error Books

First of all, it's hard to figure out who the heroine is, since there's two of them - Molly and Fran. It seems like Molly is the heroine, then suddenly it's Fran. Then it's Molly again. Even though she's weak and insipid and can't wait to kill herself.

The start of the book is fake, with Molly getting out of jail and returning to a house that somehow was paid for and maintained miraculously for 5-1/2 years while she was in jail. Everything is spic and span, no problems whatsoever, house was never broken into, appliances are all working perfectly, there's hot water, furnace works great, etc. No 3-foot high grass in the yard either, or piles of junk mail or rodents nesting in the house. And of course somehow the utilities are all turned on. Some of this was done by the previous housekeeper, who just happens to be sitting around available with no job even after 5-1/2 years and who no doubt doesn't mind putting all the utilities in her own name, paying the deposits, etc.

The rest of the book was ok, with a kind of convoluted plot that was overall sort of interesting. I never could like Molly though, she was such a weak spineless wimp. Of course, even though she was completely boring and lifeless, everybody wanted to visit her every day and she usually had about 19 guests over. Like nobody else had a life of their own but just existed to worry about Molly.

Anyway, I liked Ms. Clark's earlier books a lot better.

Some years ago I was discussing reading habits with a friend. I told him that I enjoyed Stephen King, Mary Higgins Clark, P.D. James and a few others. He told me, "I don't read mainstream fiction".

I couldn't understand the man. We were a similar age. I did not consider him to be intellectually superior to me. Why then would he turn away from books read by millions of people?

The answer, I found, lay in the pages of books like "We'll Meet Again" by Mary Higgins Clark. Many times reading this book I was tempted to toss it across the room. The writing was just bad - simplistic, no character development, too many unimportant details such as catalogue descriptions of every bit of clothing worn by every character in the book.

As is my usual habit, I was reading another book while I read this one. That book - "Promise Not to Tell" by Jennifer McMahan - was an enjoyable read. McMahan's book is also a mystery but her book is well written. Her prose is rhythmic and sensory in its detail. If she describes what someone is wearing - "She wore a stained pink T-shirt with the same corduroy pants she'd had on for days." - it is done to help develop a character not just to pad pages.

I will finish "We'll Meet Again" because I find myself unable to leave a book unfinished once I start it. But in the future when somebody asks me what I read, like my friend, I will reply, "I don't read mainstream fiction".

MHC happens to be one of my favorite writer. I find most of her books fast paced, packed with interesting characters and of course a good mystery. Therefore I couldn't agree with one of the reviewer when he couldn't detect any mystery in this book. The story takes place 6 years after when Molly is out of jail on parole. She asks her friend Fran to investigate the murder of her husband. As Fran's investigation progresses, many hidden secrets began to surface. The ending was good too because I couldn't guess who the killer was till the final chapter. In my opinion this book deserves 5 stars.

I have always enjoyed Mary Higgins Clark's books, and this one is a real page-turner. But the audio version is a different story. It is hard to concentrate on the story as so many words are mispronounced. Greenwich, CT is not "Green-which," but "Grenn-ich." "Brusquely" is not "brooske-ly." And "been" rhymes with "bin," not "bean." The list goes on. (And then there is the reader for Sara Paretsky's Chicago-based mysteries who pronounces Chicago Cubs icon "Harry Caray" as "Harry Cuhh-RAY. Sheeshhhh......)

The story centers on Molly, a physician's wife who is accused of murdering her husband. As the story unfolds
thru the eyes of Fran, who is an investigative reporter, the possible killer takes on many possibilities. In the
end, the health maintenance organization, which is rife with deluded egomaniacs, who end up murdering
their Physican colleague, in order to cover up their criminal behavior.
Fran, of course, gets thru the maze of deceit, and exposes these scoundrels. Molly is exonerated, and
Fran gets the scoop, which ends up as a presentation of the truth for her investigative TV show.
As the mystery unfolds, the story captured my interest, and left me with a strong desire to finish the book
in one sitting. I will be reading more of the authors mysteries!

As much as I am amazed at the subject's ability to expound at length, and in a very entertaining and thought-provoking way, I'm amazed that after all the nonsense he still is reported to be Number One in his field. The good-natured "gotchas" throughout this book remind us that behind that media monolith is an uncontrollable urge to shoot his mouth off and while doing so delude himself and an incredible amount of "dittoheads".
So often, as this book points out, he is not even close, discussing Plymouth Rock, the beginnings of the Health Care system, global warming, etc.
What makes this phenomenon a serious issue is the obvious well fortified platform he has stepped up to as a first class Demagogue. High ratings and a sharp "Screener" can't hurt, when you're playing a composite of Ol' King Cole and William F. Buckley (RL wishes he could wash his socks), and interminably ventilating on the Clintons.
The dittoheads are entitled to turn off their brains while listening to Limbaugh - I did hear such an exhortation from Limbaugh way back when and it didn't sound completely in jest - but I would challenge them to challenge their man to refrain from insulting family members of his political targets, such as Kitty Dukakis and Chelsea Clinton.
Maybe this book, and others, will, through humour, will entice those "heads" into becoming their own "screeners" for objectivity about Rush, buy this book, and ask themselves, does "ditto" mean, yeah, I love him like the rest, or "ditto", whatever he says is fact.

Let me preface this by saying that I was inspired to buy this book because my father is one of the biggest "dittoheads" ever.
Anyway, for a mere $7.00, I could explain to my dad just how wrong this loud, sweaty homo-phobe really is.
More than the lies themselves, I was glad there were citations. I found in Limbaugh's book where he said there are more acres of forestland today than there were back in 1492 when Columbus discovered the continent. WAAAAYYY Off! If there's more forest today, what were all of our cities, parks, stadiums, etc. built on? Barren Desert? I think not, Rush.
The quotes from his radio show are shocking. I just wish I could access an archive of this guy, just so I could really hear them.

i am very displeased with this purchase because i have not received this book bought and paid for with the other books that i purchased and bought. if i do not receive any response as to why i have not gotten this book, i will file a complaint with the BBB, Consumer Protection, and Federal authorities.

The book tells us what many of its readers already know. Rush Limbaugh appeals to our lower instincts where impulses run rampant, and the emotion of anger is the easiest to trigger and feed.

In what is almost a comic book format and coloring, the content is surprisingly serious about Mr. Limbaugh's deceit, racism, disingenuousness, fabrications and lies. Here's an example from the radio airing on March 10, 1994:

Limbaugh: "I am not calling the president names."

Caller: "You do it every day."

Limbaugh: "Give me one example of calling him a name..."

Caller: "You've called him a liar, a fool, and idiot."

Limbaugh: "Those are not names. Those are assessments of his character. They are not names."

(?)

I was most interested in Rush's background, which revealed his hypocrisy. Limbaugh the ueberpatriot claimed that Reagan was the best president this country ever had, but he never voted for him. In fact, he didn't vote until he was thirty-five.

The second was his lack of military service. Rush claimed to have failed a draft physical and thus was never called because he had a high draft number. Actually, he had a low one, was called, and then "failed" the physical. At different times claiming a knee injury from high school football, and then a pilonidal cyst, which caused him to fail. His father had the same cyst when he was a World War II fighter pilot.

The man who rails against divorce is now working on his third marriage, and the printing of this book was before Limbaugh's drug addiction.

This book also includes Limbaugh's pronouncements and then the reality check. An example of this is Limbaugh's claim that melting glacial ice is the same as ice melting in a glass. The level doesn't change. And here is where RL is flat out wrong. Most of our glacial ice is over land. Water level would rise 200 feet worldwide if it melted.

This means Limbaugh needs to be taken with a large dose of salt, but this is where the book unwittingly falters. Those who see Limbaugh as a charlatan, don't require further convincing. Those who worship at the altar of his Cuban cigars and grotesque line of ties, will discount the contents of this book without reading it.

At least now, I have identified the source for a number of neocon arguments.

This is the kind of book you read during the commute.

*See how easy it is to throw bombs at people? I'm glad people express their opinions and have differnet views, even though it pisses me of a lot.

*But, one reviewer used the analogy of Rush listeners to Hitler Youth members. That is such a cop-out, easy, thoughtless, and inflammatory statement. I should know. I used that analogy countless times in school, because it is easy and powerful. The problem is that it is almost always untrue.

*Wake up, people. Support what you say with facts, instead of swill.

John Grisham doesn't usually write non-fiction. But he felt that this story was compelling enough to do some serious research and writing. The result is a very solid, horrifying read.

I have always been against the death penalty on efficiency grounds, but this book really tipped the balance. I knew that mistakes were made in death penalty cases, but little did I realize that the mistakes would be the result of small-town avarice and a bloodthirsty desire to see someone - anyone - pay for despicable crimes. I shudder to think of all the folks behind bars because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The story itself follows Ron Washington, a promising baseball star who fizzles in the minor leagues. The rest of his life goes downhill from there, and his aimless lifestyle makes him a top suspect for clueless police. Ron's (and his alleged accomplice's) journey through the justice system is an eye-opening experience. If Grisham had put this story line in his fiction books, it would have been too ridiculous to believe. But since court proceedings are pretty well documented, it looks to be true.

The story is well written and has some very colorful characters. My only fault with the book is that it did drag in parts, but overall it was a very engaging read. Highly recommended for all who enjoy a shocking true life drama.

By now, there is no excuse for starting to read this book believing that it is written to Grisham's usual formula. This is not a brilliantly written legal thriller. It is an excellent piece of investigative journalism, and it is very clear that John Grisham has invested a huge amount of effort into his investigations.

He tells the true story of several wrongful convictions, concentrating mainly on the central character, Ron Williamson, who spends a considerable proportion of his life on death row and in other detention centres.

Grisham exposes the flaws in the American justice system, which is under constant pressure from the conviction-hungry public who will not allow the truth to stand in the way of their passionate pursuit of somebody to blame for any heinous crime, who, whether innocent or guilty, will receive the heavy punishment that such a terrible criminal would deserve. This leads to deliberate, and institutional, incompetence amongst the investigators and the lawyers.

For me, the book is far too long. I think that Grisham could have condensed the results of his rigorous investigations into about half the pages that he has filled. It is clear, from early on, what the outcomes would be. However, it is a valuable exposé, and I hope that US citizens will use it as the basis for successful campaigns against injustice in The Land of the Free.

I've read this book twice now, and I'm still enamored with it. I found the characters interesting, and sad. The story was well told, and was an eye opener. What really gets me is that this book was a true story, and I feel horrible for the miscarriage of justice that two men, and their families, had to go through.

An excellent read.

The most excruciatingly dull grisham book and the first I just can't finish. I tried over and over to get engaged in the story and the amount of boring detail just killed my interest. Don't buy this book and if you get it for free don't read it. Too many more interesting options.

I loved The Painted House and A Time To Kill but those were fiction. About halfway through The Innocent Man, I started speed-reading and finished in about 20 minutes. Maybe real people are boring?

This book is pure liberal garbage. It is a shame that Lowen recieves such attention for such rubbish.

I asked for and recieved this book and the author's other dreck about wrong history in the U.S. for Christmas, 2007.

The author is wrong. The author is biased. The author doesn't care about facts; he has a message to promote.

I regret asking my relatives to spend their hard-earned money on this poorly-researched propaganda and I regret wasting what precious time I have reading it.

Can I speak any more forcefully about how rotten and disgusting this author's alternate history "history" really is? This is the sort of drivel that should get one's tenure revoked and should cause employers to fire Mr. Loewen for outright academic dishonesty.

I really enjoy this book. There are many things in it that I do not agree with, and sometimes I feel like Loewen lets his personal political views and opinions guide his essay more than historical facts. However, this book, especially the essays at the beginning and the end, truly give the reader something to think about as they study history. The essays on the concept of civilization and "discovery" were very intriguing.

When reading this book one needs to keep in mind that a lot of the things Loewen says are his opinions, and we are free to make our own. Whether or not John C. Calhoun deserves to have a place on the landscape, etc, is something we as a people need to decide. And I believe that simply because someone did something bad doesn't mean he should be ignored on the landscape or throughout history. And sometimes I feel that Loewen proclaims to advocate having both sides of a story on the landscape, but advocates otherwise when he asks for certain momuments to be removed or changed to represent his own point of view.

All in all, this is a very good and interesting book, especially for those who love history and care about the historical monuments of this country. Even if one doesn't agree with Loewen, it is good that he gives us more to go on and make our own opinions on the historical landmarks around the country. If you are looking for a book to make you think and change your perspective on history, this is the book for you.

Loewen once again presents historical truth regarding America history that the masses have yet to hear. A must read for everyone.

This book is divided into short reviews of various historic sites across the US. It's a great learning experience to read about some of the sites. Loewen gives the history of the site, including why it was established and often what the politics were at the time. There's some amusing information about misinformation that the sites portray. I have truly enjoyed reading this, and because of the way it's set up, it's easy to read in short bursts when you just have a few minutes.

When you pick the book up you notice that it is a collection of essays on conspiracy theory. Some of the ideas are OK others are not. It is a book full of information and disinformation that at times will make you laugh and at other times will make you mad! I call it a bipolar book. Can you handle dichotomies and bipolarity? If yes, go for it!

Amazon has listed this title under Paradise Research Publications. This book, its author, and its subject matter have nothing to do with Paradise Research Publications, Inc. It suggests that one of our titles, long out of print, somehow contains canards. I have no problem with freedom of speech or freedom of opinion and comment, but not when it erroneously conveys the impression that it is published by my company or any other company it wishes to criticize. The listing should be rejected out of hand.

This collection is not only a great book to help open your eyes, it is also a great introduction to some of the best writers of our time.

Your political party affiliation does not matter. The simple fact is, we are being lied to and manipulated in many, many ways today. There was a time when such things would have had people fired and cast out of society. Today, it is so commonly accepted that it has become a disease.

Learn the truth, learn how the manipulations work and learn how to spot the scams a mile away.

Very little here of any substantial value: mostly just paranoid conspiracy theory rhetoric. The "Forbidden Archaeology" segment was interesting (although, once again, conspiracies are at play here as well.) References were lacking, and many of these essays seemed vague and without any real substance. This is one of those books you flip though, raise your eyebrows and go "reeeally" and then turn the page.

You truly cannot tell a book by its cover, OR its description. Because I have been uncovering the truth for over 25 years, I expected much more out of this book than it delivered. It was extremely disappointing, to say the least. Despite all of the hype involved in promoting it, the book offered no new insights, and made a mockery of uncovering the truth.
Some of the material was a bit raw and seamy, and it fed my trash can as quickly as I could get it there. Not one I would recommend for true investigative reading.

This book is basically a comparison of good & bad designs as related to the topics in the subtitle. There is not much depth to any of the examples so it feels like this is the outline of a book that never got finished.

I was looking for something comprehensive enough to allow me to make better informed decisions, even if the book didn't offer an example that is specific to my problem. This book is NOT that.

This book is a nice collection of what should be common sense rules (obviously common sense is not so common, as the examples of actual web sites in the book prove). I would assume that it would be most beneficial to a beginning designer, although it's a book everyone involved with web design or programming should browse through every now and then.

If you already have some design experience, or use the web a lot in your daily life, or just have common sense you will most likely find this book utterly useless. But even for people who are just starting out in the field, at 236 pages this book can easily be compressed into 37 with one page per "signal."

Here's what specifically bothers me about the content:

1. Wordy. The authors take a simple problem and run with it for pages. How many examples do I really need to understand that limiting text fields to, let say, 200 characters and not letting users know that there is a limit is a bad idea? One? Two? There are 5 examples beating the same dead horse. And this is going on pretty much for every example they have.

2. Clueless. One of the complaints in the book is about an error message that TicketMaster displays when they can't find tickets for you (page 75). Specifically, the message is "We are unable to fulfill your specific request. We may not have the type of tickets you requested or the number of seats together that you are looking for." The authors' beef with this message is "[...] the error message still leaves me scratching my head. If TicketMaster knows the event is sold out, then why not just say so?" Perhaps, they don't say that the event is sold out because it isn't? First, just because TicketMaster is out of tickets doesn't mean there are no more tickets left. TicketMaster usually only gets a percentage of tickets. Second, if I'm looking for cheapest seats and they don't have any left, doesn't mean there aren't more expensive available. Thirdly, if I'm looking for 7 seats in a row and can't find that many available doesn't mean I can't buy them on other combinations.

3. Superficial. When talking about handling 404 "Page not found" errors, the author completely neglects to mention the intricacies of handling these conditions which can have profound effect on your site's SEO.

All-in-all, I'm taking my book back to the store.

I received zero (0) value from this book, and I can't figure out why anyone would recommend it. I kept waiting for something to learn, but alas, there is nothing but common sense included in this book. To say nothing for the fact that each page contained about 2 paragraphs of text (an image caption) with an image showing Good or Bad examples. What a waste of money, time, and energy. Unfortunately the individuals behind 37 signals had just enough clout to get a book published and have caused me to look elsewhere for authors/teachers. NOTE: their software at 37signals.com is great, but even their own blog is hard to read. Overall a major disappointment. NOTE: absolute beginners may find a 1 star value out of this book. However, 30 days on the job will teach you everything here.

The sub title of this book should stop at "How to Improve Error Messages". The focus of the book is on recovering from problems, either from user input or from the system. That's all well and good and their ideas are fine. However I was hoping they'd spend some time talking about how to lay out your forms so they are mor effective and less likely to cause problems for the user in the first place.

Especially useful would have been web oriented techniques for forms that span multiple pages.

Anyway they didn't put it in the book and that's their choice. What they put in is servicable if all you're interested in is recovery.

I understand the name of Adolf Hitler functions like a magnet in book titles and unfortunately in this case it is employed most likely for the same reason. The proper title should be - and is somewhat given in the subtitle - "Mistakes made by the Allies and Axis in WW2", since Alexander professionally - he's a military historian, a Korean War veteran - examines not only Hitler's faulty decisions, but, and mostly, those of his commanders, Allied generals and leaders. Namely, abandoning plans to defeat England, the attack against the Soviet Union, the refusal to back up Rommel in his success in Africa. But "How Hitler could have won the war" sounds less academic and thus more mass-appealing.

The author nurses the concept that by encompassing the European theaters thru Egypt, Syria and Iran to the Caucasus, the Germans would have succeeded in a war against Russia and England (I'm not an expert, but I don't see how Rommel's efforts in Egypt would have prevented an Anglo-American assault from, say, Morocco, Red Sea or Arabian peninsula, since the American resources were inexhaustible); on the other hand Alexander admits that the very idea of conquering Russia was doomed from the beginning; so the question is whether the Allies could have defeated Germany sooner.

The book is written in an accessible, comfortably flowing style, not without a military professor-like proselytism. Principally, the book is a nice compact history of the World War 2, with emphasis on faults that consumed time and resources on both sides leading to extension of the war, albeit with the typical neglect of the Soviet front.

I enjoyed the book - it is well written and flows nicely. Alexander is a HUGE Rommel fan and offers the plausible theory that Germany may have won the war if Hitler paid attention to Africa and redirected the threat on the Soviet Union through the middle east. I hadn't considered this before, and I would have liked to see more detail on the political and social climate in Egypt, Turkey, Iran and so forth that would have made this happen. However, as Hitler's military audacity, stupidity and complete lack of global political reality came to bear, the war was pretty much lost before it began. It's always interesting to read about what ifs ... and thankfully, despite Allied military blunders, we overcame one great evil to face another for a fifty year stalemate. Once the mediterranean theater is lost, the book is a brief history of WWII rather than covering the political intrigue between the big three (Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill) and the myriad other countries that wavered in their alliances. I guess I'm trying to say is that I wanted more. I also feel the title could have been better.

Given the title of this book, I was expecting a bit more analysis as to how Hitler could have won World War II. The author disappointed. This book is no more than a decent short survey of the war. In fact, it often read more like a college-level history paper than a carefully researched body of work. For example, the author describes Montgomery as "...an eccentric man concerned with his own glory...", but then fails to support his point. It's a rare occasion when I feel I've wasted my time reading a book--this was a rare book in that regard. I've read many a detailed account of the Second World War and I wasn't in the market for the broad survey that Mr Alexander's book offered. If you're looking for an analysis of courses of action Hitler might have taken to win the war--as I was--leave this book on the shelf.

As usual every book of Bevin Alexander is very nice to read, full of details and explanations.
The theory suggested is for sure a very intresting one, form the Political and miltary point of view he surely has a point. Economically the story is a little complicated, the containment of Russia for sure was a better alternative to a frontal confrontation, on top of that Russia was still delivering the supply needed to Germany untill the day of the attack, but actually the debate is: could Germany become an economically independent empire without conquering the fields of Ucraina and the oil filed of the Caucasus?
For sure the alternative to conquer Iran an Iraq for the oil part is correct, but still more than a military perspective, which is in my opinion very substainable, a further economic analysis could be very interesting.

Although a good book & very well written,the title is misleading.Very little is written about HOW Hitler could have won WW2. Most of the book is a narrative skimming over the major events of the war.Very little is written about 'How Hitler Could Have Won WW2! For the novice WW2 reader it has it's merits but to a WW2 junkie there is very little to be learned.

Jon Hein's book, "Jump The Shark" is an excellent source of information for just about any movie that you grew up watching. Whether it's "Three's Company," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," or "Family Ties," this book is an excellent reference for those films you enjoyed watching as a child into adulthood. It also includes more recent shows from the 21st century like "Alias."

I rate this book 5 stars because it's well-written, an easy read, and most importantly, not only well-organized, but entertaining!

Buy it today--you'll be glad you did, I know I was!

I decided to be more generous than some of the other reviewers and give this four stars, if only because I am a fan of the site. The book seems to be sloppy and drags in quite a few places. Also, there's too much space given to setting up the "shark" moment; the actual moment when a show/artist/public figure jumped merits little more than a couple of sentences in the last few paragraphs. I can't help but feel this was assembled hastily, perhaps to cash in on the popularity of the site. Also, the straying from television shows, while welcome, quickly becomes dull and rather pointless.

However, I went ahead and gave it five stars because of the intent: documenting the point when celebrities started taking themselves too seriously. In our fame-obsessed culture, it's good to have barometers that measure the moment when a actor or show stops being "normal" and becomes "self-important". So the book itself serves a useful function. The website deals soley with TV, so the book's excursion into other areas is thought-provoking nevermind the absence of a satisfying result. My advice is to seek out the website first (shouldn't be hard to do ;-D), and perhaps skim through this on occasion. Hopefully any subsequent JTS efforts won't come any closer to "jumping the shark" than this one did.

Enjoyed hearing a cassette version of JUMP
THE SHARK, written and read by Jon Hein . . . if you're
not familiar with the concept, it is the exact moment when
things go bad on a TV show . . . this was first noticed
on THE HAPPY DAYS when Fonzie literally jumped a shark
on water skis . . . the series was never the same afterwards.

Hein expanded the concept to encompass many other
TV shows; in addition, he developed a popular website
to share his ideas.

In JUMP THE SHARK, he also looks at musicians, celebrities,
athletes, and politicians . . . while some of this was interesting,
I enjoyed the TV part most--perhaps because I grew up on many
of the TV shows that he mentions . . . also, reminiscing about TV
can be fun; the same can't be said, for example, when thinking
about Hitler.

Yet I did get several chuckles when thinking about how DALLAS
turned around when a whole year was wiped off the books because
of Bobbie's dream . . . or when BEVERLY HILLS spotted a fin
the year Brenda went abroad . . . now those were incidents
that merited discussion--much of it quite profound, if memory
serves me correctly.

He claims John Ritter is seen pouring water on Suzanne Somers. Actually it was Joyce DeWitt in the show's opening who pours water on Somers.

I think Jon Hein is taking himself too seriously. It was a cute idea, but this book got written ass-backward. It's padded by little sidebars that might have come from an inflight magazine ("Ten Famous High Schools on TV," "TV Characters with Handicaps," that have nothing whatever to do with the topic. And then, the greatest error, expanding the concept beyond TV shows to sports, politics, world events, and so forth. Here Hein goes wrong more often than not. Sure, we all have our own ideas about success and failure, but he and his crew get dogmatic to their own detriment. Is "Conspiracy Theory" where Mel Gibson jumped the shark or is it one of his better movies? Who's to say, isn't it all a matter of taste?

Too bad, because his original idea and website made us all think and nod and shake with excitement, yes, yes, we cried, finally someone came up with a phrase to express our horror at "a very special episode," "twins being born," "we're moving to Hollywood!" and all the other bad plot lines that happen to wonderful TV series.

Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History
Richard Shenkman

Jeopardy buff? Any trivia or history aficionado will enjoy this book tremendously and find it a great addition to her/his library. Shenkman touts little known facts on a wide range of topics in the relatively short, but certainly intense history of the "Land of the Free." Most importantly, for a fact-filled myth buster like this one, he carefully cites his sources.

Where questions remain about people, places, events and celebrations, Shenkman provides the reader with ample and balanced background information to forge onward with new and unique theories. His perspective is not critical or in your face, and he gives fresh insights on long and widely held incorrect concepts. The entire work is like a written version of Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story.

I didn't wholly agree with all the positions set forth in the work, but deeply appreciated Shenkman's efforts to encourage thought and his subtle nudge to delve deeper into the subject matter. As an educator, I loved many of the fascinating tidbits mentioned throughout the book. I draw from the book regularly in my classes in hopes that I will help my students identify with characters or events in our country's illustrious history.

I bought this for my teen-age son, who is homeschooling, and he loves it. Actually, I learned a lot, too!

Most people go through their lives without questioning our nation's history. The events of our nation's past, as told by our elementary school teachers, are filled with great stories with obvious morals to be learned. As it turns out, many of these recalled past events, which most consider accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt are actually lies or misinterpretations. Richard Shenkman, in his book Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History works to show his readers some of the common misconceptions associated with American History. Some might consider his approach unpatriotic because these facts are engrained in the minds of Americans and part of our nation's history. He asserts that some of the most important events in our history were actually fabricated out of thin air. He does this, not to tear down the history that American is so proud of, but to shed light onto concepts that might have otherwise gone unnoticed.
Shenkman starts off by calling the American public ignorant of our history. Not ignorant in the sense of unintelligent but of being vastly misinformed. Americans know "less than we think we do. For as it turns out, even many of the best known stories from our history are false." Christopher Columbus is his first example, probably because the story of his three ships traveling over the vast ocean and not falling off the edge of the Earth is known to almost everyone with any knowledge of American history. Unknown to most, Aristotle beat Columbus to this idea that the world was round centuries earlier along with countless others between the two. Also mentioned are numerous travelers who beat him to the New World as well. As the book continues through years of American history, the events that he is debunking steadily grow in significance. The story of Columbus may be a disappointment to some but it is no earth shattering news. The fact that Independence Day may be held on the wrong day may ruffle a few more feathers. The government indorses July 4 as the day our nation declared its independence, but as records show, this may not be the true anniversary to our independence. Also, the story of The Alamo was mentioned. Thought of as one of the most epic battles of Texas history, where such men as Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie despite the overwhelming odds stood their ground against the Mexican army and fought until the last man fell. Contrary to this story, Shenkman asserts that some of the men actually surrendered, were captured and were killed later. The story could have been remembered in the way that it was because there was no first hand account on the Texas side, or because dead to the last man is a better way to be remembered. Be sure to be careful when reading facts such as these. The impulse to throw out these notions may come quickly and your ability to understand these events will be lost.
Despite the severity of a few of the events mentioned, most tend to be common misconceptions about our past. Sex, war, drugs, education, immigrants, family and many other topics are within the range of Shenkman's research into American history. You will be amazed at how many times he can surprise you with obscure facts of our past. Events that seem like common knowledge and universal to everyone may in fact be inaccurate to say the least. He also knows how to keep the attention of the reader. It was hard for me to put this book down because with the way it was written it is impossible not to ask, "What else could I have missed?"
Shenkman showed no restraint in picking his topics; in fact, it seems as if the topics he chose were deliberately chosen to stir up emotion in the reader. This tactic only works when the right emotions are the ones coming out. He was trying to show the reader how credulous we are when it comes to our history. However, he does show caution when mentioning certain subjects which might have brought forth the emotions he did not want the reader to experience. President Lincoln was one example. There are numerous rumors surrounding Lincoln before and during his presidency. However, Shenkman tended to focus on the issues less well known to the public, such as the house he was born in, his personal correspondents and how he actually hated the name "Abe." Much less restraint was shown when President John F. Kennedy came up in the presidents section. With his ideas that women were simply "sex objects" and that some of his escapades actually may have put the nation in danger (such as having an affair with a mobster's daughter), "John Kennedy is still one of the two or three most admired presidents in the history of the United States." This is how he is remembered and for some reason, no matter what evidence is brought forth to the contrary, people will still love him.
Richard Shenkman was a Vassar College graduate and attended Harvard graduate school. Still he was not afraid to mention misconceptions pertaining to his very own school. He also has worked with television networks for many years and has written five New York Times Best Sellers, this book being one. My point is that Shenkman is very in tune with the public and what they want to read. This book is extremely well written and is very easy to get through if you have an open mind and remember that this book is not meant to spit in the face of five hundred years of American History. It is simply meant to show the reader that even if something is accepted by everyone that does not necessarily mean it is completely accurate.
"Americans, despite everything you hear, know plenty of history." Though some may think that bringing these facts to our attention is dismissing the ideas of countless historians around the world, I believe Shenkman writes not to dismiss them, but simply to bring to attention alternative views on these events. Therefore, if you have an open mind and you are curious about the events of the nation, you will find this book very enjoyable and interesting.

I like this book for when I am on the train...not so in-depth that it requires a lot of concentration.

Your sixth grader might find it revealing, but nobody with any knowledge of history will learn much from this disconnected, purposeless collection of factoids. Shenkman acts like an annoying twelve-year old who's memorized 50 state capitals and wants you to listen as he recites them -- and thereby proves how smart he is.

Many of the facts he "reveals" here were things most people would learn from a comptent high-school or college American History class, or else are too irrelevant to be included even there. e.g. pointing out that Paul Revere had two companions, or that Molly Pitcher was not the only woman to fight in the Revolution.

Yes, it's true that most people aren't aware that John Paul Jones later served as a mercenary to Catherine the Great ... but what's the point? Are they supposed to know? Does not knowing reflect some sort of failing in their education? Shenkman certainly implies as much.

But even more annoying is his habit of attacking myths that nobody really believes. He refers to the "firmly held belief that premarital sex is a twentieth-century phenomenon." Firmly held by whom? Shenkman wants to pretend that there are people out there who think that there was no fornication pre-1900, so that he can show how wrong they are (and by contast, how smart and urbane he is). But of course nobody actually thinks this; what they actually think is that it was >less common< in the past than it is now ... which his statistics confirm. Now it probably is true that many people misunderstand or exagerrate how much less common ... but that's a comparatively subtle distinction, and Shenkman doesn't do those.

To pick another, he alludes to the (putatively common) "belief that Presidents were freqently born poor." Excuse me? I highly doubt anyone out there actually under the misapprehension that the majority of Presidents were raised from poverty. People believe that it is >possible for a poor person to become Head of State, and that that possibility is more real in the US than in other countries.

It might be interesting to do a comparative study with, say British PMs or Soviet Politburo members, to see what percentage of them came from comparatively wealthy backgrounds. Alas, that sort of thing is beyond Shenkman. His brilliant idea is to list all the presidents and spin their life stories to make them sound bourgeois: the orphaned Hoover was "brought up by his maternal uncle, the head of a local academy;" Nixon's father owned a gas station; Eisenhower's mother went to college. Best of all is his pointing out that while Lincoln was poor, he was "not as dirt poor as his neighbors."

My guess is that Shnekman fancies himself another Howard Zinn, fearlessly deconstructing the bourgeois myths of America. He isn't. Zinn uses facts to make points; he constructs arguments. Some of those facts are slanted, some points are debatable and some of arguments weak, but it is at least the discourse of an educated adult. Shenkman's is not.

Smith makes many valid points in this book, detailing many ways in which the language is commonly abused. He doesn't have nearly the sense of humor about the subject as I'd expected, however, and there are a few cases in which I think he disdains a perfectly legitimate usage.

Ken Smith has written an equally dazzling and puzzling book that will leave you wondering what words you might have overused... In this little book, he compiles a list of the many words that have been abused by arrogance, misunderstanding, and sheer nonsense. Nothing rings true about these words but their dictionary definitions. They may puzzle, and excite, but their silence rings true as empty bells.

An adventitious and clear minded romp through the landscape of modern English.

`Junk English' is the perfect way to describe the cluttering of the English language, like with junk food it is possible to pile on more and more of these say-nothing words while adding no more meaning to a sentence than a Twinkie would add nourishment to a meal.

In addition to a sharp eye one of the aspects of this book which makes it so great is Smith's excellent use of examples to illustrate every point, truly makes all the concepts of the book easy to grasp.

While I applaud Ken Smith for this book I will point out that he is occasionally too harsh in his criticism - wouldn't recommend Junk English as a zero tolerance guide but the more aware of such linguist fluff we are the more we can cut back on it and in turn the more meaning out remaining words gain.

Although Smith doesn't offer the same sorts of insight that linguist Geoffrey Nunberg does in his book this was an informative and enjoyable read - will be reading the sequel before too long I am sure!

I was a little disappointed by this book since I'm a great fan of Ken Smith. All of his previous books were written on other interesting topics and resulted in some really fun and informative reads (Mental Hygiene, Raw Deal, Roadside America). Junk English succeeds, somewhat, at the informing part. There's a lot of insight into how English is being destroyed . I imagine Ken watching television and obsessively scribbling down his examples. But the book suffers from bad organization. It goes in a mindless alphabetical order, by both offending words and topics. It would help a lot if it went topic by topic. And the entertaining part is almost nonexistant. Sentences pop up here and there giving a glimpse of the fun writer Smith can be, but mostly it does read like a dictionary.

As a professional writer, I enjoy discussions about language and the (often comical) pitfalls that exist for those who unintentionally misuse language. That, combined with the back cover quote that termed the book "lively" and "funny," led me to believe that I would be enlightened and entertained by reading "Junk English." Unfortunately, I found the book to be not particularly illuminating and virtually devoid of any entertainment value. The author repeatedly ridicules the type of writing that most of us would consider minor deviations from technically perfect sentences, and he seems to consider all creative embellishment or literary license as a sort of taboo that should be excised from even conversational English. In short, this is the kind of intellectual nitpicking that I believe would appeal only to the pedagogue who delights in correcting a child's misuse of the word "can" where he should have used the word "may." It is not a book that offers any guidelines to enrich our use of the English language. Instead, if we were to follow the advice of "Junk English" and stick to the type of bland, stripped-down sentences the author lauds for the technical accuracy of their syntax and word choice, the language of Shakespeare would be dull indeed.