot of what Baker focuses on reveals another side of World War II, one many Americans aren't familiar with. Baker works to show that World War II did quite a lot more harm than it did good. Nevertheless, he at no time sympathizes with the Nazis - he accurately portrays how terrible they could be. Baker explores the warmongering side of Roosevelt and Churchill as well as Hitler. There is a side of the U.S. and Britain that he is keen to show, and some of the things these nations did might amount to shocking revelations for many people. World War II was brought about, to a great degree, by that great confluence of warmongers.

-The United States sold arms to Germany and Japan in the 1930s.

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with a great many other Americans and citizens of the world, was blatantly anti-Semitic.

-Before the Holocaust, Germany spent years trying to ship the Jews out. Nobody, including the United States, would take them. While this does not mitigate the horrors the Nazis perpetrated, it is alarming that by and large the rest of the world didn't care what happened to the Jews. Certainly this helped cultivate the environment for the Holocaust.

-The British blockaded continental Europe, and would not allow food shipments through, even food intended for starving citizens of occupied France. Herbert Hoover, the much-reviled, erstwhile president, fought tooth and nail for the food shipments.

-For years, Roosevelt taunted and provoked Japan, hoping to lure them into striking first, so that he could bring the United States into the war without reneging on his campaign promises to keep the country out of war.

-Bombing, a major war strategy for both sides, was notoriously imprecise. An unbelievably small percentage of bombs hit their intended targets. Additionally, both Germany and Britain deliberately, purposely and repeatedly bombed civilian targets.

Human Smoke is recommended to those with an interest in World War II, and to those who believe World War II was a just war, or that it was fought according to the criteria of just war by any nation.

"Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization", best-selling author Baker's first work of non-fiction, is a history of the buildup to World War II as told via snippets from newspapers, personal diaries, memoirs, etc. Baker provides a minimum of personal interjections or opinions along the way, preferring instead to let the chosen selections speak for themselves. The end result is a grim and depressing narrative that shows the breaking out of World War II as the inevitable conclusion of the machinations of American industrialists looking for new markets in Asia and Europe, Roosevelt's desires to impose his visions of an Anglo-American order upon the world, and, particularly, Winston Churchill's ruthless and bloodthirsty pursuit of a wider and more devastating war.

It needs to be said by the reviewer and, hopefully, known by the reader that Baker is emphatically not a historian. The text itself and post-release interviews with Baker himself indicate that the author had a thesis in his head before the book was written, and the material presented is that which most strongly supports it. The result is a tale of a haunting descent into both total war and industrial holocaust that, possibly, could have been, if not avoided, at least mitigated, had the men in power simply had the moral fiber to choose differently.

This book is going to appeal strongly to a certain subset of readers that wish to believe that capitalism, anti-semitism, etc., were stronger factors in the outbreak of World War II than, say, fascism and national socialism. The supposed anti-semitism of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt gets almost as much ink as that of the Nazis, particularly as it involves the USA's (along with most every other nation on the planet) unwillingness to take in more Jewish refugees than our immigration laws at the time allowed. Likewise, the push by American aircraft manufacturers to design and sell new warplanes to all and sundry in the 30's, even though the total figures involved come out to about 100 planes total throughout the pre-1939 period, gets more consideration as a cause of the increasing belligerence and actual combat around the globe than does the considerably more gigantic buildup of the fascist and Soviet militaries during the same time.

Likewise, a lot of pages and ink are given over to the pronunciamentos and goals of various pacifist movements through the first decades of the 20th Century, with the clear subtext of "had we listened to them, the war would never have started, or at least not been as vicious". While there is much to be said for studying the pacifist movement prior to and during the start of World War II, there is little to be said for believing for an instant that, had Churchill or Roosevelt just listened more closely to the them, Hitler and Tojo would've somehow been less warlike as a result.

That leads to the biggest problem of the book; it's _incredibly_ biased. All histories are, to some extent, a reflection of the author's biases, sure. However, the lack of any context being provided here would lead the uneducated reader to assume that the viciousness of the war itself and the Holocaust need not have happened as they did. The lack of much editorial context by the author actually serves to reinforce this aspect; the reader has no guide as to why Baker chose a given text in the first place. The reader, if not Baker's argument, would actually be better served if Nicholson had chosen to provide more editorial context for his selections. At least that way, the pro-pacifist, anti-Churchillian bias of the author would be a known quantity instead of something just hinted at.

The obvious counter-argument can be made that, well: these ARE Churchill and Roosevelt's and Chennault's own words, are they not? Sure, they are. However, the context that would clearly show that these men were emphatically NOT the primary actors driving the events of the era is simply not there. We hear much of the bloodthirsty-ness of Churchill, Bomber Harris, etc. The comparable and considerably more voluminous and damning words of the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the era are much less present.

When they are present at all, they've been chosen to show the rare moments when these men were hoping for an end to the war they had started (so long as it ended on their terms and with their bloody conquests already made allowed to be kept).

While a very engrossing and emotionally effective (and affecting) read, I could not recommend "Human Smoke" to anyone whom I was not already aware of possessing a clear understanding of how World War II came to be. While the study of pacifism in the 30's and early 40's has its merits, the conclusion that it would have been effective had just certain men in the West been willing to listen to it, is unsupportable.

This is a naughty little book with a scalding reputation. Many know that Monica Lewinsky gave a copy of the salacious "Vox" to then President Bill Clinton. A very quick read reveals the implications behind such an offering. It's about as direct and unambiguous as a gift gets. In the nuclear political fallout, author Nicholson Baker catapulted into the mainstream. The hubbub around "Vox" arguably solidified his literary career.

Put as bluntly as possible, this book deals with the anonymous and faceless pleasures that many find in phone sex. Though new and ridiculously interactive technology has since surfaced that makes a mere conversation seem tame in comparison, "Vox" nonetheless maintains some of its shock value some sixteen years later. One reason is that the written word perfectly captures the purely syntactical eroticism of a dirty telephone conversation. No faces. No direct physical interaction between parties. All words and imagination to stimulation. Nothing else.

The conversation that ensues within remains nameless to the end. Plus, the paradoxical human condition tends to allow more intimacy in anonymous situations. People can shamelessly reveal themselves to those they will likely never meet. In "Vox," a west coast man and an east coast woman do just that. Their explicit and intimate conversation belies the stark impersonal nature of their medium of choice: "2VOX," a phone bank advertised in adult magazines. They filter out the overstimulated rabble and enter a "private" phone line. They never address the concern that someone may be listening in. In any case, the reader, in full voyeur mode, does listen in to every word and guttural noise. Some might feel guilty after finishing this book, complete with its literary and, um, "other" forms of climax.

"Vox" remains a fun, if somewhat superficial, read. Baker's penchant for capturing conversation shines at full prominence here. The stories and fantasies shared range from the hilarious to the outright pornographic. The woman fantasizes about being stuck in a hole in the wall surrounded by strapping painters. Of course they paint. The man tells his tale about convincing Emily, a woman with seductively long arms, to his apartment to watch a dubbed European "blue movie." They ask each other what they're doing, how they're dressed, about their deepest secrets, and most significant conquests. The woman once used olive oil and a shower head in creative ways. She shares this ditty with the man, who brings the entire conversation to a satisfying conclusion by utilizing his "Mmmm-Detector." The question arises whether they will talk again, and the book ends with Baker's signature "unresolved resolution."

Evaluating this book remains problematic. Of course it's a titillating page-turner. It's dang fun. But does it rise above literary smut? At the very least, it represents highly creative, intriguing, well-written and engaging smut. At best, it explores the vastness of human sexuality interfacing with anonymous technology. Though the characters seem to reveal their deepest secrets, they remain strangely unknown in the conduits of telecommunications. That they nonetheless manage to have a meaningful and satisfying encounter despite distance and intangibility, remains one of the book's most poignant tensions. Some may be put off by the explicitness of certain passages. Many would doubtless give "Vox" an "X" rating. But many will find the exploration a liberating and enticing read, regardless of how one rates its literary qualities. Baker further explored these themes in a later book, the even dirtier "Fermata." Though a little tamer, "Vox," given the political controversy that surrounded it and subsequent attention it received, will stand as Baker's breakout novel.

This is a quick little read-just over 40,000 words-about a man and a woman having phone sex. I've always borne the prejudice that nothing could be less interesting than phone sex, particularly somebody else's phone sex. And yet, here we have two people who stray from the topic at hand (so to speak)and from behind the cloak of anonymity, let fly some marvelously revealing fragments of everyday life.
Baker has the man say at one point 'an orgasm in a complicated mind is always more interesting than one in a simple mind'. Aside from the acknowledgment that orgasms happen in the mind, this is a wonderful moment. It's one of the many points in this little book when two people take quiet note of each other's humanity. Read this alongside Philip Roth's Deception-a book that's structurally identical and worlds away in spirit.

Lynn Hoffman, author of the novel bang BANG

I was constantly asking myself if I was more blown over by the characters or the genius of the author's creativity. Imagine a man that indiscriminately worships the idea of women masturbating. That's hott! Or who considers himself a spokesperson for women freely expressing their sexuality. Still hott. This is a one chapter book about phone sex, but phone sex with debth. The characters and plot are great, but to witness the author's creativity, is even better. Enjoy.

Loved this book. It's an enjoyably quick read of neurotic erotica that reminds me of a Douglas Coupland novel. It's funny, smart, and effortlessly unpretentious. Very cleverly crafted. Plus, it turns you on.

The plot involves a man and a woman in their late twenties who strike up a conversation on an adult partyline. They're drawn to each other's voices. Their neuroses are a perfect match. The conversation builds like sex builds. It's imaginative, funny, honest, revealing, shocking, innocent, jaded and sweet. There are laugh-out-loud moments that keep you reading. Then, in the last 30 pages, the masturbatory climax is realized, and we feel satisfied with the ending.

A whole book filled with one particular phone conversation between a man and a woman. They begin as strangers and by the end of that one phone call they get to know each other better. They like each other's voice so much that they might even meet one day. Until then, they would be satisfied with talking on the phone. When they initiate the call they have the same goal in mind. They obtain it at the end but the journey in reaching it takes a lot of work told in stories. The idea for the story is amazing. The stories told during their chat are diverse. A short work that could be finished under three hours where there is nothing to think about except read.

In a review of Johnson's "A History of the American People" by Mark Wylie, he raised a serious issue by saying "The most obvious failing of this book is its abundance of factual errors..."

Also in a review of Johnson's "A History of the Jews", a customer titled his review as "A Pleasant Buffet of Factual Errors" and said "But with every line, I kept thinking, 'How do I know THIS is accurate? If he couldn't even report what the Bible says accurately, how can I trust his scholarship on these more difficult-to-know issues and events?' "

I just wonder why no one here complains anything about the factual errors in this book? Does that mean Johnson did a thorough research this time or no one is knowledgeable enough to point out the errors?

Paul Johnson passes as an "entertaining" or "popular" writer of history largely because he is provocative and one-sided. This would be objectionable, but not egregiously so, if he did not claim, as he does in the preface of this book, to be objective and unbiased. One cannot make it through the first chapter, and certainly not the second, before discovering that Paul Johnson has picked his heroes and villains in the history of the Church. For example, he has everything bad and almost nothing good to say about St. Augustine; the otherwise uninformed reader would have to conclude, from what Johnson says, that Augustine was "sinister," "a tremendous egoist," and the "dark genius" who gave theoretical justification to every repressive and sinful action of the Church down to the Spanish Inquisition! On the other hand, the heretic Pelagius is described as an urbane, misunderstood, and well-intentioned "reformer," whom Augustine, the "mob orator," villainously vilified and cacklingly condemned. He even says that it was *Augustine* who was the real heretic -- a pessimistic and authoritarian figure who helped to catapult the Church into the dark, spooky, and torture-happy Middle Ages. Not until the Renaissance does Erasmus rise from the blood-soaked ashes and once again champion the enlightened and optimistic humanism of -- guess who -- Pelagius (as well as his supposed intellectual foster-father, Origen). Occasionally, one even questions the depth of Johnson's scholarship, as when he wonders how in the world Augustine could have gotten the idea that Scripture might support a negative view of the human condition. Has he read Ecclesiastes lately? Or even Genesis?

Call this "entertaining" if you will. The book *is* well written; it hums along at an almost breathless pace; and its simplistic and reductive treatment of complex historical personalities appeals to the human appetite for good guys vs. bad guys story-telling. I must admit that it's hard to put down at times. But it is definitely *not* objective and unbiased. The consistently suspicious and negative tone eventually compromises whatever enjoyment the story itself engenders and begins to grate on the reader's nerves -- that is, if the reader has any sympathy or love for the people and things about which Johnson writes.

And that's just it. Johnson does not, as a good historian should, inculcate love for his subject-matter. He does not even come across as the cranky but ultimately good-hearted "cynic." Despite the short epilogue, which is a kind of flimsy apology for the caustic negativity of the preceding five-hundred pages, the reader is left feeling a little sick to his stomach. The irony is that, for all his criticism of Augustine's pessimism, Johnson, in the end, can only praise Christianity for its effectiveness in "caging the beast" of human depravity -- a claim which, in any case, he has given the reader little reason to believe. For a more balanced, comprehensive, and sympathetic -- if less "entertaining" -- account of our Christian past, I think I'll turn to someone else -- like Jaroslav Pelikan, for instance.

My first introduction to Paul Johnson was his Modern Times Revised Edition: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (Perennial Classics). I really enjoyed his perspective on things and his prose was very easy to read and understand. I decided to follow up with this volume since I have always had a fascination with Christian History. Most of my previous experience with Christian history was gleaned out of Durant's "Story of Civilization" series and snippets of early Christian History from Josephus and Gibbon. This is really my first time reading a volume dedicated to Christian History.

I found that this book met my expectations. As expected it is difficult to compress 2000 years of history into a 500 page volume, but Johnson did an excellent job picking out highlights of Christian history. He weaves these facts into a big picture and brings out several things that I had not noticed before. An example would be roles the different orders of Monks played in society. I hadn't realized how diverse the different societies were, and some actually did play an important role in society at various times.

The book consists of eight parts looking at the beginnings, the transition to a state religion, the time as a state religion, the rise of opposition within the church, the reformation with focus on Erasmus, the time of warring between Protestantism and Catholicism, a look at missionary work and the expansion outside of Europe, and finally a look at Triumphalism. Beyond that division though, there were no subdivisions, so it is difficult to use this as a reference book. There is an index that helps, but this is mainly a good book to get the big picture of Christian history. I recommend this book for someone looking for a good overview of history, but not for someone looking for a good reference book.

This author does a great job of discussing what is known and what is generally accepted about the history of the Christian religion from Jesus' time to modern day. As with anything that took place 2 millenia ago, what we know is taken from what was written. And history is generally written by the victor, i.e. the Roman Catholic Branch which resided in Rome and ultimately outsurvived the various sects of Christianity that failed to thrive or just disappeared. I appreciate the fact that the author is presenting the history in an objective manner. This book was by no means written to pander to Christianity, its not an exercise in patting oneself on the back. It discusses the triumphs, accomplishments and downfalls experienced by the historical main players of the faith. I think before anyone can call themselves a Christian, they should know the history behind the events that resulted in the form of Christianity they profess to believe in today. The language that the author used to write this book is difficult to absorb as it seems to have been written for well educated historians. The author seems to have wanted to impress his colleagues and wrote in a manner that is hard to digest by the lay reader. I have had to reread chapters in order to get a clearer understanding of what is being presented, but the effort is well worth it in obtaining a good idea of how Christian history unfolded.

In a review of Johnson's "A History of the American People" by Mark Wylie, he raised a serious issue by saying "The most obvious failing of this book is its abundance of factual errors..."

Also in a review of Johnson's "A History of the Jews", a customer titled his review as "A Pleasant Buffet of Factual Errors" and said "But with every line, I kept thinking, 'How do I know THIS is accurate? If he couldn't even report what the Bible says accurately, how can I trust his scholarship on these more difficult-to-know issues and events?' "

I just wonder why no one here complains anything about the factual errors in this book? Does that mean Johnson did a thorough research this time or no one is knowledgeable enough to point out the errors?

None of Jared Diamond's books will have you on the edge of your seat, but the author does a fine job at making his points, backing it up with irrefutable science and not hype or conjecture. This book delivers an intriguing view on why we, as well as birds and bees, not only do it, but why we treat sex the way we do while other species don't.

This is a fascinating book, & by-and-large explains the uniqueness of human sexuality with evolutionary logic.

Quite a few chapters are fascinating forays into aspects of human sexuality. But chief among these is the chapter which delves into why is sex fun for humans. In a very cogent manner, Diamond puts forward competing theories around the evolution of concealed female ovulation & extends it to explain why sex tends to be largely recreational in humans. The chapter on "What are men good for" represents "both sides" of the argument, & though there are certain attempts at re-establishing men's role in child rearing (food, protection etc), Diamond finally gives up & concedes that men aren't good for too many things in general.

The chapter on female menopause is an intriguing piece of counter-intuitive reasoning - making more by making less - as he calls this chapter. Now a lot of aspects of human sexuality - because it is evolutionary in nature, as are all other aspects of living beings - can be reasoned about, in the evolutionary backdrop, but who is to say that one theory is better than the other, or choose between two competing theories both of which explain the same set of observations. You can see more instances of such theorizing in the final chapter on Body signals where Diamond very eruditely talks about signals that different species have for attracting mates, discusses all the theories around such signals, establishes one of them loosely, & uses it to explain the relatively longer human-male penis compared to the chimps, & gorillas.

These, though, are minor issues - unless you're in the same field as Diamond. For the general reader, this book still is packed with plenty of information, sets good context before trying to explain anything, is full of comparative data among other animal-species, is funny every now & then, & in general will make a great reading.

I started reading Diamond with Guns, Germs, and Steel and went on to other of his works. While reading "Why Is Sex Fun" we were staying with our daughter, helping her care for a newborn and his comments on the energy expenditure of caring for an infant were enlightening. His writing was insightful and at the same time entertaining, but unless I skipped a page somewhere he fails to answer two questions presented in the advertising - Why is it fun? and Why humans choose privacy for sex? Compared to Guns... and Collapse, this one is a lightweight and not just in the number of pages.

Are men and women basically alike, save the obvious physical differences? Absolutely not! This quick read explores the different evolutionary pressures that shape human sexuality. The "Battle of the Sexes" has evolutionary roots millions of years old. Diamond explains how each gender of a given species seeks to leave as many off-spring as possible, and how biological gender differences lead to different strategies and behavior. Diamond convincing promotes an evolutionary paradigm of human sexuality that goes quite far in explaining why men and women act the way they do. Witty and concise throughout, this book is enjoyable and illuminating.

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins once said that he would have written a book on the evolution of sex if Jared Diamond hadn't had done such a good job of it with `Why is Sex fun?' If you are interested in evolution or the evolution of human sexuality then this scientific entry is an imperative. However if you are looking for a book that just does cheap thrills or agony aunt pseudo-explanations, go elsewhere.

Jared Diamond is the Pulitzer Prize winning author of `Guns, germs and steel' fame. He has a talent for making science interesting and writes extremely eloquently and often quite wittily.

The book is quite short but the material brought forth in it is an awareness raiser. Diamond starts by addressing the issue of human sexuality in relation to other animals and indicates a surprising uniqueness to how we do it and in many cases the inclusion of a recreational aspect that evades most other species and demands explanation. Diamond uses evolutionary pressures to explain why the sexes developed and the roles that the genders play with respect to anatomy and biology. The non-evolution of male lactation has a few surprises in store and then it is time to explain why we have recreational sex which finds its reason in concealed ovulation. There is a focus on why men behave in the role they do if it seems that women end up doing more work. The show-off male seems to have an evolutionary advantage because when he eventually manages to brings home the bacon he tends to bring home a butcher shop. There is a massive surprise in store for why the female menopause has evolved and has to do with old people being used as information storage retrieval devices instead of offspring producers. Diamond finishes up by explaining the evolution of sexual signalling before leaving us with the enigma of penis size that has yet to find a suitable evolutionary explanation.

This is far from a simple book but stick with it and you will learn some extraordinary things about why we are the way we are. I am sure this book will also help people get over certain guilt trips they might be on. I cannot over recommend its value and contribution to our biological lives.

There are only two reasons to read this book, as far as I can see.

The first is for its look at future warfare (it typifies the truism "Militaries always prepare for the *last* war, not the *next* one"). This is not the main theme of the work, but it is certainly present.

The second is for its exploration of the utterly amoral mindset, as exemplified in the main character. He is almost consistently horrible throughout the tale, and never redeemed... even in the end, when a unique opportunity to do good presents itself.

The book will be disturbing to very many readers, as it is full of rape and murder. However, I'm glad that I read it, if only to remind me of the lie implicit in the old quote "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it". The fact is that people need *not* become the monsters that awful circumstances might permit; this dark and awful look at one possible future should cause readers to remember that. Not recommended for sensitive readers.

I just finished KALEIDOSCOPE CENTURY by John Barnes. I found this to be a fascinating tale of future and alternate history.

Josh is a longtimer. That means that every sixteen years he gets sick for six months and drops ten years of aging. He also drops most of his recent memories. Josh has just woken up on Mars and is trying to piece together his past involvement with the KGB and the Committee. Josh lived through and participated in some very violent and wildly changing times. Earth gets abandoned to AIs that make backup copies in humans, limited time travel has been discovered and man is exploring space. Through Josh's 140 years of life we see a fascinating history unfold beginning in the 1960's to the not very distant future.

This is a fun book if you like history. Bush gets a second term and dies of mutAIDS (an airborne variety), Yeltsin conducts a failed coup on international television and plenty of other historical quirks. The only problem is that there is not much in the way of plot. The title only becomes significant at the very end. So what you have is a forty or fifty page story interspersed among an interesting history.

This is one in a series of books dealing with the Memes (the Ais). Others include Candle, Orbital Resonance, and The Sky So Big and Black.

I want to add my words of praise for this novel. It's not for the faint of heart, but it's depiction of a war-torn twenty-first century in an alternate timeline (that begins deviating from ours around 1990) is one of the most well thought through and believable near futures in all of SF. That alone makes the book well worth reading, but in addition it is told from the point of view of a sociopath whose life symbolizes the larger catastrophes the world suffers through; this bleakly reinforces the book's brutally clear depiction of the banality of evil. Read this book, and then go out into the world and work for the changes that we need to keep it from becoming reality.

Barnes' second novel in the Century series (unofficially titled the Century series, the books include Book #1: Orbital Resonance, Book #2: Kaleidoscope Century, Book #3: Candle, and Book #4: The Sky So Big and Black) is a harrowing and often unflattering depiction of an all too possible future in which one man, Joshua Ali Quare, wages a War of Self against circumstances that constantly threaten to kill him or destroy his identity in one way or another.

The first thing that must be addressed in this review is the other reviewers failure to understand the complexity and depth of the protagonist of this story, much as the other characters in this novel fail to truly understand him. Joshua Ali Quare's personality and actions, like every other human being that walks the face of this planet, are formulated by a combination of influences from environment, upbringing, and his own innate sense of self. His parents were fringe elements, his mother an african-american communist activist, his father a hard drinking "good old boy" white criminal with a violent streak and a gift for an eloquent turn of phrase. He is recruited by his mother's communist friends to act as a spy for the KGB/Organization within the U.S. military. As awful an act as this must seem to many readers, Josh tells us himself, "I grew up knowing that the United States had to fall eventually." This is not a patriotic American child. This is the child of revolutionaries, and he shows the resilient, pragmatic approach to life that revolutionaries have. He does commit despicable acts of murder and rape, but most of the time when he does these things he is under the influence of powerful psychotropic drugs. That he is a revolutionary terrorist is not to be disputed. The acts he performs are truly disgusting, but one must look at the whole picture before judging Joshua Ali Quare.

In the course of the book Josh leads many different lives under many different identities. His memory is erased and his age regressed every 15 years. The only information he has to connect him to the world and himself are the trinkets and words he has left behind, and as he himself puts it, he is not a good writer. Some of the lives Josh lives are positive, productive lives. But he is under no illusions. Everything move he makes is done in intelligent self interest, and he knows it. This does not mean however that he is a monster. He, as Shakespeare's character of Shylock so eloquently puts it, bleeds when he is pricked, cries when he is hurt, laughs when he loves.

The key to understanding this novel is to understand that in every person there is the potential for good and evil to some greater or lesser degree. Read the book with an open mind and you will see it as an interesting exploration of a sociopath's mind. It will also show you a future whose similarities to our own will disturb you, and it will open your mind to the possiblities of what can happen if one is true to oneself.

This is a VERY good story about a VERY evil man. How do you become emotionally invested in a main character who is a rapist, murderer, KGB spy, and all around selfish bastard? The answer is here. I have no idea how an American KGB spy is made but chances are the answer is in this book.

It is the story about how Josh became a spy for the wrong side and did their dirty work--and let me assure you, the work is about as dirty as you will ever read. You become emotionally invested when you find out his father was an abusive drunk and his mother was a commie activist nut. No wonder he is such a basket case! In fact, this story would be a good text book in a "How to make an anti-hero" writing class.

The main story details his search for security (since he had none growing up). He never looks beyond himself. He has no love of communism, certainly no love of capitalism and not much love period. He is out for himself and the rest of the world can go to hell.

If the story interests you so far then read the book. It's a dark, fascinating, downward spiral into depravity. Quite frankly, you hate the main character but you keep reading to find out what happens to him at the end of the story. If, so far, this is not your kind of story, then don't read it. It's doubtful you will like it.

Not knowing much about John Barnes, I find it interesting that later on he worked with all-American Buzz Aldrin on some other projects making him a truly complex writer. Five stars for showing me something I've never seen before.

I have a difficult time taking a book "about the Rolling Stones" seriously with next-to-no mention of Stu, Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Anita, or Marianne - and then trots out an "essay" by Sheryl Crow? Good pix, but ZILCH for any sort of "literary content." Don't pay more than $5 for it, it'll give you a hernia, and make you feel like you've been engaging in coitus interruptus.

Great for avid fans. Lots of never before seen pics. Lot's of pics of the 'author' as a young man.

If you want this beautifully laid out coffee table book for its many excellent and in some cases previously unpublished photos, you will not be disappointed. There's a wealth of great shots here, though the emphasis is predictably on Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie, in that order; there are hardly any shots at all of Bill or Brian and only a couple of Mick Taylor.

The spliced up series of interviews that make up the rest of the book, and presumably justify the "according to..." name, are uneven. Keith's excellent (if highly selective) memory and ascerbic wit are still there; Woody is as genial and upbeat as one has come to expect; Charlie is actually pretty reflective at times; but Mick's comments could have been cut in half without losing anything important. Contributions from Wyman or Taylor would have been welcome, but apparently in a book over 350 pages long there was not room for a single word. Especially in the case of Bill Wyman, a founding member putting in 25 years service, this is unforgiveable. There is virtually no, as in zero, indication of who played bass with these clowns for all those years; Darryl Jones is covered in greater detail, and is featured in at least as many photos. Sad.

There are many many good books out there on the Stones which cover, in detail, most of the important ups and downs of their often fascinating career. This is not one of them. If you want to know about the blues scene in early 60s London, it's okay. If you want to know about the tours since the 1980s, it's okay. If you want to know about much in between, it's pretty lame. I looked in vain for some word on Woody's solo albums (frankly the best Stones-related products since 1990), the New Barbarians tour, Maggie Trudeau, Altamont (!! - only Charlie has any comments at all), groupies, Allen Klein, family life on the road, changing wives and girlfriends, etc etc. The text is basically a general whitewash over anything that might be interesting. Too bad.

After each chapter there is an interview with someone associated with the band in 'some' way, and ironically a couple of these are better than most of the Stones contribitions. Most of the comments are sycophantic in nature - Sheryl Crow, Peter Wolf - but two especially stand out: Giorgio Gomelsky and Prince Rupert Lowenstein. Neither are often heard from, both had unique perspectives, and in particular Prince Rupert in very insightful and funny. Fleshing this stuff out into a chapter and ditching a couple thousand words of Mick Jagger's often dishonest and deluded puffery would have been of benefit.

I would agree with most of the negative reviews this book has received so far, and history has indeed been re-written. While Mick Taylor's role in the Stones' career could not be overstated, it is Bill Wyman's virtual absence that is the most shocking. Most of the band's shots from the 70's, but especially the 80's and 90's seem to deliberately leave him out. This is insulting to any self-respecting Stones fan and quite a disappointment (although not a complete surprise). As everyone knows, Bill was an original member of the band and his career as a Stone lasted almost 40 years. The Mick'n'Keef show could never have existed without the steadfast rythm section that anchored the band throughout most of its history. Shame on the other Stones for going out their way to practically eliminate Bill Wyman from this biography. And who exactly does Mick Jagger think he is fooling when he sings about neo-cons, then proceeds to pick Ameriquest, one of the worst predatory lenders in America, as a tour sponsor? Who said the Stones aged gracefully? Get Bill's book instead.

From reading this coffee-table book, a person who did not know much about the Stones could possibly conclude the following:
1. Bill Wyman was not in the Stones
2. Brian Jones made no great contributions and was a drug-addled pain in the a--.
3. Mick Taylor was a Stone briefly
This is a book written by the three original Stones who still play together, plus long-time member Ronnie Wood. It is written in their words and at times I found their comments to be self-serving and overly harsh of others. Wyman, the great bassist, is discussed by his rhythm-mate Charlie Watts because of his effeminate bass playing and tiny hands. Brian Jones, who WAS the Rolling Stones early on and made their music special, is dismissed for his lack of song-writing ability, his drug use, and his mental problems. Should Rolling Stones throw Stones, especially ones who live in glass houses? All of these guys were drug-addled and messed up at one point. Even if he was hard to live with, why not dwell on the many positives that the guy brought to the group? And Mick Taylor, who laid down some of the greatest lead guitar riffs in Stones history, is, like Wyman, alive and well, and yet he and Wyman were never even interviewed for this book. Why is that? Is it because this is a self-serving project aimed at boosting the stock of Rolling Stones, Incorporated, the remaining members?
The photos are excellent. Some of the commentary is interesting, especially from the usually tight-lipped Charlie Watts. The essays by outsiders that are inserted between chapters give new meaning to the term sycophantic.
Reading this as the definitive autobiography of the Stones is like reading a Soviet history textbook from the fifties, the one where all the purged heroes have been airbrushed out of the photos and written out of the index.
For a good illustrated history of the Stones, I highly recommend Bill Wyman's Rolling with the Stones. He kept great records, and he is fair-minded to all the members, past and present.
I love the Stones, but this book brought them down a notch in my pantheon of rock gods.

I bought this book to read at home while I was on bedrest due to pregnancy complications. I love Bentley Little so I thought this author would be pretty good. I was WRONG! This guy can't make the story flow and it is very choppy and hard to follow and stay interested. I can't believe this guy actually got this book published! Truely awful!

The Farm was a huge disappointment to me. I heard rave reviews about the author and the setting behind the story i thought was great. However the poor plot development, boring characters, and dismal climax made this book a poor read in the end. not worth your time or money

I really enjoyed my first Nicholson book, The Farm. There was a large cast of characters that were all multi-faceted and well thought out. Nicholoson keeps you guessing for a while on who the Antagonist actually is. I can't wait to read more of his books.

At their core, the authors of classic horror novels - I'm thinking the early works of Stephen King, Peter Straub, or Thomas Tryon - understand the subtlety of terror - that truly scary stories build slowly from anomalies in natural, everyday events, gradually pulling the reader irresistibly into what they know will be eventually scaring the pants off them. Regrettably, this subtlety is lost on Scott Nicholson in this flat and disconnected yawner of "horror" fiction.

Recently divorced Katy Logan and her "Goth-lite" twelve-year daughter, "Jett", leave their life in Charlotte behind and head for the hills of western North Carolina with new husband/step-dad Gordon Smith, a professor of religious history. One never grasps Katy's attraction to this pompous buffoon, but before the first page has turned we're experiencing our first haunting, and then serving up a smörgåsbord of ghouls - carnivorous goats, scarecrows that simply won't stay staked, a headless housewife, and a centuries-dead circuit preacher. While Nicholson borrows liberally from the literature - Tryon's "Harvest Home" and King's frightening short story, "The Man in the Black Suit" come to mind - this conglomeration of demons conjures up about as terror - and makes about as much sense - as an episode of "Scooby Doo". To make matters worse, Nicholson, whose bio puts him in Carolina's Blue Ridge Mountains, writes of these rugged mountain people with thinly veiled contempt, going beyond simple stereotype to patronize and condescend. But in a bizarre and certainly unintended way, "The Farm" was a perversely entertaining novel. Nicholson's fumbling inaccuracies with topics across a wide range - twelve-year olds, geography, economics, firearms, and even the relatively pastoral Charlotte, a drug infested Las Vegas-like Sin City in Nicholson's world - makes for a comical backdrop. The author may not be able to tell a Kalashnikov from a cabbage, and his deliciously indignant and out-of-context political ramblings blunt hopes for any possible redeeming horror value by the time it caravans to a ham-fisted climax in keeping with 400 pages of silliness the precede it.

So, no, despite strong reviews from Amazon readers, I didn't find much to recommend in "The Farm", scary only in the abysmally clumsy plot and insipid dialogue. I'll admit that good horror is hard to find these days - Joe Hill didn't really do it for me either - but you may want to consider Susan Hill's "The Woman in Black" as an example of classic horror the way it was meant to be read.

Let me list all the bad about this book:

The characters
The story
The writing
The feeling

I could care less about these ridiculous people and this preposterous story. One character each time he should up, the writing the same this over and over again!!! I was never so bored with a book in my life.
Save your money and your time on this one. I'll never read this author again! The goats were beyond stupid.

I bought The Harvest simply because my local bookstores did not have Mr. Nicholson's latest, The Farm, and I wanted to read more of his work. Having just finished the excellent novel, The Home, I wanted to delve into more of this master of horror prose's writing.

I must admit I didn't expect much from this. The plot synopsis of this book didn't grab me quite as much as The Home did. However, as I read on, I wasn't disappointed. Mr. Nicholson writes horror so vivid and so chilling his books are like movies. The imagery is just that darn good.

Why this man's work hasn't been adapted for the big screen baffles this reviewer's mind...

I really wanted to like Scott Nicholson's "The Harvest" more than I did. The premise reads like a cross between "Night of the Living Dead" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers": ancient alien seed crash lands on Earth, alien seed attempts to devour/assimilate Earth's creatures (resulting in humans becoming zombie-like creatures), and a small band of heroes collect to save the day. Unfortunately this great premise may have raised my expectations a little too much.

Without a doubt, this is a full-on B-horror idea which, if you're even considering reading this book, is probably fine with you. Unfortunately, Nicholson got stuck somewhere between a fun B-horror novel and a character driven novel. Nicholson spends the first several hundred pages introducing character after character. I'm sure the purpose was to make us feel like we knew the characters but, for the most part, they were un-engaging and, in the end, unimportant to the story. It felt like a writer TRYING to make the characters come to life rather than actually doing so. The best part of the novel--brutal action and horrific twists--doesn't really kick in until the last 75-100 pages. I feel this story probably would have been better served in novella form.

If the premise intrigues you and you're able to go into it expecting nothing more than an average B-movie in book form you shouldn't be too disappointed. Otherwise you might want to pass this one up.

For more reviews visit us at http://www.thereaderreviews.com

I have to admit, it took me two tries to finish this book. The first time I got bogged down in all the descriptions, cussing and cast. The second half was better than the first - once you make contact with the alien and feel its presence in the "zombies" it began to make more sense. It's not the worst book I've ever read, and I will definitely try at least one more book by this author, but I don't feel this is a good one to read first. (Also - is there anyone actually happy in this book? If there is, I didn't find them...)

Effective writing treats the reader with consideration and creates good feelings, too. The Harvest, by Scott Nicholson is the ideal example of how not to write a novel. This overly written, prosaic book is riddled with continuity errors, frustratingly bad dialog, pathetic clichés, and contains zero suspense. Ultraliberal clichés pop up around every corner from characters such as: the oppressed African-American, the evil capitalist, the fanatical Christian, and the feminist protagonist. Notwithstanding the notion that every southern, mountain dwelling person is a trailer park trash, Jerry Springer episode waiting to happen. To be candid, this prose is the prototype of cheese. It makes one ponder as to how it ever got published. Then again, it's usually not a good sign when a book is no longer in print, despite that fact that it's only three years old.
I'll save space by not dwelling too much on the synopsis, which has already been provided. The Harvest is your run-of-the-mill alien invasion story, with a ridiculous, southern twist. This book makes similar tales such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Tommyknockers appear to be literary legends. I have a conviction that I've always lived by, to always finish a novel through. I feel it's insulting to the author to grade a piece of work without getting "the whole story". The Harvest propelled me further than any novel before into breaking that sacred vow. Not to suggest that it's a tough read. We're not talking about Dickens or Melville here. The problem is it's riddled with basic grammar and usage errors. Organization and visual impact was apparently given the boot. The 350 plus pages could have easily been trimmed to the point of classifying this as a novella. Reading through this book was much like having to sit through a bad opening act where you don't want to be rude and walk out. Even the character names are downright silly: Tamara, Don Oscar, Sylvester, Shu-Shaaa. I've seen better character names derived from my high school creative writing class. And apparently Tamara, the protagonist, is subject to some sort of telepathic/psychic ability called the "Gloomies". It sounds like a name a six year old would come up with. Another annoying aspect about this novel is the character of Delwalt. The man constantly talks to himself is some sort of club meeting format, that's not only confusing but exasperatingly bad.
If I can deliver one optimistic note, it would be that The Harvest is the first novel that I've had the chance to read by Nicholson. I figure everyone is entitled to a "bad book" now and again. Even the great ones such as King, Koontz, Rice, etc. have had their share. That said, I will give one more of his books a try and see how everything pans out. However, I can not (in good conscience) recommend this novel to anyone. The only positive feeling I could conjure after reading The Harvest is that I'm glad I checked it out, vice buying it.

I live in the Southern Appalachians and I enjoyed Nicholson's use of the setting in this strange alien infection tale. The characters were good, though a couple of them didn't work for me--like he was trying to hard to make them "Southern." I read his story collection and that caused me to grab all his novels. The cover blurb compares him to Stephen King but that's not really accurate. For one thing, nobody's as good as King, and for another, I think Nicholson is probably a little bit on the weird side. Like Chester in the book, he's probably been drinking too much moonshine. If you like your horror with a little bit of cheesy science fiction and a zombie element thrown in, this book's for you.

LOST SOULS was a book that was recommended to me on a message board. The book was average entertainment to me. The storyline was ok. The protagonist has a pretty crappy life yet he finds a way to get us to the end. I actually felt bad for him which is a good thing when you are drawn into a character's life. I always try to figure out the ending before I am finished and I didn't have this one pegged...another good thing about the book. So while it kept me interested in some ways, in other ways it just wasn't a real page turner. Good title for the content of the book.

I liked this book, it was an easy read and the story line kept me going. I think there could have been a little more resolution as it had me left wondering about a few things. I liked how the crime panned out... overall a good book.

I usually agree with the Amazon reviewers, but not this time, so maybe it's just me. Lawrence was not a sympathetic character like Lawrence Block's Matthew Scudder or John Connelly's Charlie Parker. In fact, I can't think of one character in the book that I didn't think was a total loser, including the dog. Lawrence lies on a police report because he's convinced by the mayor and chief of police that it's the best thing for the town; of course, it doesn't hurt that he's being promised a promotion. From then on, he whines about his situation and is constantly asking for help or borrowing money from his semi-girlfriend who is annoying as he is. And then he wonders why his ex-wife won't let him see their little boy anymore.

One of the worst books I have ever read. It is not literature, and it is not crime fiction. All of the characters are hokey and unsympathetic. The plot is thin and overly convoluted. The ending is hackneyed and lacking in credibility. Finally, I really wish that if Irish writers write stories set in the USA, they would first learn how Americans talk, to give the dialogue a little bit of authenticity. I have never heard an American say "I've".

I think the time I spent reading this book might better have been spent in a coma.

Don't get me wrong. Sure, the book is noir fiction; but I enjoy good dark fiction as much as anyone. If you want a good example of the genre, read any of Ross McDonald's mysteries or the much under-rated Saratoga series by Stephen Dobyns.

And it's not that the anti-hero is an alcoholic. As long as he can drop into an AA program and tack on some self-awareness, he's got my blessing. Try reading some of Lawrence Block's Matt Scudder novels; or James Lee Burke's Robicheaux series for a taste of that.

And it's not that the ending is inconclusive. I was totally satisfied by Thomas H. Cook's brilliant novel, "The Interrogation".

What it is about this book is that nothing is redemptive, nothing lifts the book up in any way. The narrator is an unremorseful alcoholic who entertains the conceit that he is a refugee, thereby demeaning virtually every refugee on the planet; the narrator is a loser. Very literally: he has lost his wife, his son. In the course of the book, through sheer obstinate stupidity, he loses his dog, his future, his credibility, his integrity, and whatever few remaining IQ points he had at the beginning of the novel.

The lose ends at the novel's end are painful: a girl has been murdered, it seems ritualistically, but we never know who committed the murder, only who has taken the blame. A woman is missing -- we are told by one character that she is safe but have no evidence of this, and in fact clues seems to imply the opposite. The narrator who has not made one correct deduction through the entire course of the novel expects us to trust his belief that he has been given reliable information by a character whose very choices makes her an unlikely candidate for reliable revelations.

I know that this book has been lauded by some. It has a bleakness that might be mistaken for truth or clarity of vision; but here the bleakness is a cheap, contrived bleakness, the bleakness that comes from the eyes of the beholder, the unreliable narrator of this book, the alcoholic who must find the flaw, even if none exists, in every person he meets, especially if anything in their life transcends the facts of his own existence. Yeah, yeah, yeah: I know that small towns can be insular and smothering, that in real life people are often mean-minded and blind to truth, that entire communities can be that way. Duh! Did Collins think he was on to something the rest of us was missing? Did he see some underlying truth of the human condition we never knew was there? If so, he certainly failed to convey it.

If you want to read about all-pervading loss of hope, despair that tears at the soul, and yet sense a ribbon of humanity beneath it, then find the novels of Graham Greene, all of them, and start reading.

As for this novel, if you have a bird cage ...