Datasets:

pppereira3

/

rating_regression_no0_roberta_remainder.hf

like 0

I haven't read a non-fiction book this engaging in some time. This was an amazingly well written autobiography. It read like a fast paced novel through much of it. Many autobiographies are too long - this one if anything is too short! Like many startup companies, the story of Nike (or Blue Ribbon Shoes as it was initially called) is one of trials, tribulations, and lots of passion and grit. I ate it up, and highly recommend it. The most defining moment of the story is Knights ballsy move while backpacking through Japan at the age of 24, to walk into a Japanese shoe manufacturer and say he has a shoe distribution company, and get a exclusive deal for the western US. Gutsy. He "just did it" (sorry, but apt). I love learning examples of this kind of "Do things that don't scale" start to successful companies (eg Zappos, Amazon, many more). From there the story is one of doubling sales each year, and never quite having enough money on the balance sheet to make it anything but very risky. It was interesting - no fascinating - that Phil had an accounting background, and was well versed that the reason most startups fail is a lack of cash reserves, and yet he had so much faith in his growth and sales that he kept plowing all cash into growth. I loved reading the stories of how they barely made it from one order to the next, how twice they had to switch banks after being cut off. One of the key strategies of Nike's success today is athlete endorsement, and it was interesting to see how that strategy was formed in the early years. How they would offer large sums of money to athletes to wear their shoes - often to athletes already wearing their shoes - double down on people who already like your product. It was doubly interesting that Phil didn't initially believe in the power of advertising - I'd be very curious to hear how his opinion on that changed over time. The story of Prefontaine was a touching one, and one that stayed with me. I wasn't as familiar of the story of Pre, but had heard of him. But I didn't know the role that Nike sponsored him, and even employed him. Reading Phil talk about him, you got a sense of the passion his has for the sport of running. You got a sense that the story of Pre - his passion and drive - is a metaphor for how Nike was built. This quote says it better: "For eleven laps they ran a half stride apart. With the crowd now roaring, frothing, shrieking, the two men entered the final lap. It felt like a boxing match. It felt like a joust. It felt like a bullfight, and we were down to that moment of truth--death hanging in the air. Pre reached down, found another level--we saw him do it. He opened up a yard lead, then two, then five. We saw Young grimacing and we knew that he could not, would not, catch Pre. I told myself, Don't forget this. Do not forget. I told myself there was much to be learned from such a display of passion, whether you were running a mile or a company." The book is a fascinating telling of the founding and early history of Nike. But it stops at the IPO, and then gives a chapter postlude. This is my only complaint. It was so well written - keep going! Tell us the story of Just Do It, Air Jordans, and so many more. I could read 4 more volumes of this, as it feels like there is so much more to they story of Nike to learn.

Best book of the series, and best book about American history that I think I've read. Now we are getting to the drama and corruption at an interesting scale - the US Senate. And the portrait we have of Johnson is fascinating. Lyndon Johnson was just simply power hungry. He had no principles of note, no things he was on a mission to do - except to hold as much power as he could. But he was brilliant at reading people, knowing what they wanted, and finding ways to horse-trade in his huge and growing network - and help them get it. A genius at being a politician. But lacking principles - I hope there are politicians that can do both. But this is not just a book about LBJ and his time in the senate - it is a history of the senate, and of 1960's America. I didn't appreciate the power the Senate has in US politics - small numbers of senators can block legislation for a long time. The book hints that WWII can be blamed on the senate - because the president wanted to act against Hitler much earlier but the senate didn't let him - a crazy allegation if true. And the filibusters! I didn't appreciate what those really were and how powerful they were. It was also very impressive reading how quickly LBJ took over leadership of the Senate - most senators had to wait until they were old to have the seniority to do much - LBJ within two years of being a senator had become elected leader and then did away with the seniority rule - both unprecedented changes. And of course, much of the book is about the fact that the southern senators collaborated to prevent any civil rights legislation for 100 years. It was well into the 20th century before African Americans got the right to vote, and we removed segregation - and this delay is all due to the senate. LBJ is known for being the president who passed civil rights - but the story of how he was a "southern senator" (from Texas) who had the southern senators as his base, but had to pass civil rights bills through the senate in order to make the liberals believe he was on their side so he could have a presidential bid - was fascinating. He did it not caring a single bit about the actual cause - it was simply the only path to be president, as the country had hit a point where the northerners were no longer going to let segregation go on, and the southerners were only going to give it up over their dead bodies. LBJ worked both sides, found compromises, made each side believe he was really on their side, and got the first ever civil rights bill of the 1900's passed to give African Americans the right to vote.

A fascinating look at the early part of LBJ's life and career. This is the first of a four book series covering LBJ's life. At least 3 extremely smart people that I respect told me that this series was one of the best books they've ever read. I was also interested in reading about politics and corrupt politicians to get some grounding given the current political climate, and even in volume 1, this didn't disappoint. Many biographies spend way too much time on details that are not very relevant, especially in the early life, and this book was no exception - although I found the writing good and story compelling that I finished it rather quickly (also thanks to whispersync with Audible). The book covers Johnsons childhood up through age 32 when he as a congressman lost the race for senate to Pappy O'Daniel. Pappy O'Daniel by the way, sounds like fun character - totally unqualified to be governor or senator but elected b/c everyone knew him from his radio show. In terms of Johnsons childhood, it was oddly interesting to learn about the "Hill Country" of Texas and why those who have lived there have had such rough lives. I love biographies, as it's always fascinating to see what motivates successful people - where their drive comes from. With LBJ, Caro paints his motivation as initially coming from not wanting to grow up poor and in debt like his father. But then his motivation shifts to become more "a hunger for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will." Johnson's raw hunger for power, his desire to be someone, led him to work extremely hard. And not only himself, but also the people who worked for him. It was impressive how hard he worked himself and his small team when he was working as a congressional aide. And all driven by a lust for power. Interestingly to me, he picked exclusively people who were "loyal" to him - meaning he could work them to the bone - over people who were intelligent or experienced in what needed to be done. He was able to pull this off as in the post great depression era, a lot of people had no other way to get a job, or get ahead, and so LBJ had leverage. But LBJ did have a gift in picking and reading men, which was I think key to understanding his success. "if Lyndon Johnson was not a reader of books, he was a reader of men-- a reader with a rare ability to see into their souls." And he was not only a reader of men - he could also remember everything about the people he met - he could impressively remember details about a persons son 10 years after meeting them. Great skill for a politician to have! He also had an uncanny ability to make older men look at him like a son - a skill he used with Speaker of the house Sam Rayburn, which greatly helped his career. Johnson also had no qualms cheating to steal elections - with both his election to school president in college, and the little congress, he cheated. A fascinating piece of LBJ was that he worked very hard to not commit to a public position on almost anything. He basically told people what he thought they wanted to hear - perhaps a hallmark of a corrupt politician. This gave him a lot of freedom to play both sides. Liberals literally thought he was liberal and conversatives thought he was conservative. Not the most moral of stances, but in that pre-internet age, more possible to pull off and even smart tactically. "Once, a congressional aide, who had just heard him "talking conservative" with Martin Dies, came across him, "not an hour later," "talking liberal" with Patman-- espousing a point of view diametrically opposite to the one he had been espousing sixty minutes before." A hallmark of the New Deal was helping people who needed it, and Johnson did help the poor farmers of Texas. I thought this quote was a powerful representation of the impact he had and why he kept getting elected: "Oh my God," her mother said. "The house is on fire!" But as they got closer, they saw the light wasn't fire. "No, Mama," Evelyn said. "The lights are on." They were on all over the Hill Country. "And all over the Hill Country," Stella Gliddon says, "people began to name their kids for Lyndon Johnson."

A beautiful story. It is rare to encounter a book that does such a good job painting the scenes in your mind - you really felt like you were there and got to know the characters and the people they came across. I generally love WWII books and movies, but wasn't sure if I'd like one featuring a blind girl and a young Nazi radio operator - but he brings a lot of life to them. That said, the novel drifts around a lot, and the plotline jumping forward and backward in time drove me nuts. I thought a lot about if there is a theme to the book. One was the diamond and if it was really cursed (based on the Hope Diamond perhaps?). Another is that 20K Leagues is an awesome book. But I think the book was a lot about fear and the unknown, and how people deal with it. Marie-Laure was blind and couldn't tell what was happening around her - yet she was the bravest one. Werner was afraid of ending up as a miner, which drove him to join the army, and learn about radios. And Uncle Etienne was afraid dying from a sniper he couldn't see, so he didn't leave his house and he created a radio transmitter. So the moral of the story is... don't be paralyzed by your fears. This, she realizes, is the basis of his fear, all fear. That a light you are powerless to stop will turn on you and usher a bullet to its mark."

Another hard to put down nonfiction book from Erik Larson. I really enjoyed this book - mostly to learn more about submarine warfare in WWI, but also to learn about the history of the time. How America entered the war, the importance of shipping to England, the ruthlessness and autonomy of German u-boat commanders. Larson also did a great job of layering in interesting historical info (though he overdid it too a little bit). One of the dramas of the story of the Lusitania that Larson focuses on is if the British wanted the Lusitania to be sunk, to help draw America into the war. His conclusion seems to be that was the case, though there isn't conclusive evidence. Before the Lusitania sank, very few Americans had died in the war, and there were hundreds of Americans on the boat when it sank, which definitely helped change America's attitude. And even then, it took 2 years after it sank for America's troops to arrive. "the most likely explanation is that there was indeed a plot, however imperfect, to endanger the Lusitania in order to involve the United States in the war." Some of my favorite details from the book were simply about what it took to navigate a u-boat in WW1. For instance: "In this day before sonar, a submarine traveled utterly blind, trusting entirely in the accuracy of sea charts. One great fear of all U-boat men was that a half-sunk derelict or an uncharted rock might lie in their path." Which is crazy! Plus, the torpedoes weigh 3 thousand pounds each, so a boat could only carry ~7, and their failure rate was something like 60%. Also, they had limited fuel and operated only on batteries when submerged so they could only stay underwater for limited amounts of time. Given all this, trying to operate a u-boat to sink other boats is a pretty dangerous sounding game of chess. But they certainly had an effect on the war - at one point Britain estimated it would have to surrender in 3 months if it didn't get more supplies. There were a lot of interesting details from the era that Larson wove in that was interesting as well. Stuff like the fact that Ouija boards were commonplace in American households, straw hat day. My main critique is that it had a few too many irrelevant details - about various passengers or what happened the day the boat left dock - and stuff like that - felt a bit padded in that respect. But overall, a great read.

I tore through The Pillars of the Earth, and couldn't wait to pick this up. Set in Kingsbridge but a few centuries later, the story has a lot of similar elements: a cathedral that needs repair, a brilliant young builder (Merthin), a love story, a priorship up for grabs, and of course political manuevering, backstabbing and evil church officials. Also like the first one, the characters were developed well, the book was hard to put down, and yet it wasn't a deep book, just a fun one. Thank goodness I finished - it was causing me to lose sleep. I did enjoy learning about the plague, and medieval ideas on health and medicine. Amazing that the plague wiped about a third of the human population, and how little they knew about it. Was frustrated by the lack of the Monks openness to learn new things, and how little they trusted women. For instance they believed in bleeding as a solution to everything when it actually is harmful in most cases. Also was interesting that there was no such thing as a doctor - instead nuns/monks/etc served that role.

5 stars for being a un-put-downable page-turner, full of interesting and engaging characters I empathized with, and for teaching me about the politics and religion of the middle ages. Follet is a thriller writer, and it shows. Fascinating that in medieval times, most villages were surrounded by walls (or were inside a castle) - because you couldn't count on the law to marauding rival lords from raping and pillaging your village. And the largest buildings other than the local lords castle, were cathedrals. Why did people spend so much time an energy building these huge monuments to God that took 10-20 years to build? The book explains that bit, with the importance of the Church in society and it's relation to the crown. I am having trouble putting my finger on what I liked about the book. To friends who asked, I can't sell it every well. But it was a epic saga of love and power, and I loved every second. I think in the end, the lesson was that creating enemies leads you to get what you deserve. This might be a good summary of the book: "The duck swallows the worm, the fox kills the duck, the men shoot the fox, and the devil hunts the men." For the record, I hate William Hamleigh. I love Jack - he reminds me a bit of Howard Roark. And Aliena was inspirational. Philip was a prude but a good dude - I still can't believe he forgave Remigius. Interestingly, Waleran is once described as good person who just misunderstood his priorities - but I don't buy that.

A truly inspirational book by a truly inspirational man. Coach Wooden coached 17 seasons at Indiana and UCLA before winning a championship - and then he won 10 out of the next 12! He is one of the greatest coaches ever, and Reading his book gives some great insights into his philosophy. My only criticism of the book is that I think he spent too much time comparing his players, and answering questions like "who was your greatest player". I guess he got those questions a lot, but it didn't add much for me. One of his top values was conditioning. He thought games were often or largely out of his control as a coach, but what was in his control was how conditioned his team was, and he made a point to have the best conditioned team out there. In fact, he often refused to call timeouts in key situations, banking on his teams conditioning down the stretch. As he said, "ninety percent of the time the game will be decided in the last 5 minutes", and of course the better conditioned team will make less mistakes in that time. If any one premise typifies my teams in all the years I've coached, it is this concept. Often as a player, I'd tell myself, "I may play someone better than I am, but I'll never run against one who is going to be in better condition" And I never played against a man in my life I felt was in better shape, and Lambert often cited me as an example of top conditioning." Another key aspect of Wooden's philosophy was that he believed the little things, the details, really mattered. Two examples of this: First one was that one of the first things he taught new players was how to properly put their socks and shoes on. It turns out, you can easily do it wrong, which leads to blisters - but kind of amazing to think of him teaching Kareem or Bill Walton how to put their socks on! The second was he really believed in strict discipline and cleanliness - for instance he believed in the team cleaning up a locker room before leaving. These little details would "establish a spirit of togetherness and consideration that help unite the team into a solid unit." Wooden believed in focus, and "playing your game": "In game play it was always my philosophy that patience would win out. By that, I meant patience to follow our game plan. If we believed in it, we would wear the opposition down and would eventually get to them. If we broke away from our style, however, and played their style, we would be in trouble. And if we let our emotions, rather than our reason, command the game we would not function effectively." Interestingly, Wooden didn't believe in "charging teams up on an emotional level", as many coaches do. In fact, I bet most people that that giving inspirational, charged up speeches is one of the key attributes of a great coach. So this was interesting - and helpful in a lot of ways - people respond more to confidence and having a plan. One tactically smart thing Wooden did right before he started winning championships, was to change his practices from having 5 starters vs 5 second team, to 7 or 8 first teamers vs the rest. The first team during practice was literally a rotation between those 7 or 8. This got the key bench players used to playing with the first team, and made a world of a difference. But I think my favorite takeaway from the book, was Wooden's philosophy on what to ask of his players. He didn't ask them to win. He asked them to strive to have a "perfect practice", or a "perfect game". In other words, to play to the very best they can in the given moment. While that may sound obvious, keeping his teams focused on that instead of winning likely made the difference. It's all too easy to start focusing on winning or losing or things that aren't in the moment. "When I was teaching basketball, I urged my players to try their hardest to improve on that very day, to make that practice a masterpiece. Too often we get distracted by what is outside our control. You can't do anything about yesterday. The door to the past has been shut and the key thrown away. You can do nothing about tomorrow. It is yet to come. However, tomorrow is in large part determined by what you do today. So make today a masterpiece. You have control over that. This rule is even more important in life than basketball. You have to apply yourself each day to become a little better. By applying yourself to the task of becoming a little better each and every day over a period of time, you will become a lot better. Only then will you will be able to approach being the best you can be. It begins by trying to make each day count and knowing you can never make up for a lost day." ps. I also loved how he had a secret signal with his wife before every game.

A fantastic continuation of Fall of Giants - couldn't put it down. Great to see the same characters back, including their children.

A fascinating story of world war one. I knew the basics, but it was fascinating to hear the story told through some of the characters involved, and see how it all played out. On the surface, WW1 was started pretty stupidly. The arch-duke of Austria was assassinated, so in retaliation Austria invaded Serbia. Serbia had an alliance with Russia so they stepped in, and then Germany had an alliance with Austria, so suddenly Germany and Russia were at war. Russia and France had a treaty and since they surrounded Germany, the Germans went on the offensive in France, which dragged in Britain. And then the US got dragged in later by Britain and b/c Germans were sinking our ships. But there was more to the story. These countries didn't have to honor these treaties - they could have found a way to not commit to a war. It's almost like they were all war hungry. Follett also tried, through some of the female characters like Maud, to indicate that if the world had been controlled by women then war would never have happened (probably true). This was a great quote: "In every country, those who were against war had been overruled. The Austrians had attacked Serbia when they might have held back; the Russians had mobilized instead of negotiating; the Germans had refused to attend an international conference to settle the issue; the French had been offered the chance to remain neutral and had spurned it; and now the British were about to join in when they might easily have remained on the sidelines." One issue of the war I hadn't considered was the financial pressures it brought to bear once a country had committed. This was brought up artfully by Ethel's husband Bernie. Once Germany, Britain, etc had declared and spent a ton of money building their army and fighting the war, they were stuck. The people in power - the aristocracy - needed to win or they would go bankrupt and risk losing power. They were pot-committed, and too proud to turn back. "And what if Britain lost? There would be a financial crisis, unemployment, and destitution. Working-class men would take up Ethel's father's cry and say that they had never been allowed to vote for the war. The people's rage against their rulers would be boundless." My one criticism of the book was that the character Fitz was made out to be a real simpleton. Ethel and Billy seemed to intellectually walk all over him and he never defended himself (or it was left out) - didn't seem terribly realistic. I think my favorite part was learning about the Bolshevik revolution - that was a piece of history I really didn't know enough about, and it was described in great detail through Grigory and his story. Czar Nicholas II fell from power during the war, and the Bolsheviks staged a revolution and took over. But its hard to control a country! "A baby was like a revolution, Grigori thought: you could start one, but you could not control how it would turn out." The class struggles in England, Germany and Russia were clearly a major theme to the book. In each country Follett was careful to show how the aristocracy were fools and didn't know what they were doing. It really highlighted why a democracy is a better way of doing things!

I loved this book. Although it was a beast of a book, and could probably have been a lot shorter. I had not read a Lincoln biography before, so was firstly blown away by how he rose up from nothing, self-taught himself a college degree, and then somehow rode the middle line and got himself elected President. Nobody seemed to have expected that, nor expected much from him, and he continued to surprise them all. I am always curious about the motivations of successful people. In Lincolns case, he just literally seemed to want to have the respect of his peers, and of the American people. "Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition," he wrote. "I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem." Lincoln's tactic to make his enemies his cabinet was also interesting and ultimately brilliant. Especially because he was so unknown, but also because they were the strongest options, and would be hard for him to manage. The confidence he had was impressive. Lincoln constantly showed this higher level of trust in people that many wouldn't have given because it didn't make themselves look good. Hiring people who are smarter than you, and giving them credit when things go right, is very hard to do. But Lincoln could afford to trust his people and even hire people like Chase, who was on his staff yet coveted his job, because he was a masterful tactician. He seemed to have a knack for how to position things to the public at the right times to achieve the right outcomes. The main example of this is of course holding back the proclamation of emancipation so the border states didn't slip into the war on the side of south - but there were many more examples. One thing that surprised me was how lax access to the white house and president were back then. You could literally just walk into the White House and get in line to see the President. And he seemed to only have one security guard - who happened to be "off-duty" the night he was killed. I think Lincolns main strength was his empathy. He spent a lot of time trying to understand the people of different states, and putting himself in their shoes and imagining how they felt given what they knew about the situation. A tough, tough thing to do as his whole presidency was during a civil war during which over 600,000 soldiers died. I can't imagine having that on your conscience and trying to internalize that. But a very valuable skill to have as a leader. "Lincoln had internalized the pain of those around him--the wounded soldiers, the captured prisoners, the defeated Southerners. Little wonder that he was overwhelmed at times by a profound sadness that even his own resilient temperament could not dispel."

This is a fascinating glimpse into American history, of which I was largely ignorant - well worth a read. I had no idea prohibition lasted 14 years! My only criticism is the author spent way too much time on the politics of prohibition - that could have been cut by half. The bottom line of prohibition is that is was a massive failure. It singlehandedly created organized crime, cost the government lots of money in lost taxes and enforcement, and failed to stop pretty much anyone from drinking. It did have some upside though. Americans had a drinking problem and definitely drank less overall during prohibition, and even afterwards. But more importantly prohibition helped transform American culture. Prohibition coincided with massive immigration and population growth, which all happened in the cities. It was really a battle between urban culture and rural culture. It particularly didn't make sense in urban culture, and people rebelled, giving us "the roaring 20's". Prohibition helped us go from a stay at home culture to one where it was acceptable to go out and consume liquor. Prohibition gave us income tax. The Anti-Saloon League (ASL), which was the organization that pushed prohibition through, pushed income tax through first because the government couldn't approve prohibition without finding an alternate source of revenue for the massive amount of tax money (30% of federal revenue) it made on liquor. Many businesses got their starts in prohibition. Walgreens went from 20 to 525 stores during prohibition, because of the legal loophole that medicinal liquor was allowed, so drugstores were a major source of liquor sales. Coca Cola saw sales triple. The entire ecosystem of Nassau and the Bahamas was created. Sam Bronfman, the largest bootlegger in Canada, turned his operation into a legitimate business afterwards, owning many major liquor brands under the Seagrams brand. The major failing of prohibition, and the reason it was eventually repealed, was the organized crime. Al Capone was the poster boy, but all the major mafia families got their start bootlegging, then got organized, then went on to bigger and better criminal activities. Yes it gave us Las Vegas, but it wasn't a good thing. If anything, this is the argument for the legalization of Marijuana (though there are other factors there). In the end I think that prohibition was a bad idea because it was the government trying to tell Americans how to live. Individuals have to take responsibility for themselves.

This is an amazing inside view into the life of one of the great businessmen of our era. A must read. The thing that struck me most about Steve Jobs was that he was an incredible perfectionist. He was a craftsman, and wanted the computers he built to be beautiful and amazing and useful. He believed that computers were "at the intersection of technology and liberal arts" - a phrase he used a lot - because he realized computers weren't just for geeks. They are for everyone, and needed to be able to be used by everyone. Steve put design at the top of product pyramid at Apple - above engineering. This means they spent a lot of time trying to fit the hardware into the beautifully designed cases the designers came up with, and the designers and engineers had to work together closely. This can backfire (eg Antennagate), but largely it worked really well. It produced amazing computers that were visually distinct from everything else in the market, and that "just work". If I learned anything from this book, it's that Apple believed that design is paramount, and spending extra time and engineering resources to make a beautiful design work is worth it. Apple's design philosophy is to "make it simple. Really simple". You still see this today - go to Apple.com - you will see ONE product. Now try Amazon. According to the book, Jobs learned this from Markkula, who taught him that "A great company must be able to impute its values from the first impression it makes". Steve's ethos was basically that if you are going to do something, do it right. The book is full of examples of Steve doing this. When the iMac first came out it looked like no other computer. It was interesting to hear how difficult it was for the engineers to accommodate a handle on the computer - but it ended up being a defining feature of the computer. I also loved the story of how Steve was obsessed with quality glass, and ordered the highest end stuff he could find for his Apple Stores. Steve's management tactics got a lot of scrutiny in the book - and many other reviewers use words like "jerk" to describe him. It sounds like Steve could definitely be a jerk to work for. His management style was to push people as hard as he could, and to let people know when they didn't perform. When pushed like that, a person can have one of two reactions: they either resent it, and end up quitting or getting fired (B-players) - or they accept the challenge to do better, and come back the next week with something even better. Win-win for Steve - he filters out the b-players and gets his a-players to produce the best work they can. But, as was pointed out in the book, if Steve was nothing but a jerk, he wouldn't have built a company full of loyal employees - Apple has one of the lowest turnover rates in the valley. Jobs only hired people who "had a passion for the product". I also liked how he motivated by looking at the bigger picture; such as the story of how he convinced his engineer that saving 10 seconds off the boot time was worth it because across 5 million users that would save 100 lifetimes per year. The book was full of references to Steve's dynamic personality; his "reality distortion field" is a great descriptor. Steve believed he could do anything - and he was so persuasive that he could convince those around him that they could whatever it was too. I think this is one of the most defining qualities of an entrepreneur - believing something can be done against all odds. Not being afraid to tear down walls or think outside the box. I loved the description of Steve that "whatever he was touting was the best thing he ever produced." You see him do this in his keynote speeches too. He is always using words like "best", "amazing", etc to describe whatever he's launching. A big theme that the author made was that especially early on, Steve viewed Apple as "counter-culture" rebels. They were hippies who thought they could change the world. And they did - but not only that - I think they embedded their can-do attitude deep in Silicon Valley, which is probably highly correlated with why it is the center of the technology revolution today. This quote is classic: "The people who invited the twenty-first century were pot-smoking, sandal-wearing hippies from the West Coast like Steve, because they saw differently. The hierarchical systems of the East Coast, England, Germany, and Japan do not encourage this different thinking. The sixties produced an anarchic mind-set that is great for imagining a world not yet in existence." One of Steve's great abilities was to focus. When Jobs came back to Apple from his hiatus the biggest innovation he made was to focus the company onto just the few products that were working or had potential. "What are the five products you want to focus on? Get rid of the rest, because they're dragging you down. They're turning you into Microsoft. They're causing you to turn out products that are adequate but not great." Steve's belief that computers need to be beautiful and easy to use basically prevented him from ever licensing his software, as then he wouldn't be able to control the user experience. Microsoft didn't have that problem, and that's why Windows dominated. I think it's also the reason that Windows is in trouble today. They have spent a decade making their code work across hundreds of different hardware configurations. Their code is now full of backwards compatibility support that just makes it messy, and bloated. Worse, their focus is on maintaining all that instead of innovating and improving it. The platform vs integrated approach is being tested again with the iphone vs android. It will be interesting to see if history replays itself, or if Apple's lead and ability to make a superior product because of their full stack control will prevail. In the end, this was the best quote of the book: Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Great story of the US Ambassador to Germany and his experience during the build-up of ww2 from 1933 - 1937. Nothing new or exciting really revealed, and I'm sure there are many other accounts of the buildup to ww2 out there, but this one told it from the perspective of mostly the Ambassador, Dodd, and his daughter, Martha. The story was engaging and well-written, and thus interesting. I think the ending fell pretty flat - I was hoping for more. Reading about the Nazis one is of course always appalled at how they got to be in power and commit such atrocities, and this book did provide some clues. Hitler seemed primarily willing to tell people what they needed and wanted to hear, even if it wasn't the truth - and he was a great storyteller. He also used fear as a primary weapon, as there were many in Germany not behind him - but they were too afraid to make a stand or speak up. I suppose the climax of the book was the Night of the Long Knives, where Hitler arrested and executed all of his major opponents, clearing the way for his absolute grip on the nation. He ruthlessly murdered an estimated 77 to several hundred people (the count was never really known) and played it off as putting down a rebellion, which much of the world bought for many years. I think one of the more interesting pieces of the book was watching Dodd (and Martha) go from thinking the Nazis were good for Germany, to realizing how terrible they were and hoping for them to be overthrown. It was a slow gradual process, and one that I'm sure was not immediately obvious to anyone. In the end, I think the book is aptly named.

A very interesting book about John Boyd, who was a crack fighter pilot, and then later military strategist and reformer. Boyd flew as an instructor in the real life version of Top Gun, and beat everyone in 40 seconds or less. But later in his life he really studied military strategy, and this is where the interesting parts of this book are. Boyd was literally the designer of the F-15, and a theory of maneuvering called Energy-Manueverability (E-M), which mathematically gave a chart for each aircraft that gave pilots an idea of the ideal speeds and altitudes they could use to pull off various turns and tactics. One interesting thing I noted was that throughout his career, like everyone else in the military, Boyd was getting reviewed by his superiors, called ER's. It was interesting to hear, and relevant to business, how you had to "read through the lines" and how even a positive sounding ER could be a career-killer if the person wasn't recommended for promotion. Reading this has definitely made me think twice every time I've read (or written) recommendations for people. Another Boyd tidbit I liked was when fighting bureaucratic battles in the Pentagon, he had a mantra to "use the other persons information against him". Starting with the other persons argument and data, and working backwards, you can make pretty compelling arguments. Perhaps the biggest idea Boyd came up with is what is called the OODA loop, which stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. A key quote defining the OODA loop: "Thinking about operating at a quicker tempo - not just moving faster - than the adversary was a new concept in waging war. Generating a rapidly changing environment - that is, engaging in activity that is quick it is disorienting and appears uncertain or ambiguous to the enemy - inhibits the adversary's ability to adapt and causes confusion and disorder that, in turn, causes an adversary to overreact or underreact. Boyd closed the briefing by saying the message is that whoever can handle the quickest rate of change is the one who survives." Another great quote that helps explain it: "Boyd said the strategies and bloodbaths of World War 1 were the natural consequence of both the vo Clausewitzian battle philosophy and the inability of generals to adapt new tactics to nineteenth-century technology: line abreast, mass against mass, and linear defenses against machine guns and quick-firing artillery. The bankrupt nature of that doctrine was demonstrated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, which the British suffered sixty thousand casualties. After more than three years of the meat-grinding form of war, the Germans began engagements with a brief artillery barrage with smoke and gas obscuring their intentions, then sent in a special infantry teams. These small groups looked for gaps in the defense and advanced along many paths. They did not hit strong points but instead went around them, pressing on, always going forward and not worrying about their flanks. They were like water going downhill, bypassing obstacles, always moving, proving, and then, when they found an opening, pouring through, pressing deeper and deeper." Getting your lieutenants to the point where they can do this kind of infiltration successfully requires great communication and men who can think fast on their feet. In other words, you had to enable every leader to be able to follow the OODA loop, and just arm them with the overal goals, and trust them to make their own decisions. Very different from previous military structures, where "the need to know" remained at the top. Why is this empowerment valuable? Because: "The key thing to understand about Boyd's version is the not the mechanical cycle itself, but rather the need to execute the cycle in such fashion as to get inside the mind and the decision cycle of the adversary. This means the adversary is dealing with out-dated or irrelevant information and thus becomes confused and disoriented and can't function." And: "Understanding the OODA loop enables a commander to compress time - that is, the time between observing a situation and taking an action. A commander can use the temporal discrepancy (a form of fast transient) to select the least-expected action rather than what is predicted to be the most effective action. The enemy can also figure out what might be the most effective. To take the least-expected action disorients the enemy. It causes him to pause, wonder, to question." This makes sense. You can almost picture the commanders of old, who used to have to get on the phone with their boss in order make any decision. "Take the bridge, blow it up, or wait?". Hours and days could be spent waiting around for generals to make up their minds. This form of maneuver warfare is what the Germans used in WWII - they called it blitzkrieg - and it's what we used in Iraq the first time. In business we have a word for the above - micromanagement. In a sense, it sounds like empowering business leaders and their lieutenants to have an effective OODA loop is what will let a business move faster and win marketshare. I bet somebody has written a book about that - I will have to look.

I learned two major things from this book: the power of branding, and the fact that Richard Branson has balls of solid steel. Branson is one of the great entrepreneurs of our era, and it was truly inspiring to hear his story in his own words. A kid who skipped college and dove straight into business, and time and time again proved he can succeed with a lot of will, determination, and his maverick ability to take big bets and win. Bransons' success is nothing short of inspirational. I had no idea until reading this how powerful the Virgin brand is, or how many businesses they have gone into. They effectively function like a VC, except they also lend their brand (and perhaps some infrastructure too). Each business is a subsidiary, given its leaders the freedom to move fast and achieve their goals without being slown down by needing permission from the mother ship. This is brilliant. Many of the businesses also complement each other in profitable ways - such as how Virgin Travel and Virgin Atlantic complemented each other. Branson is a risk-taker. When Virgin Records was about to run out of cash, instead of scraping what he had left to limp on, he scraped it together to make a big bet. It's kind of like going all-in in poker when your chips are getting low - better than losing slowly! "I have always believed that the only way to cope with a cash crisis is not to contract but to try to expand out of it." But the difference with Branson is that he didn't take the risks blindly. When he started the airlines he spent considerable effort leasing the airline for 1 year and limiting his downside. It is only by being bold that you get anywhere. If you are a risk-taker, then the art is to protect the downside." One thing I loved about Branson, is he was not afraid to bluff. This was first illustrated early in the book when, learning about a plot to force him out of Student, he acted pre-emptively and told the leader that he had already switched the teams mind - when instead he had no idea how far along the plot actually was. We see this time and time again - Branson is able to divine where things are going, and negotiate on points he isn't even wholly sure about. Branson detailed a lot of his crazy ballooning adventures, which I wasn't so into. I wanted to hear how he built Virgin. Although I did appreciate that his passion for ballooning did lead to several advances in airplane technology. The end of the book went into a lot of detail of how Branson is giving back to the world - which I respect a lot - any billionaire worth their salt should do that, but it was great to see him embrace the challenges with the same zeal he embrace business. From climate change to Virgin Fuel to Virgin Galactic, Branson is thinking hard about our planet and where its going and how to get us there. And of course, if Virgin Fuel does well it will only help his airline business - so not a bad bet.

This is a book that every entrepreneur definitely needs to read, and everyone who works even remotely with Facebook needs to read. It does a simply amazing job going behind the scenes of Facebook and describing where the site came from, how it got to where it is, and where it's going. The author had amazing inside access to Mark Zuckerberg and other key Facebook employees and investors. Very smart of Facebook to include David so often - it makes their story fully open, which is consistent with the values of their company - not to mention good PR. The biggest takeaway I had was that Zuckerberg actually has much more of a vision and philosophy than I gave him credit for. The basic vision for Facebook is that it's a communication tool. It's very interesting to see that they think of it as a utility tool and not a media destination (like MySpace no doubt does). It means they are not afraid of sending traffic away from their site as long as they provide value up front - something that has been crucial to their success. Zuckerbergs philosophy however is more interesting - he believes being open is better and will lead to a better society. He thinks the internet will inevitably enable this anyways, so Facebook might as well lead the charge. It's an interesting and idealistic philosophy - basically that it's really hard for a person to be dishonest or immoral in any way if their whole life is laid open to their friends. In fact, one has to strive to be an even better person, because everything we do is not being tracked and if it isn't already online, it will be soon. The books we read, the things we buy, the people we date, the places we go, the people we associate with - all this is online, and defines who we are. Would my future children be proud of me if they examined my life's consumption? If I knew they were going to do so, would I make better choices? Absolutely. However the privacy road has rocked many people's worlds who haven't gotten the hint yet and EVERYTHING you put online, whether on Facebook or a seeming private place elsewhere, is ultimately public. The chapter on privacy listed many of these horror stories, and I certainly know more than a few stories of people who have been burned by having an inappropriate photo on Facebook or tweeting something inappropriate. The road to openness is happening - and I think Mark is right that it's going to make us better as a society. The danger, however, is that it will still cause many people a lot of pain as we get there - and may cause many to ultimately retreat from Social Networking (and the internet). I think Mark knows his responsibility there as his service depends on it, and I hope he's a good steward, as this is certainly a topic we debate a lot at Goodreads. I worked in Social Networking during the Rise of Facebook - my company, Tickle, is even mentioned a few times in the book. This book made the mistakes we made at Tickle even more apparent. Hindsight is a ...! For instance, starting with colleges that were *private* was what really worked - everyone had no problems sharing everything with their fellow classmates and alums. Facebook's biggest product innovation though was of course Platform. Followed perhaps by the Like button and Facebook Connect - which are really only possible because so many people use Facebook. Both were big wins, and were interesting pushed hard by Zuckerberg, and their success really validated him as a leader internally. One interesting note that I hadn't considered was that because everyone uses their real names on Facebook, blogs that use Facebook Connect for comments (eg Huffington Post) don't have the troll problem as much, because of the openness issue (see above). The book was also very interesting as it gave a lot of the details of how Facebook was financed, how the VC deals were structured, what sort of offers it got, etc. Zuckerberg was courted to sell by so many large companies, I had always wondered how he had the nerve to say no - most in his shoes would have sold out for millions or billions long ago. The answer seems to be that he doesn't really value money, and also that he knows this is his big Life's Opportunity to change the world - and to sell now would be to squander it. The book also gave interesting insight into where Facebook thinks they are going. In the future they think they will be less of a destination site, and more of a social communication enabler. Everything that can be social will be, and it will be done with Facebook. Every website you visit, your TV, video games, and perhaps even your cereal box will one day have Facebook Connect.

It was nice to be back in Africa, even for a short time. This was a beautifully written memoir, and a remarkable glimpse into what Africa was like a century ago. I fear the Africa Dinesen described is long gone. I picked this up tainted by having seen the movie first, and was kind of glad and surprised at the differences. The fact that she almost doesn't even mention her husband, who was so prominent in the film, I think would have been strange even to those who hadn't seen the movie. Also the way she described her romances was so proper one wasn't sure for some time if they were friends or something more. The language used to describe the culture in the early 1900's, and the relationship between the Natives and the Europeans, was very interesting. At times you'd read over sentences that just wouldn't fly today, and you'd have to remember this was describing a different time - one where slavery existed, and Kenya was still a British Colony. What was clear however was that Karen Blixen cared deeply for the Native people that she encountered. One thing I found interesting was the legal system the Kikuyu used. Instead of attempting to judge guilt or innocence, they Kikuyu simply demanded payment from the wrong-doer for whatever damages they had done. In the book, the parents of the child who accidentally shoots another child are forced to pay for their childs mistake, even though it was as accident. In todays world, the parents of the shot child would sue the heck out of the parents of the other child, so I suppose in that case the end effect is the same. There are many places where I'm sure this system would break down, and I'd love to discuss it over a few drinks with a lawyer. But I did have to admire the simplicity of it - if you cause another person to have a loss (for whatever reason), you have to make up for it. The novel was full of funny little tidbits, all designed to help you get a sense of the people and the world as she saw it. The Merchant of Venice story (p268) stuck out for me - it was hilarious! Here are the relevant lines: "But what else could he do?" I asked , "when he must not take one drop of blood?" "Memsahib", said Farah, "he could have used a red-hot knife. That brings out no blood." "But", I said "he was not allowed to take either more or less than one pound of flesh." "And who", said Farah, "would have been frightened by that, exactly a Jew? He might have taken little bits at at a time, with a small scale at hand to weight it on, till he had got just one pound. Had the Jew no friends to give him advice?"

Great book. Fun to see how Aubrey approaches being a commodore. He really focuses on surrounding himself with the right people, and knowing what they are good at.

A great finish to the D'Artagnan series - definitely enjoyed it. Ending wasn't what I wanted though, you could tell he was just trying to permanently end the series. It could easily be having seen the movie made me want more drama.

** spoiler alert ** Great book - I liked it better than the second. I ate up the descriptions of India, and felt Stephen's pain with Diana the whole way. O'Brian really makes you feel like you're learning what it must have been like to have been at sea in an 18th century English ship of the line - a most impressive feat.

** spoiler alert ** I equally loved book 2, and am definitely hooked. I did feel it took a little while for them to get to sea, but I guess we can't bring in a love interest if we aren't on the land! My favorite thing by far was the Lively, and the descriptions of how fast she is and how much care the crew took keeping her a crack ship. Pride in what you do can be a great motivator. I also loved how Jack made them work the guns against all the batteries for practice.

I started this on audio book but after 14 CD's realized we were missing the last 2, so I just finished it with the hard-copy. The writing cracked me up with how graphic the descriptions of the battles and sex scenes were, but overall I really enjoyed this book. It's a very interesting account of the Seige of Malta, of which I knew very little.

One of the most enjoyable stories I've read in some time. Captain Jack Aubrey was a fascinating character. You just wanted him to succeed - to capture the Spanish vessel, to gain the respect of his men, to gain the respect of the Admiral. The book is set during the Napoleonic Wars, and it was interesting to see all the Kings ships were nothing but glorified pirates, capturing all vessels they could on the open seas. The book also strongly reminded me of my sailing lessons from last summer - I still had to look a lot of words up, but I remembered ones like leeward and abeam. Makes me want to go sailing!

A great snapshot of history. It's about the experiences of ordinary French people as they flee Paris in 1940 when the Germans are invading. The second part is about after the Germans occupy France, how people in the towns get along with their hosts. I loved the class breakdowns that occur. When the rules of society are no longer being enforced, having money or being a famous writer no longer make you more special than the next person. The descriptions of the characters prejudices, which were mostly based on their class, were really well done. The story of the German officer falling in love with his French host took me a while to get into, but towards the end the emotions they both felt were really well described. You could really feel the how torn they were about it. I went to a bookclub that discussed this book and was surprised to hear the variety of opinions on this book. The most interesting angle to me was: why did she paint such a positive picture of the Germans when she was of Jewish decent (and was indeed later killed in Auschwitz). Some people argued that she didn't yet know of the atrocities. Others thought maybe it was a hedge in case she was caught so she could show how sympathetic she was. And others thought she was just a writer caught up in telling a story. I favor the first and last options :)

My safari guide gave this to me, saying the author was a friend who had lived a life similar to his own. It's a very well-written memoir style book of a man who is raised among a very proud people called the Maasai in East Africa. By modern standards they live very primitive lives: herding cattle, and living in dirt huts. But some of them are sent to school and enter the modern world, and the juxtaposition of the author's viewpoint on both worlds makes for a great read. One interesting thing I noticed was that one reason the author was able to get so far in life was that as a safari guide back in the day, he met exclusively rich and powerful people as his clients. They were the only ones who could afford it back then! Just goes to show that its all about who you know!

I learned a lot about an area of the world I knew very little. The book was a journalistic nonfiction account of Sierra Leone, as opposed to the fictional movie (which I also enjoyed). Key takeaways: - Human beings can be pretty indecent to each other when the economic incentives are right, and when there are no checks on those in charge. The RUF murdered and mutilated thousands. - There is *no* way to verify a diamond is not a conflict diamond. No matter what a diamond seller says, stones are untraceable and black market stones can be added in at any of a dozen of places on the way from the mine to the store. Only stores like DeBeers, who control their own mines and stores, can approach such a guarantee. - The guy who started DeBeers was impressive. He bought up as many mines as he could instead of mining them, and eventually controlled the market. DeBeers has had some shady practices as the worlds biggest diamond buyer and mine owner. - DeBeers has a monopoly on diamonds, and as such can't have more than 3 executives in the US at any time or they will be arrested for prosecution by the SEC. - DeBeers has a stockpile of diamonds in London worth billions. Selling it would flood the market. - In late 2001, a Washington Post reporter broke a story that Osama Bin Laden had been buying conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone for a the past year to convert his money to a liquid form. This was in preparation for Sept 11, as he knew the US would seize his funds after the attack. Its very likely the scheme worked, and conflict diamonds are what is funding him today.

Very fascinating take on how Leopold was able to obtain a colony many times bigger than Belgium with pure politics, and maintain it with forced slavery and mercenaries. There are lots of business lessons to be learned from Leopold: - Perception is reality. The reality was forced slavery, and unspeakable cruelty by Leopold's agents. But in Europe Leopold told over and over the story that he was a humanitarian, and had the best interests of the Congo people in mind. - You can control reality. Leopold wined and dined, and even bribed anyone with the ability to hurt the perception he spun of the Congo. Harder to do today, but not impossible. For instance a web startup just has to get cozy with Arrington and funding is around the corner. Leopold wasn't a king - he was a master at PR. - History is written by the victors. Most published accounts of the era came from Leopold or his agents. Thus most people had no idea what was happening. I've seen this in current times: an authoritative article by a prominent newspaper that gets things wrong - then for people later researching the subject it becomes a source, and the myth builds. Thats what good PR can do! - Economic incentive without proper checks can result in just about anybody becoming corrupt. Lots of "good" people in the book did unspeakable things to the natives for the sake of meeting their quota of ivory or rubber, or because they were ordered to. Similar stories have been told of American soldiers in Vietnam. In my view this pretty much proves man is neither inherently good or evil, but is entirely motivated by peer pressure and/or money. Joseph Conrad captured this well in Heart of Darkness

I heard this book described as interesting but a little dry, so I was fully planning on just skimming a lot. But I ended up reading almost the whole thing! I have two biases though: one was I was in Africa at the time I read it, and the other is my grandfather did a lot of hunting in Africa in the 1960's, so I could almost picture him hanging out with the wild characters in the book. What I loved were all the stories of hunts and the pioneer type hunters that led them. Numerous maulings and close calls dealing with all sorts of animals. Surprisingly, the most dangerous animals in Africa are (in order): Buffalo, Elephant, Leopard, Lion, Rhino. Unless you wound the Lion then he's #1. Don't mess with Simba.

"Dr Livingstone, I presume!" That phrase was buried in my mind somewhere. It was familiar, yet I knew not how nor who this Livingstone person was. This book explained it, and was very entertaining in the process. Highly recommended if you ever travel to East Africa. A friend recently wrote an interesting piece about how the types of creative people that rise to be famous have changed over the years. Livingstone was an explorer in the mid-1800's, and was a Michael Jordan of England. He explored much of Africa, often being the only white man in the expedition. He abhorred slavery, which was then rampant, and fought against it. His quest was to find the source of the Nile river, which evidently was a big thing back then (today we just keep looking for 'dark matter' and other such stuff). But the most interesting part of the book to me was that the reason we know that famous phrase, is that its an early example of newspaper sensationalism. The New York Observer paid a reporter (Stanley) to take ridiculously large and expensive expedition into the middle of Africa that lasted for years, just to be able to have the exclusive on the story. But it was worth it: millions of Americans were entertained for years by the articles on Stanley's quest. And England wasn't happy its superstar was found by an American either, a fact not lost on the Observer.

I got an advanced copy of this and tore through it last weekend. It was a memoir style account of desert warfare in world war 2, and a fascinating and realistic account of what it was like. A little heavier on logistics (names/places/etc) in a few places than I would have liked, but that did make it seem very real. I loved the descriptions of Rommel's tank tactics: "tied in forces will hold and forces in the air will run". It was also interesting to note that most of the special ops were doing recon - which today would be done via satellites. My generation has never lived through a world war, and reading this really brought to light the fact that a war of that magnitude really changes a society. Everyone fights from famous rugby stars to oxford scholars to high school teachers. The only take-away is that war is fucked up and I hope we never have to do it again. But if we go by history...

Highly recommended if you are curious about Manic-depressive disease. A fascinating and even very well written insight from a woman who is both a Psychiatrist who treats it and suffers from it. She was very brave and very poetic in writing this book.

On loan to Diana Sonn

Loved learning about Morgan and Jay and the rest. Very slow and dry and I gave up halfway as it was just taking too long. This book needs to be cut down by about 2/3.

A quick read, but somewhat inspirational

The sequel to Lonesome Dove. I enjoyed the first one more, but this one was also a good read.

Despite having a name that sounds like its a chic-book, this was a pretty sweet western novel. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

A very interesting WW2 book that chronicles how a gang of street orphans fought the nazis. I love to hear different perspectives, so this was very enjoyable.

Inspiring profiles of 7 great businessmen: Andrew Carnegie, Thomas J. Watson, George Eastman, Robert Noyce, Charles Revson, Sam Walton, and Henry Ford. The author is an HBS professor.

I picked this up in a Library in Big Sur, expecting to learn about Bill Gates, and instead found it was about the history of the PC industry. A fascinating history, and still a very relevant read, even though the history stops at 1995. There have been just a few developments since then!

Listened to this on the way back from Mammoth. A great story full of Pirates & Arabs & Africa - worthy of any road trip.

I read this in college in my 'spiritual book' phase, and despite its cheesy name remember rather liking it. Its basicaly an intro to Buddhism.

Nothing revolutionary about this book, but interesting to hear Jack's story from his own mouth. GE is famous for the way it handles its employee reviews, trimming the fat & promoting the best each year.

I loved this book. I agree with Elizabeth - the movie wasn't close. Something about Nicholas Cage trying to do an italian accent?

I read this right after my dad passed away from cancer. Lance was a hero of my dad's for some time, but I'd never seen his autobiography until I found it on my dad's shelf. Lance's drive to survive and win against all odds is an inspiration to anyone, but especially to cancer survivors & their family. It really helped me get through a difficult time, and inspired me to start doing triathlons with Team In Training (a great organization which helps benefit cancer victims). Oh - and Lance is the shit :)

I remember reading this on Greg's recommendation. It was pretty good overall, just had lots of parts where the author felt it necessary to devote entire pages to decriptions of nature. But to get a glimpse of the life of a surf-bum its a pretty good read. Paints a much different picture than Spicoli...

A fascanating history of the NY Times. Interesting tidbits were: - The family was Jewish but so afraid of being dubbed a Jewish paper that they barely covered the holocaust - most stories about the mass graves were buried on page 7 and didn't mention the fact that the victims were mostly Jews. - Adolf Ochs, the first of the family to own the times, bought it completely on borrowed money. He was so in debt it took him 20 years to truly own it. That guy had some large cojones... - The author really played up the stiff competition each generation for publishership. Seems as the the names (ie Arthur Sulzberger) always won..

A fascinating history of science. Ever curious how everything we know about the world came to be - read this! I loved reading about what old greats like Darwin thought about the world - they were all right about most things, but also very wrong about some things - makes you wonder how much we are wrong about today! Another interesting piece was how many of the world's prominent scientists had the time to do their research because they came from rich families. Very different from todays notion of 'trust funders'.

I greatly enjoyed this book. From a mistreated child who worked far too hard for a little boy to a wild hearted teen who hated to follow the rules, Alfie grew into a hard working young man. He writes his story in a way that inspires compassion without pity. The book draws you into life in the times he grew up in. I found myself cheering for him when he accomplished success and love. I would really like to read more about his life after!

It is very hard to believe this is all true, but I'll take the author's word for it! I've always had an open mind toward women who choose to work in this trade and a lot of compassion. I feel that often there is desperation in making the choice to sell your body, as shown by this story. I feel like the story at times aimed to be "sexy" rather than "sexual", if that makes sense. I feel that took away from the biographical focus and edged on erotica. However, it didn't effect my overall opinion greatly. I couldn't put it down and not because of licentious reasons, but simply because I wanted to know what happened next in this woman's life!

forgot I had read this until I started again, so I am trying to start keeping track. We'll see. I remember it being interesting. But not enough to re-read to go to the book group meeting for which I started reading it. :)

Very difficult to get through. Don't waste your time on this one!

Hilarious! :) Listened as an audio book, great car ride companion!

Incredibly heart-wrenching and deeply moving.

Unbelievably boring and poorly written.

I feel like I'm best friends with Amy now. I hope she knows that.

This was a quick read and very engaging. My maternal grandfather immigrated to the United States from Latvia during the second world war, and this book gave me a parallel of many of the stories and events he used to talk about. To think of what these displaced families faced is truly tough to comprehend.

One of the most beautifully written books I've read. Stunning.

Incredibly powerful. Amazed that this escaped me until now. Why was this not required of me somewhere along the line of my education? I loved his Nobel acceptance speech printed at the conclusion of the book, as well as his preface. It is difficult to say that you love a book about such horror. I will say that I loved his ability to voice his memoir, to share with the reader what we will never be able to share in such a way that we know deeply and profoundly that despite being utterly moved by his words we will never be able to share it.

A tremendous book. With a brother with the grim diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, I am facing not only the mortality of my brother, but also of myself and all of those I love. When Breath Becomes Air so eloquently speaks to the essential questions of life, our existence and our journey towards our death. Dr. Kalanithi's academic and career successes are ample evidence of his intelligence, but his writing is clear and irrefutable evidence to all who read it that he was brilliant beyond any award or achievement. I would think that all writers would aspire to his beautiful prose; I would think that all facing the journey toward our own death (and we are all on the path) would aspire to travel it with such dignity and bravery as he.

A wonderfully British book that addresses how the "promise" of war and then the "reality" of war affect the proper members of an English community. Absolutely gorgeous prose.

This was a very powerful story. The author alternates between the past and present in two stories that are connected yet are not. I've read reviews that stated they were disappointed in the lack of Sarah's character development, but in the end, Sarah was a mystery to nearly everyone, including her own family. It made sense to me that she would remain a bit of a mystery to the reader as well. No one knew her entirely, but given the horrifying trauma of her experience, we can better use our empathy to determine who Sarah was/became, without a third person (the author) telling us. For me, the book was emotional and powerful. Though Julia's "story" is not nearly as compelling as Sarah's, it worked for me. I would definitely recommend this book to others. I was so drawn in, that once I picked it up, I read it in two different sittings.

Beautiful Tale of Past and Present Moyes work is unlike anything out there. Her stories are original and captivating. I cannot put them down. She draws such beautiful characters and settings that you soon feel you are part of the story. If you have not had the pleasure of reading and of Moyes books, I strongly recommend them. They make you feel alive with emotion from the first page until the last.

Loved this book and all the sequels. Galbaldon's writing places in you in the action. Writing is so detailed and descriptive that you see and feel what you are reading. Fell in love with Jamie and Claire.

I think I am truly in love with Adam's writing............there I said it! I loved Tales Dark trilogy and I loved this book. In the right hands with the right guidance great things could come from reading/sharing this work. It goes beyond a tale well told and takes us into the current state of the world (as Adam points out in the afterword). History will repeat itself again and again unless we can learn and grow and live together as 'God' meant us too - we are all one...........long live Adam!

One sitting read, again from John! First look at WW1 Shell shock syndrome and not only what the war did to a family and a street and a town and a country BUT what war does to the individual who is really there living it....... WOW, loved it, well done Sir! Great read aloud, discussion for the classroom etc.

WOW. I found the story a little 'difficult' off the top, with the Creole and French and voodoo......however What a great history lesson of past and present Haiti. The two stories being told where amazing. I found myself on Google checking both past and present facts and histories. Looking at Toussaint and Dread Wilme and seeing/hearing and living it all with Shorty buried under the rubble. Lot's of real violence and language, teen read for sure.

Historical Fiction......an account of the SS City of Benares tragic sinking with 90 children aboard being evacuated to Canada from Britain during the second world war. The children were only a part of the ships population but were an 'experiment to save British children'. I was not drawn into the characters and had a hard time dealing with their happy-go-lucky attitude to leaving their parents and other siblings behind to travel alone to a foreign country and stay with total strangers. I also found it very awkward to choose main characters with almost identical names, Bess and Beth. I realize that true facts and real diaries were part of the research but.......I think the book will do well as an historical account but otherwise not one of my favorites.

Wow, that was a really good book - great read-a-loud and discussion book!! So many layers and thoughts and feelings - of course, Mom is dead........but what a quest and adventure of finding the 'answers and yourself' 4 1/2 stars after some reflection - I'm going for the 5 star rating!! Teachers and librarians should get on this one!

This story was a disappointment. I love prison stories. I was so excited when I saw this was a prison story and it started off really strong. Then it all went downhill. The characters turned into something out of a cheesy romance novel. The entire thing turned into a cheesy romance novel. It might as well have not been a prison story at all at that point. And do yourself a favour. Don't read the "Coda". Just don't do it. I rate the "Coda" no stars. I'm not sure why the author felt this was a good idea. It really wasn't. As for the main story, I think I'm mostly just disappointed at the potential it had to be something so much better than it was if the author hadn't felt she needed to feminize the characters in order to make a good love story. It also throws off the story because the characters suddenly start behaving in a completely different manner than how they are first introduced. I didn't hate it. I'd say there are probably a lot of readers who would love this story. Unfortunately, I am not one of them. While it's a manga and not a novel, I would suggest Under Grand Hotel by Mika Sadahiro for readers who want a much more realistic prison story (and a much raunchier one to boot).

I think if I could give half stars I'd probably give this one 3 1/2 but I liked it well enough to go with 4. It's a sweet story and an unusual one. I think it had an added appeal for me because the main character was not only gay but a Jew who had escaped the Nazis (this should be quite clear from the cover alone) and being Jewish, I found I connected to some aspects of the story in that way. I think it could have been longer. The build up of the relationship between the two main characters really could have stood for some further development but they were sweet and the story was sad and sweet. There is some violence in the story but it's not between the two main characters. There's a fair bit of antisemitism and homophobia as well as some racism/xenophobia that is true to the time in which the story takes place. It's a very quick read though not really a "light" one as the subject matter is heavy and I found myself shedding a few tears. You might not want to read this one on the beach but it's definitely worth reading if you enjoy the MM genre. It's not really erotica, the sex scenes are very brief and very few. It's simply a story in the gay and lesbian genre and there's nothing wrong with that!

This was decent. It's a short read and only cost a few dollars. It was on a list of MM non-con books and I definitely don't feel it fits that category. There's some bondage and a bit of a D/s relationship but it's not really non-con. It's set back in the time of stage coach robbers and bounty hunters on horseback. I think that could have been a much more interesting twist than it actually was. Probably due in part to the rushed nature of the story, it just seemed like this was lacking somewhat. It was well written. It wasn't fantasy. There were no werewolves. Seriously, please someone explain the werewolves thing to me because it's nearly impossible to find MM stories that don't have werewolves. Anyway, it was nice that it was firmly grounded in reality, I just would have enjoyed it if the story was more developed, if they'd drawn things out a little further. It had the potential to be 4 or 5 stars but the brevity and rushed story keeps it at 3.

Loved this fascinating book! Behind the scenes in the secret operation to build an atomic bomb during WW2.

Loved this one! Probably not the most historically accurate book ever, but it was interesting!

I loved this book. All of it!

Smash Glass and Read this Book if you're going to fight a president. You're not likely to be more prepared by when fighting someone like Andrew Jackson, you'll have an anecdote or stinging insult to hurl before getting your butt handed to you. Every dead president gets a short chapter where we learn strange tails that may or may not help you to fight him. Just for framing, these are imagined to be cage matches, mano-a-mano dick punching contests of virile masculinity. There's also a chapter dedicated to building your Presidential A-Team, which seems more important to me now than ever before. Along with the expected highs like the aforementioned Jackson, Roosevelt (both of them) and Lincoln, you also get to know other guys like Rutherford B Hayes who now simply don't want to fight. The only problem with this book is that it doesn't address fighting those presidents who are living. Which implies the author, Dan O'Brien, is afraid of being whupped by Jimmy, George, Bill, George Jr, and Barack. And probably sued. TL-DR: Don't fight Teddy. Spoiler: Don't fight Zombie Teddy either. But you KNEW that already. And if you didn't, you need to read this book.

I am on my second reading of Trevor Noah's Born a Crime short memoir for two reasons: first, it's a very quick, enjoyable read with moments of humor, terror and disgust in it; second, because I want to understand how a person can come across so genuine but have moments that make you doubt their soul at a fundamental level. Born a Crime is Noah's story of birth and survival under South African apartheid rule, the chaos after that rule fell and how his light skin (but not too light), dark skin (but not too dark), luck and nerve served and failed him. Each chapter, you read about how he engages in misfortune and adventure only to see one of his friends or family members be claimed by the oppressive governmental forces or the specter those forces cast, and just when you think it's going to be Noah himself, the finger of fate touches someone close to him. The entire book is a loving tribute to his mother, who if even half the things were true, sounds like a model for all mothers and an outspoken work for reforming how we approach domestic abuse. He gives an unflinching eye on how far can you support someone who's willing to live in a bad relationship. There's also enough visceral details on what poor and starving people use for food to last a reader a very long while. What's definitely noticeable are the tales left behind in the margins: what happened to Teddy who went to jail for eating chocolates, how Trevor helped raise his two brothers after a harrowing event, and the challenges of becoming a comedian in South Africa and eventually the big question: how did he get out of South Africa? which is a recurring theme but unsatisfactorily never answered. The sad effect of these omissions is that it makes the book seem narcissistic at times which he readily cops to in the book, so that may be the truth. Overall, while I feel enriched for his story and I'm happy he's made it out of that place, I like him a little less as a person.

I had just learned about he Russian Revolution and the Great Purge in Russia in my European history class just before i read this book. It really helped me get a better grasp of what was actually going on in Eastern Eurpoe during this time period. Lina and Jonas are incredibly strong gharacters that are very relatable and anyone who is intrested in historical fiction should definetly give tis book a try. I definetyly recommed it!

WARNING! SOME SPOILERS! I'll Give it like a 3.5. I don't really like Andi. She has a such a negative outlook on things it was hard for me to like her. Yes, I know she was sick and depressed but still. The journal was very informative and accurate. The French Revolution is one of my favorite periods of time in history and I learned a few things that I didn't know before. This book made me want to do some research on some of the names that I was unfamiliar with. The dream she has when she was in the catacombs just felt really forced and awkward, like the author was just looking for more to write. It was interesting but the transitions into and out of it were not very skillful. But overall not bad.

This was an interesting and somewhat frustrating story. Reading it made Eleanor Roosevelt a much more real person, though not always a sympathetic one. This book inspired me to start a reading project of my own. I realized how little I know about each of the presidents, so I'm going to read a biography of each one in order. Let's see how that goes.

What kept me reading were the details about Williams's competitive swimming, the logistics of her underwater choreography, and the gossip (of which I believe about 64%). What irritated me as I kept reading were many: Williams's constant contradictions about herself, MGM, and the world around her (she was constantly painting herself as both the victim and the hero of this story, but I didn't feel she had any real self-awareness to be either, it was only what suited the anecdote); the self-important way she continued to place herself -- her personal struggles and her professional struggles -- alongside other (much) more famous actresses (she really, really needed the reader to know that she kept company with Elizabeth Taylor and Grace Kelly); and the dialogue -- oh, Jesus, the dialogue! I don't know whose fault the dialogue was, hers or Digby Diehl's, but their editor should have stepped in (and the editor also should have clarified to Williams the definition of "ironic"). But whoever was responsible should be pelted with Crayons because this dialogue is bad. Like, bad. And of course autobiographies can be embellished with dialogue, and of course the reader is aware that the dialogue in an autobiography is an approximation (who can remember what they said forty years ago? I can't remember what I said ten minutes ago. seriously.) But come on, Esther! She writes herself these bits of dialogue that are stilted and self-aggrandizing, and she always has the last word. I actually laughed out loud during some of her bits. I wish she'd spent more time talking about her work with the Olympics, and I wish she'd had more than one-note; the voice she uses to tell the story doesn't give her much of a character arc or any real emotional journey. But it's fun to know some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, and you can laugh at how important she thinks she is (but how much of a jerk she is, too: I did not feel okay about her Jeff Chandler anecdote), and then be a bit disappointed that she didn't hire a real biographer instead of trying to write this herself.

This is an interesting -- and politically relevant -- snapshot into the lives and viewpoints of a population I know little about and with whom I have only spent a small amount of time. Vance's story is personal and, at times, stunning. He and his family have struggled with violence and substance abuse and poverty; but his tone is never that of a victim. He is proud of his accomplishments (rightly so) and of the life he has lived to achieve them (rightly so). He owns his flaws and those of his family and community, and he speaks about problem solving in a refreshingly pragmatic way. But I was so spoiled from Between the World and Me (please read it right away if you haven't yet) and I now see that as the height of all memoir. And of course the two stories are different; but Vance's story is one of struggle and ultimate success, and now he is a happily married white man with an Ivy League law degree. And Coates's story is about his skin, his body, and that is something beyond socioeconomic circumstances. You can't walk away from that. This is an important differentiation between the weight of the two stories. Vance narrates this audiobook, and he does a fine job, though when he's reading the especially dark parts from his childhood and details about the "hillbilly" diet and poverty levels, his even, straight-forward tone is a bit surreal. It's a quick read/listen, and an interesting one at that.

It's rare that a book makes me not only think, but think about things I've never, ever thought about before. This is that book. In addition to telling an excellent story -- universal, important, and relevant -- Nguyen uses a narrative style that is intimate but formal. He is confessing, though it's not clear until the last quarter of the book to whom, so the story and all of the dialogue are summarized. There's something rather old fashioned about this style, but it works beautifully and lends the story a specificity in both characters and scene. It's just a really, really good book.

** spoiler alert ** I might catch some flack for not liking this book, since a few of my friends here on Goodreads are big fans of it. Sorry, friends. I should disclaim that I don't read either historical fiction or romance on the reg, so that might have colored my opinion of this, but after having a lengthy discussion with eight other women, none of whom really liked the book either, I feel confident those weren't the only two reasons. This, to me, was an unbelievable, offensive yet boring romance narrated by a not-too-likable woman whose motivations I never understood. Now, to be clear, I am not referring to the time travel as "unbelievable"; I am 100% willing to suspend my disbelief and get into some time travel. I'm excited to do so, in fact. No, it's not the time travel, but the romance and characters both that I felt were unbelievable. The romance part might have been my unfamiliarity with the genre, but I didn't believe one minute of the passionate all encompassing love between Claire and Jamie. Lust? Totally, absolutely. But anything beyond that proclaimed by either of them felt false. And the characters were flat, flat, flat. Claire has few realistic emotions about being thrown 200 years back in time, separated from her husband and her world. She tries, weakly, to get back to him. Twice. Wow. Twice. Good try. And then when she is finally placed in front of the stones that can transport her back home, she chooses Jamie, and the reader never really gets to know exactly why. I guess we're supposed to feel how great her love for him is at this point. But I did not. And let's talk about the abuse: the wife-beating that is so easily forgiven by Claire (oh, you mean it was normal to beat your wife in Scotland in 1743? And Claire needed to be punished for putting everyone in danger, so the beating is okay? Guess what? I don't give a shit; I don't want to read about it like Gabaldon is telling me it's okay, and trust me, that's exactly what she's doing); and the attempted rape of Jamie when he is a child (oh, and then Claire finds the Duke totally charming! WHAT A CHARMING F@CK!NG PEDOPHILE, Claire, you two should go get lattes), the attempted rape of Claire, and the absolute degradation of Jamie -- rape, torture, repeat for twenty-four hours -- both by Captain Jack. And then -- AND THEN -- Claire heals Jamie's mental and physical trauma with...sex. And not just sex. And not just sex in a monastery. But opium-fueled role-playing sex where Claire pretends to be Jamie's rapist. Yep. That's what Claire thought was appropriate, and that's what totally fixed Jamie right up. Wow, Diana Gabaldon. Wow. So, I had a lot of problems with this book that ranged from it being episodic and lacking any real urgency until the last hundred pages or so (and even then, not so much), to my irritation with Claire saying "Oh, Jamie!" about 18,000 times. Sure, there were some interesting bits: I liked the witch trial and the moments with Claire in her apothecary/surgery as she fixed up the sick and wounded. And Davina Porter does a great job with narration -- excellent Scottish accent -- but it wasn't enough. It wasn't good enough. And it shouldn't be for you, either.

This starts out as a rich, tragic, and almost allegorical story, and while I feel it lost momentum about two-thirds through (which also might have been my fault because I put it down for a couple of days), it's a terrific story and an excellent read. Easter is such an interesting character, and she walks through this story with an anger, sadness, and resignation that could be seen as emblematic of her generation; but it is also so specific to her as a woman, which is the only way a story like this can work. It can't only be a representation, and McFadden knows this, so she gives us a woman who is full and deep and unique, but who also carries the burden of Black womanhood during a time when being neither was easy (not that it's easy now...). In the first third of the book, I drew some comparisons to Jerzy Kosinski's The Painted Bird, primarily because of the way the narrator watched Easter experience horror, and because of the graphic nature of the horrors themselves. The story moves away from this a bit as Easter becomes a more specific character, a real woman within the world of the story. I'm glad of this turn, though it would have also been interesting to see her as a figurehead for the horrors of the time. If I could wholeheartedly recommend anything about this book, it's the narration by Alfre Woodard. I don't think I'd even need to say anything more than it's narrated by Alfre Woodard, because she's pretty amazing, but I'll tell you that whatever amazing narration you're imagining her doing, it's even better. Her voice is low and strong, melodious, and perfect. And her white-woman voice reading Meredith is per-fect-ion.

This book--a book about grieving for her husband after his death of a heart attack in 2003--is exactly what I'd expected from an introspective writer like Didion. It is part memoir, part investigation into the science, the biology of grief, part history of the human grieving process, and part eulogy to John, her husband. Didion is constantly making connections between and among her observations and experiences, and this book, steeped in a specific event with specific, visible effects, illustrates beautifully the way her mind works. However, Didion is likely not for everyone, and this book is certainly not without issues. She writes from a place of white upper-middle-class privilege, and this perspective, which is not relatable, is visible on every page and with each of her moves. Instead of staying with friends in Los Angeles when her daughter is in the hospital, she stays in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. For weeks. The thought of the bill made me sweat a little. She name drops Hollywood directors, writers, and actors; she talks about her life in an ocean-front house in California, their family trips to Hawaii, Europe, and Asia, the trip her mother arranged for her to tour New York, Quebec, and Boston while Didion was on summer vacation from college at Berkley. She has not lived an "everyman" life, and that's what makes her who she is; but it also makes her a bit distant and hard to like. Her writing, though, is subtle, smart, and nearly perfect, and this is ultimately one woman's specific story of grief. For that, it's beautiful and worth reading.

I wanted to like this book so much more than I did. But I found it--while well written and quite funny in spots--just a surface-skimming collection of anecdotes that are not as well connected as I'd like them to be. Rae touches on a lot of interesting spots in her life--her early foray into chat rooms, her conflicts with being too black and not black enough as she moved from school to school--but none of the stories go very deep. She also leaves a couple of gaping holes in her narrative that drove me crazy when I realized she wasn't going to come back to them. There's a story she tells about lying to her boss and she makes the comment that the lie was something she'd come to regret for the rest of her life. That's a big statement, but she never explains it. She just leaves it there, not recognizing its significance, and never brings it up again. After I finished her book, I thought I might have missed something because I hadn't watched her web series; so I immediately binge-watched it. The series is excellent: well-written, funny, relatable. Rae is a talented writer with a great point of view, and she shines when she's putting her Awkward Black Girl in fictional settings surrounded by other characters. That just doesn't come through in her memoir, though. I'd loved to hear more about the start of the web series and her life at that time--how she developed it, how it went from simple to more complex as it gained popularity. But she doesn't talk much about that. As an audiobook it is successful in its narration. Rae narrates the book herself, and I love when writers do this for their own memoirs. Rae knows what she wants to emphasize; she knows what should be funny and what should be serious. Rae also has a great reading voice, and I could listen to her say "Senegalese" over and over again. If you're already a fan of her series, you'll likely enjoy the book. If you don't know who she is, just watch her series. It's really good.

I'd add a 1/2 star to this review for a total of 3.5 This is an interesting, creepy, and fun mix of true crime, local history (NYC), and popular science. Blum's chronological and elemental structure works well, and the through-line of having Norris and Gettler as characters grounds the book well. It's a great read for anyone interested in toxicology, forensic science, heavy metals, and murder. I didn't mind Coleen Marlo's narration, but she does an East Coast accent whenever she reads Gettler's letters, and it's really dorky. You've been warned.

#GIRLBOSS is a smart read. Amoruso's voice is clear and consistent, and a hell of a lot of fun. Her philosophy and advice are clear and down to earth, and above all she's selling the idea of hard work. There's nothing wrong with that. I hope that all of my female students read this and apply it; and, actually, I hope that all of my male students do, too. And I'm going to buy as many copies as possible to give out for Christmas this year.

I thought this book was going to knock my socks off, but it didn't. That's not to say it was bad or that I didn't like it. It's a well written and interesting book. But it was just something different--much more academically minded--than I'd been expecting. Lepore covers a lot of ground with this book, and a big chunk is spent on the American suffrage movement. Of course this is because women's suffrage is so closely tied to Wonder Woman's origin, and it's a fascinating and infuriating history. But, again, it was just not what I was expecting. Lepore narrates the audiobook herself, and I appreciated that. Her voice isn't the strongest reading voice (it's a little nasal), but I enjoyed the way she read her own book, especially the more personal writings of Marston and Holloway. She inserted a much needed dose of attitude into what felt, all around, a bit dry of a read.

I do not find it surprising that I loved this book. Poehler is able to write about her life, her career, her creativity, and her family in ways that are funny, moving, relatable, and poetic. She digs deep without revealing every inch of her life; she tells stories about motherhood that are wonderful to me, a reader who will never be a mother. (see, Gaffigan, writing about parenthood in very funny and universal way can be done.) She made me laugh out loud every few minutes, and I cried more than once at her stories and observations and, of course, when she played the audio of Leslie & Ben's wedding ceremony. Obviously this book gets my stamp of approval, but I will also strongly recommend that you listen to this audiobook. Poehler turns the audiobook experience into something new and exciting. She invites her parents, friends, icons, and creative collaborators into her "personal soundbooth" (that she built herself and that sits at the foot of Mount Rushmore). And frequently, they just sort of chat for a while. And it's not just the guests who appear in the audiobook; she interacts with them and with the material itself in a way that is quite a bit like a radio program. She and Parks and Recreation creator Mike Schur have some fantastic back-and-forth that simply could not be replicated on a page. Poehler and Seth Meyers also chat before Meyers reads the chapter he wrote for the book, and their conversation is the essence of a great friendship; their mutual respect and love for each other is palpable, and their comedic timing is gold. Poehler also uses multi-media to enhance the audiobook. She does what Tina Fey did with the Bossy Pants audiobook and plays clips from t.v. shows and sketches when they're relevant. But Poehler doesn't stop there: she reads the final chapter at the Upright Citizens Brigade Los Angeles theater in front of a live audience, which turns the experience into something else altogether, like a stand-up routine fused with a David Sedaris-esque book tour. And it's really great. It was also nice to have Poehler's voice in my head for about seven hours. She is so likable and funny, and her favorite show is my favorite show (Law & Order, only the greatest show in television history), and she is goofy and foul mouthed and just the person you want to befriend and have in your head. She talks early on in the book about how hard it is to write a book, but I'm so glad she did because her final product is so worth it.

This is not "a" great American novel; it's the great American novel. If you read this a while ago and are looking to revisit it, listen to Sissy Spacek narrate this audiobook--it's absolutely perfect.

I will only recommend this book to existing Tom Robbins fans--those who know his style and are fully aware that the man cannot write a straight sentence: a sentence without twisting and turning a dozen different times and laying down metaphor as thickly as he lays down the mayonnaise on one of his perfectly made tomato sandwiches. If you are a fan, then you'll enjoy how he can spin a yarn. I found the stories about his childhood the most interesting, but the stories about his mid-life (once he'd become an established literary writer) just plain self-indulgent. This may be because I'd just come off of reading Piper Kerman's Orange is the New Black for the second time, and the styles and moods of the two books could not be more different: Kerman's is a day-to-day account of surviving Federal prison, and Robbins's is a meandering path of anecdotes highlighting his literary, sexual, and hot-tubbing escapades. After Kerman's story (which is a terrific book, quite different and much less dramatic than the t.v. show), the Robbins book just felt gratuitous and silly. A note on the audiobook: Keith Szarabajka does a good job reading this. I've listened to Robbins narrate his own non-fiction (Wild Ducks Flying Backwards) and Szarabajka reads in a close enough style as Robbins to be an homage rather than a mimic. It's gravelly throated and nice.

Hot dog this is a good book! I don't use exclamation points lightly in my reviews (or ever), but I almost used two exclamation points in a row after that last sentence (yes, two). I am in absolute love with this book. Wouk creates an amazing world of both nuance and specificity so that I was fully on board the Caine destroyer but I never felt like the time period or setting was pushing itself too much. That's probably because this was a book written only a few years after the story was to have taken place (and based on Wouk's own wartime experiences). It's so much better than some over researched contemporary period piece that tries too hard (as I find many of them do). The ship itself is a character, and a very good one, and the finale of a tremendous war looms in the background. I can't go into detail about everything that makes this book great--because there are too many--but if you're a fan of stories that are character driven and claustrophobically tense with characters whose choices are morally ambiguous (oh, yeah, and there's courtroom drama [and a love story] too!), then this is the book for you. Not only are the story and characters compelling, but it was enjoyable to read a World War II book that wasn't about land battle in Europe. And since finishing, I have been diagnosing my coworkers as Queegs (which isn't good, I know, and really it's only been about three people [but they're total Queegs; trust me]). It's a long read, but you won't notice. I hated to see it end, and the morning after I'd finished it, I woke up so sad that I almost started it right up again. Kevin Pariseau does a solid narrating job--he's pleasant to listen to and moves smoothly from character to character.

Please add a half star to this rating. I started out slowly with this book, and I know why: I downloaded the e-book from the library, and the text copy includes breakdowns of each major character (there are a lot) at the start of the book, before the story begins. This was daunting; I felt that I needed to memorize all of the names and bios before I could even start the story. I finally got about halfway through (thanks to being stopped on the Metra for two hours one night in December and having ample reading time) but then put it down during the holidays. And there it sat, unread, for weeks, until a couple of weeks ago I made the decision (after finishing The Caine Mutiny and being in the listening mood for more WWII drama) to start over with the audiobook. And this was the best choice for me. The audiobook leaves out all of the clumsy bios and just starts the story. And it is really a good story. There are a lot of characters, but getting them in context rather than in an isolated list makes a huge difference. It's not really a thriller, but an academic adventure with elements of mystery and, of course, war. I loved getting first hand accounts through the men's letters home, and it was exciting to imagine each of them plodding across Europe to track down these treasures. The narrator, Jeremy Davidson, does a solid job and doesn't try too hard to make each character too distinct, which would have ended up with too many put-on and fake voices. His English accent, though, is weak, so luckily there are only a couple minor English characters. It's an emotional but quiet kind of adventure. I'm nervous that the movie will turn it into a wartime Ocean's Eleven and sex it up (this is not a sexy story). But I'll still watch it and laugh at Goodman chewing scenery.

I don't know why I waited so long to read this book, but thank god I finally did. It's a perfect book. Seriously. It's perfect. The story, the conflict, the character growth, the writing. Perfect. Most of the universe has read it, so I don't know what more I can say about it except that everyone, everywhere should read it. And then, they should probably read it again. It's beautiful and tragic and hopeful; it portrays women who are strong because of their circumstances and because of the support they receive from the other women in their lives, and who survive--who not only survive but who succeed. It is complex and difficult, but it is brilliant. It is proof that Alice Walker is one of the most talented writers of her generation. No. Of all time. Yep. I'm happy with that. She is one of the most talented and important writers of all time. Walker narrates this audiobook, and that's just an added bonus. I could listen to her read for another two thousand hours and never get tired of her voice. I am in love with Alice Walker because of this book, and I am a better reader, writer, and person because of it.

This book is a melancholy journey of self discovery, violence, and war--and of course those three things are not mutually exclusive. In some ways, the narrative is plodding, but this is not a bad thing. Our orphan moves from village to village, situation to situation, and violence to violence. Because he is alone, he must grow up very quickly, but the discoveries he makes along the way--about human behavior, sex, kindness, and savagery--are revealed more slowly through Kosinski's careful prose. The metaphor of the painted bird is revealed early on in the book, which I like. There was no big "reveal" of what this is supposed to mean to us or to our protagonist; although like all good metaphors, there are layers, and by the end of the book, the title, the story, and our hero come together beautifully. Fred Berman does a wonderful job of narrating this audiobook. His accent (which is put on; I think he's from New Jersey) is a vague but successful Eastern European, and his voice is quiet, steady, and oddly forceful. His is not an explosive reading nor is this an explosive book, but an understated powerhouse.

I'm just not that impressed by Christopher Moore, and this book was the decision maker for me. He's kind of the poor man's Tom Robbins: not as smart or as funny, and neither his characters nor his plots are ever as good. This book was, at times, interesting, though more so in theory than anything else. But Biff was just a little too "cute" and wise-cracky, and I never really got a true sense of Joshua/Jesus. The speculation was fun, and I liked the premise of raising Biff from the dead to complete this important gospel (although the story could have lived without most of the "present day" hotel scenes with Biff and the angel--they took cuteness to an even more irritating level than the idea of Jesus teaching yoga to an elephant). This book did, however, inspire me to learn more about the Bible. I'm not a religious person, but Moore's explanation in the Afterword about his research made me curious. So, maybe I'll do some research of my own. But I know that I won't be reading any more of Moore's novels.

I am so pleasantly surprised by this book, which, plainly stated, knocked my socks off. I was expecting something typically YA, and probably good. What I got was a terrifically imaginative story with a sophisticated and original narrative style and beautifully drawn characters. There is nothing black and white about this book, and there is nothing easy about this story. Oddly enough, though, it's absolutely easy to read because of Zusak's skill as a writer and as a storyteller. I played excerpts from the book for my creative writing class as illustrations of wonderful imagery (Hans playing the accordion in the kitchen, the mayor's wife's first appearance, Liesel's schoolyard fight), and I hope that my students will try to mimic Zusak's style in their own work (I know I will). The narrator, Allan Corduner, was also a joy. He was a bit of a mix between Jim Dale (I'm thinking The Night Circus) and Neil Gaiman (Specifically The Graveyard Book): soft, English, and a bit sinister when he needs to be. But, really, he's just smooth and wonderful to listen to. I will listen to this book again and again, and I will recommend it to everyone, especially any young readers in my life.

This was so good. I was reluctant to start a relationship with this 30 hour audiobook just a few days before the semester started, but I'm so glad I did. I liked this book for a bunch of reasons, and number one on my list is that it felt like true Stephen King to me, like the Stephen King I grew up reading. And not just because of the great story and likeable characters, but because the voice of Jake/George sounded a bit like King, the man, and the world of the novel--the past especially--felt as though we were viewing it directly through King's own memories. Although that's also in part why I'm not giving it five stars. Sometimes Jake/George sounded a little too much like King: not like a 35 year old English teacher but like a 66 year old fan of rock music from the '50s and '60s. There were no indicators that Jake was a big music buff during his "present" life, but once he gets to the past, he throws band names--popular and obscure--around like confetti. And knowing what I know about Stephen King, that felt much more like him than like his character. It's not bad, necessarily, but it felt a little like a cheat. One other complaint about Jake's character: he'd never used a rotary phone. Really? When the book begins, he's just a year younger than I am, and I used plenty of rotary phones when I was a kid. They weren't uncommon, especially in the '80s. Aside from that really, really picky comment of mine (sorry, I couldn't help myself), this is a great book. The concept is fascinating and the world is tremendously believable, due to King's extensive research. I felt as though I knew these historical characters and the cities and towns, which made the importance of what Jake/George was there to do--and the denouement--so much more intense. The narrator, Craig Wasson, was also great. He had a big job and he handled it perfectly. And I cried at the end. Kind of a lot, actually.