Nicholson Books

Ms. Jaffrey has chronicled her search for information about the hijras of India. Her English and grammar is tortured and takes some getting used to. If you've ever actually been to India, you'll be reminded of how you rarely really understand all that people are saying even though it seems to be English. As an American English speaker, reading this book, there were times when I had no idea what she meant.

There is also some information about the hijras, but it is repeated to the reader as often as it was repeated to the writer in her search. Mostly what you get from this book is a good sense of what it's like to try to research something in India: the complexities, the subterfuges, the lying, the mix of fact and fiction.

Who knew eunuchs were alive and well in the world on the cusp of the 21st century? Fascinating subject matter. Too bad the writing and reporting here are slapdash and amateurish. In the hands of more skilled author, this could have been a one-of-a-kind classic. Sadly, this is just another example of the publishing world's shortage of skilled editors.

I think Zia did a lot of research but after reading the book I have to look back and ask "what did I really learn about the Eunuchs" ? The answer to that is unfortunately -- nothing. She missed a HUGE opportunity when visiting with a Doctor to find out a lot about the Eunuchs and failed miserably. Great subject matter and it takes an effort to fail with such a great and interesting subject. Save your money !!!!!!

Some of these other reviews make me laugh. Would it be better had Jaffrey assumed the role of cultural anthropologist ala Serena Nanda and written an "anthropological" treatise on the role of hijras in Indian culture, their meaning, their context, blah blah blah? No. She presumes nothing and gets closer to the "other" than Nanda ever did. Nanda doesn't even scratch the surface, she just has the prestige associated with anthropologists who go there first, meet these people first, get the reality behind the actual life of some relative cultural oddity. Nanda's book is full of conjecture and Western psychology. She includes next to nothing about the long history of eunuchs in Muslim culture- hmm, wonder why hijras exist in the north of India and not so much in the south? She never even goes over the etymology of the term hijra. Jaffrey assumes nothing and writes an utterly honest, genuine book from the standpoint of human. Her book is incredibly informative, though lacking in some respects- more theoretical discussion of gender would have been interesting.

I don't mean to knock Nanda too much, but her book is lacking personality compared to Jaffrey's, and after twelve straight hours of research- much of it concerning the development and history of hijras in Muslim culture- I'm entitled to complain. Like it or not, Jaffrey embodies the new form of ethnography. I'm giving it five stars to make up for some other reviewers.

I was very interested when I heard the subject of this book. The eunuchs of India is a subject that very little has been written about. This book promised to tell about this "invisible" group. Instead I kept reading the author's story of her dificulties in finding any infomation only to find the book end without almost any information being found. This was disapointing especially since the story was hard to follow and I only managed to follow it in hopes of finding an in depth look at this fascinating group. I hope that one day another researcher will write the book that this author promises the reader and then never achieves. In the end this book would be better as an introduction for further studies than a book on its own.

This was nothing near being a biography. It was just a book full of episodes in Jack N's life that were taken from various magazine/newspaper/media articles - things everyone already knew about him - nothing new or personal things about him - usually what a biography exposes. I found it very ho-hum.

There's not much to say about this book other than it's a compliation of everything the author read with a few recent interviews sprinkled in.

Like a previous reviewer, I lost interest (starting with Chapter 2) when I saw that it was one quote after another. When I looked at the Bibliography to see the sources and saw Mike Walker's gossip column in The National Enquirer as a source, as well as other tabloids, I figured the book wasn't worth the time considering how "accurate" those tabloids are (The Enquirer *can* get it right more often than other tabloids, sure, but a book needs more solid sources than tabloids!).

I have always had the greatest respect for Nicholson's acting ability. Numerous times in the past, I've read about how he is the consummate professional: He gets on a set and knows his lines (*and* yours!), does what he has to do and leaves. (*That's* the mark of a professional!!!)

The title says it all: The focus is more on Nicholson's personal life rather than his professional life. I find him fascinating (and, yes, unbelievably sexy at his age!) and believe his accomplishments are just as, if not, more interesting (and important) than his personal liasons.

This doesn't do Jack justice and the fact the author hides behind a pseudonym really sucks.

For instance we learn that Nicholson was taught acting by veteran film and tv actor Jeff Corey. It gives a little vague when it describes exactly what kind of actor Nicholson is. Corey mostly taught Nicholson method acting but for some films like The Shining Nicholson was more old fashioned theatrically in his approach. We learn many more things about JN like that that Nicholson gave up being an actor for a while (I often wondered why Nicholson wrote Head for the Monkees)then he was brought back. I'm more interested in the book when it's
on Jn's acting career than personal life though they do intertwine a lot. If you want my opinion this book leaves me with the opinion that Nicholson is a little too clickish in who he works for. Director Bob Raffleson or Diane Keaton or with John and Angelica Huston (before JH died that is) and so on. But come to think of it most actors who are famous are somewhat clickish(John Wayne was with John Ford a lot in movies to give another example).

This review refers to "Jack: The Great Seducer" by Edward Douglas....

As a big fan of Jack Nicholson, I was quite disapointed with this book. It is subtitled 'The Life and Many Loves of Jack Nicholson'. In that respect it did give quite a bit of information of his many loves and a good synopsis of his life before and after he became the great star that he is. If you are a fan and have never read anything else about him, you can probably add a star to my rating. However, although there are a few new interviews with various friends and girlfriends of the mega star, and the info is very up to date(going all the way through "Something's Gotta Give"), most of what you will read has been printed elsewhere. As a matter of fact, of the 436 pages, about 50 are devoted to the bibliographies and notes of quoted sources. I gave up by chapter 2 going back and forth to see where the quote came from. Each page has at least half a dozen noted quotes(sometimes there are that many in a paragraph). I also found at times, the book was nothing more than an X rated "Enquirer" as it couldn't have been more up close and personal when it comes to Jack's love life(and other big names as well). I was quite insulted by this part, as I feel most fans of this very talented actor, who has brought us so many hours of wonderful entertainment through the years, would be as well. It wasn't shocking, just sleazy.

What the book did have the warrants my 2 stars, is a good look at his life and loves, chronologically through his films. From the beginning of his career, each film is touched on, and the ones that really define Jack ("Easy Rider", "Five Easy Pieces", "Chinatown", etc) are quite detailed as to how he got the part, why he chose the roles, and what was happening in his life at the time.

Edward Douglas (a pseudonym, and I can't blame him for that) sheds some new insight into the what makes Jack tick, but for the most part I didn't think the as the front flap suggests, the revelations were "startling". I mean, what is so startling about a rich man wanting to take home left overs from his favorite restaurant. Maybe he LIKED the food and wanted a midnight snack.

Fans will not miss much by passing this one by....Laurie

as a casual movie goer who is no specialist on Jack's romantic and professional history, I found this to be a very comprehensive, continuously enlightening tour through all that he's accomplished in his amazing private and public life... although I couldn't help but be familiar with his reputation as the consumate rogue, I had no idea of the staggering quantity (and quality) of his conquests and of the 8 kids he's fathered and what's become of so many figures in his life... a very enjoyable read...

This is one of the most poorly written books I've ever had the discomfort of reading. It lacks style, imagination and depth. I suppose it could possibly entertain 13 to 16 year old wanna-be musician's, but if your over that age, then don't waste your time. This book is not even comedic. Don't waste your money. Instead buy Angels & Demons or Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy --Something with content...-Anything but this...No offense to Geoff Nicholson the author

Definitely the weakest of the three Nicholson books I've read (the other two being Bleeding London and Still Life With Volkswagen), this novel haphazardly follows the career of Jenny Slade, an avant-garde female guitar player. Other readers have criticized it's lack of narrative framework or traditional plot, but I think it adheres fairly closely to the traditional "quest for knowledge" structure. The problem is that the various incidents and episodes fail to add up to the larger knowledge or truth that is implicit in such a structure.

Over the course of the book, Jenny appears as a vision and converses with various guitar gods right before they die, including Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix, and Kurt Cobain, and also dispenses advice to a young Frank Zappa. Intermingled are her encounters with fictional musicians, the most captivating of which is the one-armed Freddie Terrano and his band of worshipers. Intermingled are excerpts from the "Journal of Sladean Studies", an uber-fanzine written by her favorite fan. Ultimately, it's a surreal hodgepodge that is intermittently entertaining, but kind of meanders to nowhere. In that sense, I think Nicholson is rather like Jonathan Lethem, who is also capable of great writing and wild ideas, some of which are genius, and some of which flop. For Nicholson, this is a flop.

This is indeed Nicholson's weakest book. A series of vignettes and anecdotes that taken individually would be fun, are presented in the place of a traditional narrative or even an overt message. These tales of the flesh guitar simply don't add up to much.

As a fan of Nicholson, hands down, this is the weakest of his work. It's a surreal story set in a post-modern guitar rock fantasy world that goes nowhere. (Was he experimenting with a new style?) After all the brilliant plots, characters, and dialogue; this was a huge letdown.

If you want to read a poorly written book with no plot and very little to no understanding of music or guitars or the creative process, Flesh Guitar is for you.

As aforementioned, this book is largely a study of ecclesiastical history from the time of Justinian through the early Macedonian dynasty. Rather dry in parts even for a history text, and somewhat uneven, it nevertheless contains some good research and interesting conclusions.

Also, as someone else said, don't be fooled by the title: this is not a broad, introductory text. To be fair though, by his own admission the author states that Byzantine history is largely a history of Constantinople, so perhaps it should be judged on its own ground.

The author appears to write about those aspects of the subject that interest him, without intending to give a broad introduction to Byzantium. In fact, many topics, such as Charlemagne and Norman Sicily, which are not strictly Byzantine, are coverd at some length. The major focus of the Byzantine material itself is Iconoclasm. So while the book is very readable, and without footnotes, it is probably not the best first book on Byzantium for the general reader, but better suited to those who already have some background and want to learn more about the topics covered. Included are four maps, and a large section of black-and-white plates, most being photos of things religious.

Michael Angold, the author, examines the role Byzantium played in carrying the torchlight of Christianity from the crumbling ruins of Western Rome, re-invigorating and institutionalizing it, and establishing the basis for the Greek Orthodox Christianity of today. He relates both its internal dogmatic struggles between competing religious factions, including two great iconoclasms, circus rivalries (much like the sports team fans of today), the Islamic threat, and return to Rome as the seat of Western (Roman Catholic) Christianity.

This book is first and foremost a religious, not a political or military, history. Angold compares artistic religious traditions between Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Islam. He also introduces us to many of the prominent religious figures of the time. The book also discusses the origins of monasticism and its wealthy patrons. And critically, it also explains the highly interwoven nature of religion and politics in the first institutionalized Christian empire.

The book's title should be changed to clearly reflect that it is an ecclesiastical - not a political or military - history. The book contains a lot of information on Byzantine religious institutions, figures, and events. But the writing style is academic, which makes the book dry. Overall, I recommend this book to anyone interested in Byzantium or the history of Christianity. General and/or military historians won't be interested.

Angold's "Byzantium: The Bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages" is a one-dimensional, badly written, and very badly edited book. Essentially, the author discusses only religious matters and art from the time of Constantine the Great through the tenth century. There is something of an epilogue that covers the Norman occupation of Sicily through about 1175, but the only mention of Byzantium here concerns mosaics, and one wonders what's the point. Worse, this last chapter covers twenty pages of a book that only runs 165 pages. There is virtually no coverage of court politics, international relations, military campaigns, economics, or social interactions, which leaves even the religious topics without context. Angold never establishes the premise of the title either. Ultimately, there is no reason to buy this book, except as decor.

Angold's "Byzantium: The bridge from antiquity to the middle ages" is a book I would never have bought had I given it closer inspection before buying it. I can only describe this book as a curiosity which presents a point of view arrived at by way of poorly applied logic intended to serve an unstated political purpose.
The fundamental problem is that Angold is attempting a broader history that puts Byzantium in the context of the east as much as the west - and fails.
The shortcomings of this book are manifold, so I will limit this critique to a number of statements made by Angold in this book. In p 39 for instance he writes "... the Carolingian West and the Abbasid Caliphate sought to emulate and surpass Byzantium..." On p. 90 he writes that the Byzantine emperor (Theophilus) was emulating the Abbasid court in apparent contradiction.
However, the Abbasid Court was an attempt to recreate in Baghdad the splendour of the demolished Sassanian Court as it had existed in Ctesiphon before Arab conquest. The claimed Abbasid-cum-Arab achievement was instead (largely) Persian: the Abbasids were helped into power by Persians and this resulted in preferential treatment of Persians by their Arab over-lords (Mary Boyce in her "Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices" pp 150-152; and Delacy O'Leary in his "How Greek Science passed to the Arabs" pp 147-148 & 155, both write on this Persian phase for instance).
What I found most intriguing is what Angold writes in p 69: "...Islam had created in almost every respect [a] superior civilization." to the Byzantines... It is perhaps this that best helps articulate the greatest of shortcomings of Angold's book. For this to be true, it would have helped to show how this "Islamic civilization" was emulated.... So, I'll help Angold:

1/Mohammedans (Muslims) made landfall in Spain in 711. In 788 a Mohammedan army fought a battle against the army of Charlemagne. This encounter is remembered in the "Song of Roland" from which to quote: "...if you die, you will be holy martyrs. You will have seats in Paradise the Great." (lines 95-100). This idea that martyrdom could be achieved by dying whilst spilling blood then made its way to Rome and became part of Urban 2's call for a Crusade 3 centuries later. This is a non-Christian idea which comes directly from the Koran: Repentance 9:38: "Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: 'March in the cause of Allah,' you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men. Allah has power over all things.";

2/Although the Abbasids were helped into power by Persians (750s), Persians were not given a charte blanche to conduct their civilization. They had to conduct themselves as Muslims, not Zoroastrians and in Arabic, not Persian. This was enforced by what was known as the "ulama" (or "culama") an Islamic Inquisition. This made certain that their views did not contradict Islam and their writing in Arabic meant that the Arabs could inspect Persian ideas for possible heresy. This idea was adopted by Innocent 3, 5 centuries later & it formed the basis of the Roman & then, Spanish inquisitions;

3/In 9th century Baghdad, Caliph Al Motevakel excluded from government employment and schooling all non-Mohammedans, who were forced to wear distinct clothing and coloured ribbons to indicate they were non-Mohammedans. In 1215 the Roman Catholic church held its Fourth Lateran Council in which cannons 78 & 79 ordered that Jews and Mohammedans wear clothing so they could be differentiated from Christians!

If emulation is an demonstration of a superior culture being imitated, then Angold is right.... in the instance of Roman based western Latin Christendom. It should be emphasised that none of these restrictions applied in Byzantium.

If anyone requires another book on Byzantium of this period one should look at Warren Treadgold's: "A concise history of Byzantium"A Concise History of Byzantium.

If anyone (including Angold) desires to understand how much knowledge of antiquity was available in early Byzantium along with a comparative account of knowledge available in the Latin west, then "Greek science in Antiquity" by Marshall Clagett Greek Science in Antiquity is indispensable.

To arrive at an understanding on the importance of Byzantium in transmitting Hellenistic ideas to the "Arab" world, I suggest that the interested reader should read "How Greek science passed to the Arabs" by Delacy O'Leary.

Flora is NOT Antonia Fraser. She can't write her way out of a hole in the ground. This book was one of the most boring accounts of Emma that I have ever heard! There was nothing fascinating, exciting, or even eventful in this book. I could barely finish this, and some important aspects of her life are glossed over in such a boring fashion that one who didn't know any better would wonder how important they were. Boring, worse-than-textbook reading, if you must read this, buy it used.

I discovered Emma, Lady Hamilton, whose great beauty and drive helped her rise to the highest ranks of Napoleonic England, thanks to Susan Sontag's The Volcano Lover. Since then, I have seen her pictures in the Tate, and read about the period, Nelson and Josiah Wedgewood to learn more about her. This is, however, the book that gave me the context for understanding who she was and how she got there, and how she ended up penniless and alone. As only makes sense, given Ms Fraser's distinguished family of strong women, Beloved Emma is a fabulous portrait of an incredibly strong woman who overcame phenomenal odds, and succeeded so completely against her era's odds that even she could not sustain her success. Worth reading and, now that there is a paperback edition, rereading!

The author takes a fastinating life and makes it into tedious reading. If you like dull endless detail, this is the book for you. I couldn't even finish and I am an avid reader!

Atmospheric and ominous, this short novel reads like a cross between a Raymond Chandler detective story and a Haruki Murakami romp. It also recalls elements from recent films "Lost in Translation" and "Shall We Dance?", though the book is much darker than either. The mood is lightened by the well-observed, broken-English dialogue spoken by the Japanese--truly a hoot--but it must be pointed out that the Japanese, or at least the ones depicted in this book, do not come off well at all.

Since I'm familiar with both British and Japanese cultures, I was really looking forward to reading this. I was horrified. The Japanese are portrayed as narrow-minded. He makes fun of their broken English. The Japanese girlfriend is the sterotypical submissive Asian woman. The plot is extremely far-fetched. The main character lacks sympathy. He's taking advantage of this girl and then has no backbone when standing up to her family. He hasn't even called his own parents in three years but the father is supposed to be a jerk even mentioning this fact. The most disturbing part of the book is a man named Samuel who's married to a Japanese woman. He's portrayed in a very unsympathetic light and I found the whole role he plays and thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

The main character is glib and self-serving. The book is very superficial. Wish I hadn't bought it.

After living as a foreigner in rural Japan (Shikoku) for over 2 years, I found this book hilarious. It is definitely satire and full of grotesques. However, the characterization of Daniel's Japanese girlfriend is SPOT ON. Not to say all young Japanese women are like this, but gaijin-o-philes ARE typically older women finally edging out of their cutesy adolescence (This usually lasts until about 27) when they are finally putting away their Mickey Mouse socks.

The subtle nuances, such as many Japanese furtively attempting to hide their surprise at seeing a foreigner in their midst is ingeniously correct. I jump at seeing other foreigners too and try to hide it. Everyone is usually so homogenic that it is surprising to see someone new and different. And many people often call me "Foreigner" and "Alien" to my face and suggest I go meet other foreigners like myself and do "foreigner things together."

It is one thing to read books about Japan and visit as a tourist. The experience is completely different living and working here. Foreign workers soon realize that the Japanese cannot be wacky and polite all the time, and that the enormous strain that the Japanese put themselves under for long hours and company loyalty, is demanded of foreign workers as well. Behaviors that are known as "cruel" are considered "acts of dedication" here.

The Japanese give many gifts and are gracious to tourists, and initially to foreign workers, but then demand to be paid in kind with much sacrifice in terms of family, salary, choice, independence, loyalty, etc.

The characterization of Daniel's ESL School boss had me and my friends in stitches. Her character is not grotesque. I have met several owners of small private English schools that are like her or worse. Whenever I interview with someone like Chiba-san, I quickly run for the hills and make sure I do not sign anything or leave any information about myself.

On the other hand, Daniel was in a terrible situation, did all the wrong things, and put himself in harm's way repeatedly in a very doltish manner. This was done, I believe, to maximize the comedic effect. Daniel knew very well about Japanese behavior as viewed from a very English perspective. Yet, he knew next to nothing about the culture, i.e. he had no idea who he was tangling with.

This is a good book, serving up a side of Japan that is rarely seen in novels or academic texts. It should be taken with a grain of salt, but it serves as a decent counterpoint to books on shrine-ettique and Ikibana.

Beginning with a rejection that the Bible is inspired, this extremely liberal view proposes "Higher Criticism" be exalted above ancient texts. The arrogance of this position is astonishing!

I used this book in a paper and it was absolute rot. At the end Nicholson tries to pretend that Wellhausen's legacy is an actual scientific theory, tried and proven.

Unfortunately Wellhausen started with tenets that have been overturned by archaeology -- a subject cited only once in this book and not inclusively of all its results.

Further having read Cassuto (see my review) I find Nicholson scientifically illiterate.

This book talks a lot about the hypothesis but says little about Pentateuch.

This was a great book that served me well while writing a paper during a graduate class on the Pentateuch. It was hard reading and the transition between sections was lacking but if you have the time to read thru several times (I read it 4 times while at the beach), then the book will prove worthwhile.

What a hopeless hash of a book. I'll be the first to admit that the conception of the book was undoubtedly clever, and must have taken a good bit of work. But just as it's not possible to make a cake without decent ingredients and it *is* possible to make a horrid cake despite the best ingredients, The Knot Garden turns to compost in this author's hands. The book is a mystery, yet as we near the end of the book, there is no mystery left to solve, and along the way, no Aha! moment. One needn't be clever to figure the thing out-- once the clues are in place, a six year old could untie this unsavory glop. And ultimately, with everything and everyone revealed, there is an overwhelming sense of "So what?" for the reader to take home. Rarely have I disliked a book so much that after finishing it the only reasonable thing left to do is throw it in the trash and try to forget ever having read it. This is one such book.

This book follows a lot of the themes common in Geoff Nicholson's books - intrigue and sex revolving around an unlikely pivot, in this case a TV gardener. The book is written from a number of peoples views, and whilst this worked well in his other books, the number of angles taken spread the story a little thinly. Whilst I enjoyed the book, it is by no means his best, and is probably one for the true fans.

I liked this book. It shows how women were able to accomplish more than we thought they could. The women had more control over how their households were run than I believe Victorian women had.One of my favorites is Caroline Lennox, Baroness Holland. She eloped with a popular politician, Henry Fox. She was banished from her parents home and they did not contact her until after the birth of her first child. She was a great political hostess. She also loved her family. The grand houses are grand and the pictures are lovely. This is just one of the many strong women who kept their family together, supported their loved ones and ran glorious grand houses.

I am beyond bored by lists of objects disguised as books. No real effective theme. Dead writing - reads like a poor quality Masters' or Phd thesis.

I read this collection, originally, about ten years ago. As I recall, I found it quite entertaining, though a few of the essays were beyond me (not so much in scope - their content was simply unfamiliar and, frankly, boring). Having nothing better to do, I decided to revisit Mr. Johnson, and dipped into the collection with what I hoped would be teary-eyed, reminiscing glee.

Unfortunately, as these things go, I was horribly disappointed. I like to think that I've learned a few things in ten years, and one of those things is that I can tell good, informative and entertaining writing from self-aggrandizing tossycock. To put it in the crudest way: Johnson is an old fuddy-duddy of the highest order, and these essays, after fermenting for so many years, come across as twee at best and nauseating at worst.

As far as I can tell, Johnson was in his late sixties when this volume was first released, so I suppose that now he's either much older or dead altogether. In any event, judging from the content of this pretentious and egotistical series of columns from his stint at The Spectator, he will in all likelihood not be missed.

Paul Johnson has one of the most delightful and witty writing styles of anyone moshing about in the pitifully small pond which constitutes the modern pool of English belles-lettres. I agree that his essays are not marvels of insightful erudition ala Hazlitt, but, heck, they certainly are much more entertaining than almost all of the other "tosh" that is drifting about. He's certainly a fuddy-duddy, along with Winston Churchill, Edmund Burke, G. K. Chesteron, Ezra Pound, Hilaire Belloc, and a bunch of other cranky pen-peddlers. So what? Oh, if only we had more such alive today who could actually write in a memorable manner.