Nicholson Books

Never did finish this book. It's so jumbled and takes forever to build each character. Wish more time was spent getting to the nitty gritty and leaving some of the character and scenic descriptions up to my imagination. The scenes flip around so much, I had to keep going backwards to figure out what last happened at each situation. Definitely not a Dean Koontz, Stephen King, or Patricia Cornwell book.

If there's a better haunted house story floating around today, I haven't heard about it.
Scott Nicholson brings his A-game with The Manor. A widely unusual plot; twists and turns along every room in the manor.
Nicholson will succeed in bring you a string of sleepless nights.

--Joseph McGee, author of In the Wake of the Night, Phil's Place and Darkness Won't Rest: Phils Place II

I recently went on a Scott Nicholson binge, having learned that he lives in the same area I do in the North Carolina mountains. Though this novel doesn't have as many rural characters as his others, it still strikes that same cord, tapping into mountain folklore for its chills.

This isn't his best book, but it's better than most of what's out there. Anna pissed me off because she seemed a little too annoying (I thought Mason deserved a better love interest), but she was the right character to focus on the haunting. I like his use of artists as a spin on the usual haunted house story. I used to date an artist and they are seriously all messed up, so I can see how such a strange blend of egos would create havoc if you threw in a ghost or two. Read all of his books--you won't regret it.

Thought I would try a new author, and was very disappointed...a lot of build up to nothing...would not recommend this book to anyone. If you want to read something to keep you awake at night, try THE DEVIL IN GRAY by Grahamn Masterson or ETERNITY by Tamara Thorne. Great reads!

The title says it all. This is another typical ghost story in which a wealthy dead guy gathers together a bunch of strangers to his isolated, creepy old mansion. Ghosts appear, people get picked off, and then the evil ghost is defeated. One of the ghosts has a chopped off hand that crawls around and attacks people ala Thing in the Addams Family. If that were not ridiculous enough, the main ghost inhabits a statue carved out of wood and stumbles around like Frankenstein's monster carrying his head. The final straw is that the good guys are annoying and just not likeable. There is no vivid and mind capturing description of the mansion or its history. There is no sense of mystery or suspense. This book is just bad and I want my money back.

The last time, I believe, that it I mentioned Las Vegas in this space was regarding a review of the late Hunter Thompson's classic "gonzo" piece Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that used that city as the backdrop for his drug-addled adventures spoofing the rubes. The last time that I mentioned the author of the book under review, Larry McMurtry, was just recently praising his Texas trilogy that was based on his classic 1950's coming of age tale The Last Picture Show. In a sense McMurtry tackles the scenes that the drug-rattled Thompson failed to get- a view of those who actually live and work in Vegas 24/7/365. That story has a certain pathos that McMurtry is able to milk. Maybe not in the definitive way that he can milk small town Texas for a story but milk it nevertheless.

Hollywood and Las Vegas has stood culturally in America as meccas for generations of young girls from places like Oklahoma and guys from Kansas as places to achieve fame, if only for that proverbial fifteen minutes. That is one of the strands that McMurtry weaved into his tale of the loves, dreams, losses and forfeitures of Las Vegas showgirl extra ordinaire Harmony and her ill-fated marriage to that Kansas boy, Ross.

This is also a story of generations as the product of the marriage, Pepper, although only a teenager seems destined to avoid most of the mistakes that "mom" made by having more talent - for picking right guys, rejecting bad guys and being a dancing prodigy rather than a mere showgirl. The problem, however, is that for Pepper to rise Harmony must fall. The two cannot share center stage in the casinos or in life. Moreover, in a youth-crazed culture epitomized to the nth degree in Vegas aging "mom" cannot fight the fates, even if she had the capacity to do so. That is the drama that centrally drives this little piece.

Along the way we get to look at the lives and loves of the people who hold Las Vegas together (if not themselves). We get to view lifelong Vegas denizens, the inevitable gay wardrobe guy, assorted talented or talentless showgirls and their trials and tribulations, sundry backstage types who share the dreams of the spotlight. Is this a McMurtry work that you must read? No, I already told you that Last Picture Show trilogy is a must read. But if you have a few hours, and want to read about what Thompson missed on his sojourn, then read this little novel.

In this book the author introduces the reader to Harmony and her rebellious daughter Pepper. Harmony goes through the usual Mother and Daughter Trials and Tribulations which the reader is supposed to feel empathy for. Harmony's own life is a mess so I don't know how she is supposed to be of any great help to her daughter. Harmony also works as a topless Las Vegas Showgirl and although I did not expect her to be a Candidate for Mensa she comes across in this novel as an airhead who no doubt would have been the subject of lots of "Blonde Jokes". As Judge Judy says "Beauty fades but dumb is forever". I give this book 5 stars because the author has succeeded in describing life in the town of Las Vegas where nothing is real and it is all a maze of smoke and mirrors.

Not a typical McMurtry novel;but then again none of his are.I've had this book for a long time as well as it's sequel "The Late Child"and for a change of pace decided to give it a try.
It is a great read.Somewhat like "Tems of Endearment";but more along the lines of "Cadillac Jack";which was my first McMurtry novel and probably my favorite.As a matter of fact I would'nt have been surprised if he has shown up somewhere;maybe at one of Myrtle's garage sales.
McMurtry has put together a great bunch of characters who all belong with one another.Kind of like the cast you find in a novel by Erskine Caldwell,Kinky Friedman,Hunter Thompson or even Steinbeck.These characters come from a different slice of life . These are the personal lives of the people who live very public lives in the Las Vegas entertainment world.In spite of it all, these are real people.Mc Murtry shows it is a tough world and eats up the workers and gamblers and spits them out when they reach the end of their prime or run out of cash.Rather than being Rednecks I guess you'd have to call them Pinknecks.They are somewhat akin to those loveable characters we know as Carnies.
Anyway, the book is a great,fast moving read with a surprise on every turn of a page.A lot of characters and I'm glad I made notes as they appeared so I could keep track of them.
Liked it so much I'm reading "The Late Child " next to see what happened to all these characters.It's surprising that so much time went by between this book and the sequel--12 years.

This is quite possibly the worst supposedly good book I have ever read. On the grammatical level, every other sentence contains a comma splice. I know that sounds like a minor nit to pick, but consider this: that is no exaggeration -- at least half of the sentences have exactly the same structure: "Jessie had already had her sedative and was a little groggy, she sort of dozed off while they were getting her room ready." Here's a paragraph-long sentence from the first page: "Ross was always thinking up funny names for things, it kept her laughing right up until they had Pepper, plus about a year more, and then she and Pepper took him down to the bus station behind the Stardust one day, he was going to check on a job doing lights for a show up in Tahoe, and had just sort of never come back, although Pepper was as cute a little girl as anyone could want and Harmony herself at the time had been said by some to have the best legs in Las Vegas and maybe the best bust too, although that was long before she had ever done topless, so that only Ross and a few of her old boyfriends really knew the whole story there." That is a SINGLE SENTENCE, ladies and gents! It becomes mind-numbing at some point, which is actually helpful in wading through this complete drivel. I only read the whole thing because I thought something interesting might happen. Let me spare you the anguish: Nothing ever happens! Nobody learns anything, or does anything, or thinks anything at all! I only cared about the characters in the sense that I wanted them all to fall into a tar pit together. I was very disappointed when this did not happen.

The abject badness of this book actually made me angry. In the foreword McMurtry admits that he crapped out this steaming pile while he was in the middle of writing Lonesome Dove, which I can only assume is a better book. It would be difficult to imagine otherwise.

I would agree with one of the other reviewers that an editor of some kind should have looked at this book pre-publication... but I think that would have resulted in an empty dust jacket. The blurbs and the foreword were certainly better-written than the text of the book.

Please note that Amazon does not allow zero-star reviews; one star is definitely not deserved.

Set in tawdry Las Vegas, the story is about Harmony, now hitting 40, and once a real show-stopper on the Strip. But life has stopped being good for Harmony, and nothing in her life - her career, her lovelife, and especially her daughter Pepper - is going right. But she's a trooper, and nothing gets her down for long. McMurtry gets the sweetness and sadness of Harmony just right, even though at times her innocence comes across more as just ignorance of the ways of the world. Well done.

I enjoyed the storyline of this book. I did find the writing style a little slow but I think it is worth the effort. It would be especially good for pre teens as it provides many opportunites for refelection. It express the growth of the characters well and you see them becoming who they are meant to be.

Seeker is a very interesting book. Different in tone then most young adult books as none of the young adults in the book are whinny which is a plus to the book in my opinion. The writing is very stripped down and straight forward like most of the characters. This style makes the story very compelling to read, as least it did for me. Morning Star is a fantastic character with fantastic lines. Its good to see a strong girl who still acts like a girl. All the characters are quite different and interesting. Overall, a fun new series.

I just couldn't get my attention to stay with this book. I found Wildman and he's "Heya bravas, do you love me" annoying. It started out ok, but then as I got further and further into the book I just was bored with it. This was my first by this author and probably the last. However, I think I'm the oddball as everyone else reviewing seems to like the book.

Are you looking for a decent story line after the end of Harry Potter? If so I would recommend this book. I am not saying that this book is as good as Harry Potter, but I am saying that it is a good book for the Harry Potter audience. This book has an interesting beginning, a solid middle, and an end that not only gives you a sense of closure for that particular book, but also leaves you wanting to read the next one in the series. The climax of the book in particular is very captivating. I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to read simply to be entertained by the story line. I also wouldn't be very surprised if this book is turned into a movie in the next several years.

I loved the Wind on Fire trilogy by William Nicholson. In fact, I consider them to actually be some of my favorite books. But after reading Seeker, I wasn't impressed. I'm not bashing Nicholson, but these books could have been better. I was sitting there reading a book called Seeker, which the main character was indeed Seeker, but I felt like I didn't know him at all. I feel like his characteristics and thoughts weren't expressed as much as Morning Star's or the Wildman's. Honestly, the book could have been about those two alone and I would have like it better. I guess that I was just expecting more than what I read. I am considering getting the second one just to see if it turns better, but otherwise, I just wasn't impressed at all. I gave it 2 stars because I like William Nicholson and I'm not trying to be mean. My advice is that everyone who is a fan of Nicholson and the Wind on Fire trilogy should read these books and see what they get from it themselves. You have your own opinion.

If you ever read the syndicated political columns of William F. Buckley, the premier American literary conservative of his era, you undoubtedly recall that once in each effort he threw in an obscure vocabulary word, precisely used by him, never encountered by his readers before. It was educational, if you had a dictionary handy, but because this quirk of his was used judiciously, (one might say conservatively), it was forgiven. Mr. Johnson, obviously a fine scholar with a great education, who has rubbed shoulders with some of the best thinkers of the 20th century, has the Buckley flaw, but to a fault. It seemed that a word or a foreign phrase which baffled me popped up 300 times. I have four years of college and I'm not inexperienced in the world at age 63, (as of yesterday) but I found this word-dropping to be offensive. The one time I ever saw Bill Buckley in person, he did his trick in a way that also offended me: The week of Martin Luther King's murder I saw Buckley in a debate on civil rights with Julian Bond at Vanderbilt University, and Buckley, referring to the assassination, called it a "regicide" which was too cute by half, and should have been resisted by such a disciplined man. Johnson almost goes that far as well. One learns a great deal about the famous and the relatively famous thinkers and creators he profiles between these covers, but his prose style is cumbersome, and his attitude tedious. It took me weeks to read this, because I was only content with putting up with the book for four or five pages at a sitting. I know a lot more about the subjects of this volume now, but I also know a lot more about its author, and that makes me little interested in his other works.

I always make it a point to dip into the über-prolific Johnson's latest tome; his magnificent "Modern Times" had a most profound effect on the way I see and interpret the world. This latest effort is a sequel, of sorts, to Johnson's incisive "Intellectuals," in which the author drew stark contrasts between the lofty ideals of a gaggle of influential thinkers from Rousseau to Bertrand Russell and the frequently dreadful ways in which they treated the people in their lives. The message: beware letting such busybodies run things, as they recognize only "the heartless tyranny of ideas." As Johnson explains in the Introduction to "Creators", he caught a lot of flak over "Intellectuals"' "mean-spiritedness" (I prefer to call it "unwelcome truth-telling") and thereupon resolved to write a more "positive" survey of some of the world's most accomplished creative minds.

Creators could easily have been several times its final length, and one can sense in several cases how tempted Johnson must have been to expand his survey. In the section on Jane Austen, for example, Johnson manages to squeeze in micro-discussions of several other female authors, such as George Eliot and Mme. de Staël. (Perhaps he was trying to head off accusations of sexism?) By and large, however, Creators cuts the critical commentaries close to the bone and hews to its stated goal of using the figures discussed here to illustrate various ways in which the creative urge may manifest itself. Johnson evinces a clear preference for practical-minded, nose-to-the-grindstone geniuses such as Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, and Albrecht Dürer, who married disdain for overly "intellectual" theorizing to superhuman work ethics. By far the least likable of these pivotal figures is Pablo Picasso, whom Johnson compares unfavorably with Walt Disney in perhaps the most controversial of his essays. (Those who have read Johnson's "Art: A History" will be familiar with Johnson's attitude towards Picasso; it's the direct comparison with Disney, a bête noîre of the same cultural leftists who idolize Picasso, that will drive the latter folks crazy.) The book isn't as memorable or as eye-opening as "Intellectuals", but it will give a reader new to Johnson a fairly decent flavor of the man's working methods (dare I say, his sense of creativity?).

Really tedious. A few good chapters, but on the whole, it's not about creative courage, it's about what Johnson happens to like about particular people. So the reader doesn't learn as much about whomever as one might hope.

If in a previous work 'Intellectuals' Johnson was all acid in criticizing those who in his phrase ' put ideas before people'.In this work he is all sweetness in praising great creators who as he sees it ' people before ideas'. Johnson's praise of creation however is not confined to those we normally think of creators. Like the great American pragmatist thinkers he sees ' creation' as an inherent part of human everyday life. Furthermore he gives this concept a religious grounding, by speaking of the idea that God the Creator wishes human beings to be creators also. This idea is Biblically derived, and is a reflection of Johnson's own religious view.
In the opening chapter Johnson commends creators for their courage in overcoming adversities, for their persistence against rejection of many kinds. He writes, " What strikes me, surveying the history of creativity, is how little fertile and productive people often received in the way of honors, money or anything else." He gives the example of Vermeer whose great dedication and hard work did succeed in lifting his family from poverty. He says that Bach and Mozart too never really had full financial security despite their enormous productive efforts.
Johnson is an especial chamption of prolific, hard- working creators. His opening chapter is on Chaucer who virtually invents the modern English language and literature. He then writes of Durer one of those artists who was always learning, expanding and developing his powers in new areas. His third chapter is devoted to Shakespeare who Johnson calls " the most creative personality in human history" Johnson makes studies of two great Shakespeare characters Falstaff and Hamlet. Johnson focuses on the new phrases and words Shakespeare has given to the language. He emphasizes the speed and variety of Shakespeare's creation, the tremendous insight into human life and character. He sees Hamlet as a kind of deep thinker whose reflections throw light on every important aspect of human existence.
If Johnson points to Shakespeare as proof that the great creator can come from anywhere is in no way dependent on high origins- then he in his next chapter on Bach focuses on the opposite aspect, the genetic component. He writes of the Bach family which for three hundred years from the age of Luther to the age of Bismarck were at the heart of German music. Bach is praised not only for his hardworking dedication, but for his enormous originality- his creating in every music form known at the time ( except Opera) and expanding the dimensions and scope of each form.
In the chapter on Turner and Hokusai Johnson writes of creators who did not go outside their own form of creation- who were wholly dedicated to it. "Turner transformed landscape , during his lifetime into the greatest of visual arts,and left the world of painting permanently changed- indeed artists all over the world are still learning from him ..... Hokusai in effect created Japanese landscape painting from nothing, but he also portrayed Japanese life in the first half of the nineteenth century with dazzling graphic skill and an encyclopedia completeness that have never been equaled anywhere"
In his chapter on Jane Austen Johnson focuses on the special difficulties women have had historically in attempting to be creators.He points out that most women were simply barred by their families from any creative endeavor. He tells in a few especially instructive pages the story of George Eliot, who was at the outset something of a rejected if not ugly, then very plain 'duckling'. With the years ' she was increasingly recognized not only as a storyteller of extraordinary gifts but as moral mentor of formidable power. Polite society , far from shutting her out, queued up at her door and was often refused admittance." Jane Austen, Johnson indicates did not have anything like Eliot's success in her own lifetime, but her books are far more widely read today. Johnson points to her early elegance, self- confidence and ebullience in writing. Johnson sees her great transformation coming when she looked into the Romantic novels of her own day, and understood that she could do far better than them."Quite naturally, she perceived that real life , as she knew it from personal experience , was much more fun to write about than impossible adventures of which she knew nothing." Johnson laments her early death and puts her with those creators Keats, Shelley, Mozart, Weber, Girtin, Gericault, Bonningon who died young and left many with a longing for works of theirs which would never be. Johnson also writes of the architects A.W.N. Pugin and Viollet- le-Duc, of Victor Hugo, Mark Twain (For Johnson 'humor'is one of the greatest of all creative gifts) Tiffany, T.S. Eliot, Picasso and Walt Disney.
This is a wonderfully entertaining book. It is centered on a 'positive' subject most people I suspect are happy to read and learn more about . However here I would register one note, if not of dissent, then of reservation.
In his opening chapter Johnson writes of the great creative power of Wagner's operas. Johnson ignores however their evil and destructive ideology- He ignores the fact that great creators have often been evil people. He ignores too the fact that 'destruction is inherent in certain kinds of creation'.And great creators are often those with a kind of overriding ambition, a kind of Faustian hunger that means their creation brings with it great destruction.
The subject is darker than his list of creative heroes indicates. There is a whole literature from Rudolf Wittkauer to Kay Redfield -Jamison on the saturnic, dark, depressive force behind much great creation. And many many of the greatest creators were not the kind of sensible, practical productive businesslike figures Johnson praises. Consider
Johnson as religious believer does not really raise the question of why great creative gift and powers are sometimes given by God to evil people.
In his final chapter he speaks briefly about scientific and technological discovery as creative work. He cites Humphrey Davy's invention of the safety- mask for miners, and the over one thousand inventions of the greatest inventor of all , Edison. But he does not talk about Newton and Einstein. And he does not even begin to point out how scientific and technical creation are at the heart of so many dilemnas, including 'survival' facing Mankind today. In other words here too the darker sides, the more problematic sides of 'creation' are not considered.
Again though, despite these reservations, this is an exceptionally instructive and enjoyable work.

I'm reasonably certain I qualify as the intended audience for this book. Relatively conservative, relatively well-read, a skeptic and a bit of a iconoclast. Should be a sympathetic reader. Yet I found it tedious and frustrating. Between his repeated braggadoccio and the lightweight analysis, I was generally disappointed. My son called him a pompous blowhard for his small, but endlessly annoying, autobiographical snippets. For instance, like Durer, he always travels with his watercolors. Cool! He recalls that memorable evening when he, C. S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien were wrestling with an Eliot poem, and the day he remarked to Anthony Powell.....well, you get the idea. How about that untranslated French? (Sorry, Paul, I'm a mere monolingual dummy.) And the one that nearly sent me screaming into the night, when referring to Pride and Prejudice, he let this fly: "to many, though not to the most discerning, her greatest achievement." Whom is he including in that rarefied group do you think? Ultimately, Paul Johnson reminded me of the Oscar Wilde wannabes I all too frequently met while I was studying in Oxford. Cape, beret, French cigarettes, often with a holder!, and a bon mot for every occasion. Their goal in life was to prove they knew your speciality more thoroughly than you did. I soon learned to recognize their uniform and flee them as I would a man in a white robe and pointy hood.

Paul Johnson is a well-educated man with a breadth of knowledge I could never hope to match. He has read everything, seen paintings everywhere (documenting his worldwide travels while doing so...why did he tell me where these are other than to brag?) and listened carefully to an astounding collection of music. But he brings little real insight to the creative process, other than that these folks all worked very hard. Painted or wrote or read or sewed, they spent years practicing and honing and reworking. But I wonder if another book could be written about creative people who do not fit this mold, massively fertile artists who squandered their time in alcohol or drugs and yet climbed out periodically to produce something majestic.

Bach came from a musical family and worked hard. Genetics were helpful claims Mr. Johnson. But were they? Both Haydns came from a non-musical family and achieved a bit of musical success as well. So what role does genetics play? It varies.... How about education? Well, Eliot had it in spades, but Austen and Dickens did not. Some read endlessly, some not at all. Does it matter? Or how about genius? Are the most creative people the smartest? Slam dunk, right? Well, not quite. Victor Hugo was a dunce, a fool, a lecherous old man (and a lecherous young man as well.) Yet he managed to write books that will last far beyond the scribblings of men far more brilliant. So the conclusion seems to be that creativity comes from lots of different kinds of folks, living lots of different kinds of lives. Didn't need a whole book for that. When there is a heartfelt response to a great work of art, there are tears, or that mysterious welling, or overwhelming joy. I never felt that in this book. Paul Johnson failed to communicate how these masters managed to get their audiences to experience that. Clinical, straightforward, full of copious information, but little insight. Read or listen to the creators themselves. Far more enjoyable.

This is an interesting take on a well-known story. It is helpful to have an working knowledge of the actual events and of the main historical characters - there isn't a lot of hand-holding or expository text.
For an historical novel, it cut's right to the chase, and is pretty exciting.

"Farwell My Queen" by Chantal Thomas is a beautifully written but rather slow-moving account of the last summer of Marie-Antionette at Versailles. The court is still mourning the Dauphin, but one is not allowed to peer into the queen's sorrow. The main emotion of the queen is expressed over the departure of her friend Madame de Polignac, which does not ring true to me. The king is portrayed as walking about in a daze, when at this time he was busy receiving ministers and dealing with the Estates-General; he is on the periphery in Thomas' account when he should be at the center. The novel is a very authentic depiction of Versailles, showing it to be a place of business not just a place of decadence. It reminded me on many levels of the novel "Trianon" by Elena Maria Vidal which was published a few years before but unlike "Trianon" "Farewell" does not delve too deeply into the agony of the characters. I do recommend this novel for a rainy afternoon with a cup of tea; it is definitely one of the better novels about the queen.

Even if you aren't familiar with the French Revolution, you are immediately transported into this turbulent time period. The reader is immediately able to empathsize with the main characters. I couldn't put this book down. It is an awesome read!

PS: You will also thoroughly enjoy, "The Lost King of France A True Story of Revolution, Revenge and DNA". This is also an example of literary genius.

I really wanted to like this book but I couldnt get past the meandering inner dialouge of the main character, the strange sequences and the total lack of character development. It was basically one long poem about three days at Versailles at the start of the revolution. It lacks the crisp moving quality of Philippa Gregory's works and depended too much upon the reader's knowledge of French History.

Not recommended.

"Farewell, My Queen" by Chantal Thomas is a respectable attempt at impressionistic historical fiction in which one is confronted with the loneliness and despair faced by Queen Marie Antoinette at the onset of the French Revolution. My problem with this book is that I first read E. M. Vidal's novel "Trianon" and was struck by the similarities between the two books. One would think that Vidal had been influenced by the historian Chantal Thomas, except that "Trianon" was first published in 1997, several years before "Farewell, My Queen." I guess that when so many novels about Marie Antoinette are being written every year authors are using the same sources and some similarities are to be expected. Instead of the point of view of Madame Vigee-Lebrun, the queen's portrait painter, in "Trianon," we have the point of view of the queen's Reader. In both books the Dauphin is mourned, the King and Queen are reverent at Mass, the queen is reminded of her mother by some tangible token, the life of exiled emigres is described, the queen's presence makes an impact on everyone, she utters the word 'magnanimity,' the Comte d'Artois chases women, and the king is taken with his horses and hunting. Then the similarity ends, for in Thomas' stale rendition, there is no life, no passion, no tears, no faith, no martyrdom, only spiralling despair. Marie-Antoinette heroically says farewell to her dear friend Madame de Polignac, who is charmingly portrayed, but otherwise there is no deep feeling in this book. This disappointed me, since I had come to see the queen as a woman of passion, obsessively devoted to her children, who in "Farewell, My Queen" are but a passing thought. Marie Antoinette lost her life by refusing to leave her husband in his plight, but in this novel, there is no sense of her sacrifice, of her devotion. Nothing but a dream-like state of despair, like a drug-addict lost in an existential malaise. It is a well-written but sad, sleepy book, which many will enjoy borrowing from the library. It did not rip out my heart, however, like "Trianon" did, in passages which burnt the soul. Read this book, but read it before Vidal's books. Don't make the mistake that I made, and experience the same let down.

I know a few foot fetishist, I myself like feet (I wouldn't consider myself a fetishist though) and this book is almost insulting. It's more about shoes than feet and maybe I was hoping for too much because this isn't erotic at all. The writing style is horrendous maybe this is just a bad book, but I think it's the author. this isn't something I'd suggest unless you for some reason you want to look like a foot fetishist.

I finished this book after many trips to the library on my lunch break because I was too embarrassed to check it out and have people I know see me with it. Despite a lot of lip service that the protaganist pays to being a "foot and shoe fetishist" and not being interested in the shoes without the feet, his actions make it clear that it is the shoes that are the focus of his admiration, and the feet are not much more than a means to display the shoes he finds so compelling. I mean, he has an entire collection of shoes, he steals shoes from women who leave them in public.

What plot there is in the book is flat, very poorly developed, and all too conveniently wrapped up. While there is much exploration of the main character and his interests and motiviations, there is little or no depth to any of the other characters in the book, especially Catherine, whose feet the protaganist is smitten with. However, that may be intentional by the author because it is her feet, and nothing else about her that so transfixes the protagonist (I don't think I ever caught his name). Also, there is a lot of historical garbage about feet and fetishes that is superfluous, and often simply disgusting. There is a very small twist at the end that I thought was fairly interesting, but it didn't make up for the near complete lack of any attention to plot development.

All in all, if you have a shoe fetish, you'll probably find this book very compelling just because of the fetish aspect. If you have a foot fetish, you'll probably find it interesting for the same reason, although it's probably not exactly what you might expect. For anyone else, you'll probably just think the whole thing is strange.

From the standpoint of a psychologist studying foot fetish this is an interesting viewpoint. The story got lost in the psychology many times.

I have to admit it was quite a few years ago that I read this book but it left a lasting impression on me. No, I have yet to develop any sort of foot fetish but i recall the heightened awareness of never looking at another person's feet quite the same way again. In fact, i would have to say it instilled in me a deeper appreciation and adimiration for the human foot and the process of buying a new pair of shoes has never been quite the same. Afterall, what does your shoes say about you?
Not for the faint of heart, Geoff Nicholson promises to drive you deep into the world of fetishism. Embrace the journey, because allowing yourself to enjoy this book doesn't make you a sicko.

I was interested in reading this book because I have always found the female foot to be the most sexually appealing part of the body. Now I am not sure if I an a "fetishist" or a "partialist". That discussion is beyond the scope of this review. From someone who does like women's feet, I was very disappointed. From a literary standpoint, I felt the book had a very weak plot and the characters were disappointing. It was not great writing by any means and it left me bored. From a personal standpoint, I was disappointed in the main character. I like feet but I am no where near that perverted. Stealing women's shoes and sneaking around taking pictures is....disturbing. Very stereotypical character. It is akin to using a black man named Rastus in an Afro-American novel. Kind of insulting to black people. In the same vein, the main character in this book is insulting to me.

This book is Ben Okri's small version of Dante's Divina Commedia (DC), with its three parts introduced by three guides. Okri's version describes only the Heaven part of the DC: ` a universal civilization of justice and love'; `palaces of wisdom, libraries of the infinite, cathedrals of joy, courts of divine laws, streets of bliss, cupolas of nobility.' `It is a civic society in which the highest possibilities of the inhabitants could be realized.'

But, all is not glitter, glance and harmony in his Heaven. Perfection becomes boring: `excessive beauty would make you miserable. It would become like hell: an inferno of perfections, a nightmare composed entirely of beautiful things.' `One can't live in perfection the whole time.' `Purity after a while is boring.'
Moreover, there is sexual frustration: `I have hungered for a man such as you for many long years.'

Ben Okri's book contains also some anti-rational romantic reflexes: `Understanding often leads to ignorance, especially when it comes too soon.' And, Plato is not far away: `What you think is what becomes real,' and `a city is a vast network of thoughts.'

All in all, Ben Okri's tale is too abstract. His inspirator painted not only a brilliant picture of the afterworld, but discussed also such burning actual item as the separation between secular and religious power, between Church and State.

This is a minor book by an otherwise great writer.

Ben Okri's tells the story in an elegant manner with a love of words filled with abstract and concrete notions. There is peace, love, suffering, longing, and darkness within this beautiful tale. As you read you find yourself filled with the curiosity of a child, the humility of an enlightened being, and a love beyond compare among other things. As you begin to read you may initially feel overwhelmed by the abstract concepts, however do not be deterred because as you continue to read you will receive rewards that are limitless. By the time I had completed the book in 2 days I felt as if I was in a deep meditation that eloquently ended leaving me satisfied and at peace. I loved this book and it will be one I shall read over and over again!

Okri's tale is to do with finding inner peace, self discovery and urges the reader to grasp and live life. It places the soul above all else in terms of importance. It is ironic that the journey's initial aim was to take away the main character's feelings of insignificance and 'invisibility'. The reader soon becomes aware that things that are invisible are the most beautiful. That love, faith and sacrifice are much more meaningful than aything we can see or touch. This is just one of the themes - for me, there is much to read into this beautiful book, its biggest achievement is that it really is open for interpretation and can be read on many levels.

I heard about Ben Okri one year ago (in particular, very good critics about the "Famished Road") and then I have been very curious to discover that author. I bought "Astonishing the Gods" two months ago, started to read it, and I could not go beyond the tenth page (always asking myself "What is this guy talking about?"). Yesterday, I finally made a tremendous effort to read and finish the book, you know, it was like when you are somehow challenged to drink something bitter, you do it fast so that you can say at last "I did it !!!".
I was so disappointed that I decided to come here, to see what other people was thinking about that book, and to be honest, I am ASTONISHED to see that they liked it !!!!!!!!!!!

From my point of view,
First, this book is an empty nutshell, too many words that at last explain nothing concrete, as you read a full page that doesn't carry any information. The style is pretentiously complicated and the result is, I don't know, sometimes ridiculous. There are (a lot of) sentences in the book that are simply meaningless.
Second, how can an african author develop a "philosophic tale" from a purely eurocentric point of view? With a vocabulary and paradigms which correspond to the european folklore? What is african in this book? Everything he is talking about belongs to the european cultural sphere, I mean, I didn't bought the book of a Nigerian to read an european tale !!!!!!
I couldn't stop thinking about the song "Colo-Mentality" of Fela Kuti while reading this book.
What a paradigmatic/philosophic/rhetoric distance with the "Initiatic Tales" of Amadou Hampaté Ba, for example !!!!!!!


To conclude, despite my disappointment, I have no doubt that Ben Okri is talented: so many people appreciating his books can not be simultaneously wrong. So, I will give him a second chance, and I will try to read the "Famished Road", his master piece, they say.
But if it looks like "Astonishing the Gods", definitely Ben Okri would be for me a no-to-read and a no-to-recommend african author.

I give 1 star because seemingly I can not give 0.

I have recently read Dangerous Love by Ben Okri, which was a stunning novel-the writing and imagery was superb. I thought Astonishing the Gods was just the opposite. The writing was abysmal, contrived, silly--I had to force myself to get through it, kept waiting for it to turn around. It brought to mind the worst of B novels. I couldn't believe the same author had written both of these books. In fact I still can't believe it.

I say skip it and go directly to his other works.

Yes, the author is biased but he makes no secret of it so you can agree or disagree with him without having to read between lines.

What I think of Albert Speer is irrelevant so I am not going to "judge" the guy but the book.

What I liked the most is that contrary to recent books on the subject like Joachim Fest?s one on Speer, this one gives us a LOT of information about what was happenning in the enviroment around Speer (German politics, other countries, etc) before presenting actions by part of Speer so it is a very interesting way of understanding facts that in other biographies of Albert Speer are presented more or less like a shopping list. In other words, Speer?s life and actions are presented in a much broader context of connections and causes and consequences. Isn?t it what a person?s life is after all?

Besides, the author has a nice sense of humour and writes very well. Be it that you agree or disgree with the book?s content, the book is very readable.

Last but not least I expected to find -given the author?s confessed bias against Speer- facts that I could feel, having read a lot of books about Speer, that were not true or were presented in a questionable way. This is not the fact and all information presented concours and concatenates with what it is now common knowledge about Speer.

In short, a very good book about a very interesting person in the history of the 20th century

Good overall reading, but the bottom line is that Dan van der Vat's book is dedicated to answering the question as to how much Speer really knew about Nazi evils. THE GOOD NAZI explores the biography of Albert Speer as one of contrasts. The author regularly compares Speer's admissions, and often wholesale paragraphs from INSIDE THE THIRD REICH with information that disputes Speer's versions of his governmental involvement.

There is not a lot here that is new. Even reading Speer's INSIDE THE THIRD REICH left me convinced that he knew more than he was publicly admitting. Some praise Speer for his cooperation at Nuernberg and skillful defense. Others condemn him for essentially plea bargaining for a lesser charge. In reading this book you have to form your own opinion as to what anyone else would have done in a similar situation. The story is also very clear that as one of the few surviving senior ministers of the Third Reich there were very few peers left to confirm or deny aspects of Speer's life.

In THE GOOD NAZI we find Speer a gifted up and coming architect who is attracted to the National Socialist party. Unlike other later opportunists, Speer joined the party before it showed any promise of ruling Germany. At the time the party put more stock in the fact that Speer owned a car rather than his architectural skills. From austere professional beginnings to designer for massive rallies in less than a decade.

With the start of war Speer still remained at Hitler's court as his personal architect, with reconstruction duties, as well as architectural planner for post war Germany. With the death of Fritz Todt and Speer as his replacement, Speer finally became a part of the German war machine. His ministerial powers expanded from heir to the the Todt Organization to almost, though never completely, czar of armaments and military construction.

Speer toiled endlessly to improve efficiency, suspend civilian luxuries, and adapt Germany for total war. In this pursuit he was ony partially successful. Still Speer was able to bring Germany's war industry to peak production in July 1944. Unfortunately for Germany the production spike came too late in the war to alter fate. As Germany collapsed Speer played his final role in doing everything he could to preserve public works and industries from Hitler's scorched earth decree.

The culminaton of van der Vat's book is the question of how much Speer knew about and participated in the Holocaust. This never completely answered except that Speer knew more than he was ever willing to admit. This question of Speer's wartime liability was partially obscured in Nuernberg by Speer's open admission of guilt in some quarters and outright denials in others. Speer's defense was also aided by the fact that the British did not press the charges against him, while the Americans were grateful for his cooperation. The more aggressive Soviet prosecution was unable to shake Speer's position.

There was also the issue, still debated today, as to whether or not Speer really intended to do away with Hitler at the end of the war. The evidence in the book supports that Speer at least discussed the possibility with a very small circle, but his actual intent is something that is left for the ages.

Overall THE GOOD NAZI was good reading. Much like author Charles Whiting, Dan van der Vat is not shy about including editorial opinion throughout the volume. The opinions are hardly necessary as the facts lead the reader to the same conclusion anyway. My recommendation is that you also read INSIDE THE THIRD REICH either before or after reading THE GOOD NAZI.

With the amount of Speer texts in existence, van der vat's biography certainly falls into the bottom quarter in terms of quality and relevance.

As an attempt to set the record straight, with regards to Speer, van der vat falls hopelessly short by focusing on Speer's motives, rather than the historical facts at hand. Most of this book is conjecture, trying to connect Speer to some larger Nazi conspiracy, refusing to acknowledge that Speer could have simply been an administrator, who was isolated from the larger picture of the "Jewish question" and war crimes.

Finally, the book's citations and bibliography leave something to be desired. For instance, the index does not contain an entry for "slave labor," which was one of Speer's greatest transgressions as Armament's Minister.

Recommended, Inside the Third Reich, Speer: The Final Verdict, and Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands.

This book claims Albert Speer was far worse than he himself confessed, though his confessions were quite full. It builds a case against him of even greater crimes - complicency in the holocaust - on two extremely flimsy and unrelaible pieces of evidence - that he might - or might not! - have been in a room when Himmler mentioned killing Jews, and he knew Jews were being deported by the Nazis from Berlin - though there is no evidence he knew where.

Speer served a little over 21 years in prison, more or less in solitary confinement with a couple of other Nazi leaders, for having used slave-labour in World War II. He committed a major crime, but certainly received a major punishment. He did not attempt to minimise his guilt in this matter, accepted the sentence - the only Nazi to do so - and seems to have been sincerely repentant. This book, lacking evidence that he was even worse than he admitted, bolsters its "case" with emotional overkill - for example saying Speer behaved oddly the day he was released after serving 21 years prison - well, he would, wouldn't he?

I think this is another book trying to exploit the Holocaust and prove again that "There's no business like Shoa business."

The book has a bombastic, sneering tone not only towards Speer but generally. Although the author claims to be a naval writer, one notices mistakes when he touches on naval subjects. He was co-author of a book containing an outstandingly ridiculous conspiracy-theory on the Titanic, which seriously claimed it had been swapped for a different ship and delibertely sunk. Yeah! And the Captain, first officer, engineers and a lot of the crew went down with it to keep the secret - that's company loyalty for you!

Dan van der Vat makes no secret of his purpose with this book. It is to damage Albert Speer's reputation by exposing him as a hypocrite and a liar. He wants to drag him down in the dirt. In my view this was completely unnecessary. Speer was a war criminal, and there was nothing inherently "good" about him. The things that have made bestsellers out of the books by and about him have very little to do with his personal dirty laundry.

Van der Vat's basic ambition is to prove that Speer must have lied when he said he didn't "know" about the atrocities against the Jews. He invests a lot of effort in convincing his readers that Speer "must have known" where he only admitted to "should have known".

Knonwledge is never just "on" or "off". It's a matter of degrees. The process starts with input data that get filtered and interpreted as information. It continues as a state of awareness that gets deeper or shallower as time goes by, and more or less conflicted internally. Van der Vat overlooks this. He turns the matter into a black-or-white issue. This is the greatest weakness of the book.

The best part, on the other hand, is about the developing conflict between Speer and his old friend and helper Wolters in the last years of their lives. Not because of who they were or what they did, but because of the deep symbolism of what they were disagreing about.

Nobody in Germany had absolutely no information about what was going on. Everybody knew something about persecution. Speer knew more than most, but less than some, but everybody knew about neighbours who had been evicted, colleagues who had lost their jobs, shops that had been sacked and relatives who had had their spouses arrested. They didn't know for sure that these people had been deported or murdered. But they must have noticed that there was nowhere any trace of them. No letters, no phone calls. Nothing. They had disappeared into something that must have appeared, even at the time, rather similar to the Nazi name for the system that swallowed them up. It was called "Nacht und Nebel", abbreviated NN, and it meant "night and fog".

This term was not widely known during the war. But significant parts of the reality behind it were. And what did people do with it? Nothing! They turned their backs on the scraps of information that they couldn't avoid altogether, and they went on with their lives as best they could. Individually, they were powerless. The shock of the exposure after the war wasn't just about seeing something that hadn't been realised before. On a deeper level, it was the shock of seeing something that everybody "should", as opposed to "must" have known. The suspicion must have been there, and this is the basis of the collective responsibility.

On the personal level, Speer was also relatively powerless when his friend Karl Hanke told him in the summer of 1944 that he must never ever accept an invitation to inspect an unnamed concentration camp in Oberschlesien. Speer wrote later about that conversation that "the whole responsibility had become a reality again". Van der Vat pounces on the last of those words (page 217). To him, it means that Speer must have known earlier that atrocities were going on. Therefore, he must have been a liar when he didn't admit it. To me, on the other hand, the word "again" means only that this can't have been the first time that Speer was troubled by his conscience for things he had good reason to suspect, and which he had managed to turn his back on for the time being.

Speer's masterstroke in Nürnberg was to admit to a principal share in this phenomenon of collective guilt, and to offer himself up as a national sacrifice for it. An atonement in the good old tradition, the Christian myth about the man who takes on himself the guilt of others, and expunges all their sins. It was a risky strategy, but it worked. The judges were were OK with hanging people, but they didn't want anything to do with what could have been seen as a symbolic crucifixion. That is, in my opinion, the reason why Speer got away with 20 years in prison while others were executed.

Van der Vaat does a good job of showing how shamelessly Speer treated his old friend and helper Wolters towards the end. I can understand his indignation. But I have worked professionally with interpersonal conflicts for over 20 years, and I've seen such things happen again and again to basically decent and honest people. That it happened to a war criminal like Speer sholdn't surprise anybody. The thing that ought to catch the reader's attention is not that Speer and Wolters fought, or what they did to each other, but the nature of the underlying problem. The real issue was not personal. It was political, and one could almost say that it bordered on the religious.

Wolters' point of view was that Speer never should have admitted any responsibility in the first place. According to him, Speer's biggest sin was to drag the German people down into the dirt with him, because there was no such thing as individual or collective guilt in the first place. And even if there had been a collective guilt, Wolters must have felt that there was no way that Speer's punishment could atone for it. Speer was a bueraucrat, not a saviour. Wolters punished Speer by making sure that his lies should come to the surface after his (Wolters') death, not in order to avenge the Jews (far from it), but in order to drive a wedge between "the liar" Speer and the "innocent" German people.

Dan van der Vat has done a good job of dragging his subject down in the dirt. And in the process of exposing quasi-lies, real lies and marital infidelity, he has also managed to throw some light on the most important and still unresolved issues that have made bestsellers of the books by and about Albert Speer.

what do the numbers mean? what are the realities and outcomes of aspiring for some numbers to go up and other numbers to go down? Here they are. You can rely on the author to be combine honesty with actual understanding of the world.

I totally agree with Edward Luttwak's plain talk: today's capitalism with its managing for the short time, profits the happy few, but is a disaster for the many: abrupt mass firings, disruption of individual lives, of families, of communities and even of entire regions, insecurity of the middle classes.

Fortunately, he believes that turbo capitalism will pass, but, for me, not immediately.
For the reasons, read for instance the excellent books on US politics by Gore Vidal.

One of Luttwak's cures to reverse the actual situation is control by the government, but if the government is controlled by the few (private corporations and their main individual shareholders), the proceeds of capitalismn will continue to flow to the few.

As a matter of fact, he is severe for the actual governmental policies, like monetarism (it devalues labor rather than money); like the conversion of all institutions - hospitals etc. - into profit-maximizing corporations, or the hypocritical war on drugs.
I quote: "Even the fanciest illegal substances hardly make a dent in the budget of many users, some of whom are multi-millionaires ... The ruined drug addict on his way to a penniless death in a sordid alley is mostly myth: if it were not so ... Colombian drug lords would have to be content with tenements and bicycles instead of palatial mansions and executive jets." (p.210)

His conclusion is obvious: what is needed is a government that governs for the many and distributes more equally than now the proceeds of capitalism over the whole population, not only through wages, but also through better social welfare.
But this is only possible via the democratic process.

This book contains also excellent analyses of, among others, the causes of World War I, mercantilism or the situation in Russia after the fall of the Berlin wall.

An important work. Not to be missed.

I've made a habit of reading books on economics within the past year and this one is at the top of my recommendation list. Luttwak clearly describes the situation of capitalism worldwide, from the most regulated to the least restrictive economies, which he dubs turbo-capitalist (America and Britain.) He is clear that the tradeoff is security and broad wealth distribution versus efficiency and economic inequality. There is no resisting the move toward efficiency, because there is no way to compete with it. So, the whole world is inevitably moving in the turbo-capitalist direction. There are good and bad aspects of this which Luttwak discusses but regardless, we are going with the flow in which privatization and de-regulation are the driving forces, bringing rapid change, dislocation of labor, uncertainty of employment and anxiety about economic security. This book was educational for me on the topic of the establishment of the EU and the ECU (Euro.) I was particularly interested in his discussion of central banking, but found myself eagerly turning every page in expectation of what I'd find him explaining next. Luttwak is equally at home describing why Americans are such super-consumers, the Italian way of protecting jobs in a closed (but opening) economy, and the function of the Russian mafia in countering the economic power of the Russian state. An informative and entertaining read that is bound to add depth to the reader's understanding of current events.

What happens when the pursuit of wealth becomes such a dominant force in the world that all moral, ethical, and societal values become secondary? What happens when the bottom line is always...money?

Can you spell ENRON?

Most of the world is against globalization. But we are not sure why. We just feel that it is bad somehow. We see life becoming more uncertain, jobs being eliminated, families and societies being torn apart, and "job security" becoming a thing of the past. Meanwhile, the salaries of CEOs zoom into the stratosphere.

But it is difficult for the average person to verbalize exactly what is "wrong" with globalization and "free trade". We simply do not have the eagle eye view of the situation. But Mr. Luttwak does.

Mr. Luttwak is not against capitalism. But he lays a case that it is out of control and that the "free trade" agenda will only benefit the wealthy. He very eloquently lays out how the pursuit of wealth is now running rampant over borders, governments, cultures, and how wealth is accumulating at a faster pace into the hands of fewer and fewer people. And most important...the cost to all of us "losers" in this frantic "greed rush".

The WTO and G8 meetings are held in secret. Those who meet in secret NEVER have the common good at heart. If they did, they would welcome very bright lights so we could all appreciate their great philanthropy and goodness.

After reading this book, I know why they meet in secret. I now know who is pushing globalization and why they are doing it. The agenda of globalization is laid bare and yes, it is scary. Imagine one world governed by company interests whose only god is the dollar...that will be the ultimate result of turbo capitalism.

While this book is only a call to arms with no solution offered, it is excellent for no other reason than the way in which Mr. Luttwak so deftly lays out the problems.

Buy this book. You will not be disappointed.

Unlike some other reviewers, I find that Edward Luttwak's analysis of the new capitalism, or what he calls Turbo capitalism, was very well considered and presented. Luttwak knows europe very well, as he lives and teaches in Italy and speaks a number of languages fluently. The book is not a condmenation o cpaitalism; rather it shows how from the late seventies and after the fall of Soviet communism the Keynesian economic system that had been devised to produce a compromise between the aspirations of socialism and the practical realities of capitalism, which existed in much of the Western world has been dismantled. He notes that in order to reduce the appeal of socialism, which was gaining ground throughout Europe prior to the rise of fascism and after the Second World War, Western governments were almost forced into satisfying vast numbers of their populations by institutionalizing such benefits as free medical service and schooling. the equalizing policies help to soften demands for outright socilaism while allowing free enterprise to grow - albeit with some regulation. Luttwak then terms 'turbo capitalism' that transformation, which took place after the fall of the Berlin wall, characterized by the de-regualtion of free enterprise and the simultaneous retraction of the social welfare mechanisms that had been established in the post-war period.
Luttwak also looks at how certain market inefficiencies, like having too many employees, family businesses and fewer working hours actually helped make the 'capitalist' system more sustainable for the vast majority - or for what used to be the middle class until a decade ago. Turbo capitalism has accelerated and accentuated class divides, reducing the influence and size of the middle class. There are some cultural anecdotes involving work hours and differences in public morality between the United States and Europe mentioned here and there and they add an amusing effect. i found little to object in what he noted, as he remained fair and relevant. Overall this is an excellent book, which provides a great deal of insight into an the socio-economic processes that affecting the modern society.

This book is about Paris Hilton's grandparents, parents, and aunts. It includes the grandparent's ex-wives and husbands as well.If you want to know the history of the Hiltons then you should definately by this book. It mentions Paris in the book, but it definately isn't just about her. This is a good book.

House of Hilton
By Jerry Oppenheimer

Do you want to know why Paris is the way she is? Then this
book may be perfect for you because it explain the Hilton history.
However to be honest, House of Hilton was not my favorite book. I got
this book because I wanted to learn more about Paris and since the
cover said from Conrad to Paris, I thought there would be quite a bit
of information about her in it. I was disappointed they spent so much
time on other people in the family. This was an unauthorized biography which talked about all of the Hiltons and it spent more time talking about the rest of the family.

Paris is one of my favorite stars and I wanted to learn more about
her. This book showed that most of her family is wild and it is in her
blood. Conrad Hilton was the businessman who made the Hiltons what
they are today - rich hotel people. Her grandmother was a stage mother
and her grandfather an alcoholic. Her Uncle Nick made Paris look calm
since he had affairs, used drugs, and got drunk and got into fights.
Most of the Hiltons married more than once. The book talked about
other people but it was hard to follow who was who at times.

I did learn Paris went from school to school and was allowed to run
wild a lot. She got into trouble when she was young and she barely
got a degree. However she is a good business person and managed to
make money modeling and singing but she got famous from her sex tape.

Jerry Oppenheimer has written a few biographies about a few famous
people some authorized, some weren't. In this book Jerry Oppenheimer
spoke to many people who knew the Hiltons and used a lot of periodical
resources to research this book.

This book explained a lot about the family but I had wanted to read
more about Paris and her sister. This book really went into everyone
else in the family more then them. I did not care about some of the
extended family and was disappointed because of this.

The house of hilton does give justice on depicting the characters of Paris' Grandmother and great uncle (Nick Hilton - the one that married Liz Taylor) however it does not shed a lot of light on Paris Hilton and her Parents' life. We see that she gets her "I need to be the center of attention and in the spotlight at all times" demeanor from maternal grandma Big Kathy. All in all, I thought the book was a really easy read. I'm just curious as to how Paris would fill in her occupation on her tax forms. Is there an option for 24/7/365 days party animal socialite. I am fascinated by how she made a marketing brand for herself. The going rates to have Paris make an appearanc