Unsatisfying book with good ideas. No one to root for
353523
Unsatisfying book with good ideas.  No one to root for.  So many better ways to write this one.  Ending was poor.  I did learn that basketball players are capable of anything and are superhuman.  If you can play basketball you are automatically able to shoot bow and arrow flawlessly.  Hunt anything on earth and be an expert knife and bare hand fighter.  Authors please at least include some info on how people train with weapon systems they are using that helps suspend disbelief.  Hero was dull and didn't do anything useful until last minute.
1422063
I read this book after hearing a number of speakers and writers whom I respect strongly recommend it. I, myself, have recently discovered the value of getting up early, even though I am a classic "night owl," so I was excited to read the book. It was a real disappointment.

This book is premised on two key ideas: how you start your day defines your day, and who you are becoming determines what you can achieve. That's all well and good. Indeed, I have found rising early to start my day on whatever is most important yields huge results throughout my life. The problem is that most of what Elrod recommends is either feel-good nonsense or an amalgamation of various other self-help gurus' teachings. For example, when he describes what he does in the morning, he mentions Napoleon Hill, "The Secret," and countless other authors and books, to the point that portions of this book feel more like a bibliography or reading list than a book worth reading in its own right. He points to certain people, particularly Oprah Winfrey, as positive examples so many times that it gives the impression that he must have wanted to title the book, "Be Like Oprah."

Also, Elrod seems to buy into---and recommend---some abject nonsense with respect to prayer and gratitude towards no one in particular. Pray, even if you aren't praying to anyone. Be grateful, even if there's no one out there deserving of the gratitude because no person or entity has given you anything you have. Somehow, this will make you a better person by some vague, magic process. Hogwash.

None of this is to denigrate Elrod's own experience. He has lived a remarkable life, and I don't doubt that the routine he describes here has been helpful to him and many others. Regardless, I wouldn't recommend this book.

Ultimately, the book has some value and some good points. Get up early, work hard, work to become who you want to be so you can achieve what you want to achieve, and focus. That said, the book is poorly written, poorly edited, full of bad grammar and typos, and simply not that helpful. I expected more and am sad I wasted my time on this.
4575460
A really interesting idea is wasted in this book. There is not one likable character in this book, including (perhaps especially) the protagonists/victims. It's also way too porn-y--it's really not necessary to the plot. It's a real shame, because the idea of a serial killer who can resurrect his victims is really intriguing. Unfortunately, this book does not live up the promise of the idea.
3786156
Good example of a author with a great idea but no clue how to execute it.  Often writing herself into corners and disengenuously (at the expense of the reader) getting herself out of them.

One character performs a completely irredeemable act and the author continues to ask the reader to forgive them.  It fails spectacularly.

Id get more in depth with my review but honestly don't want to waste another second on this book.
2488189
This book was borrowed from a family member, who insisted it was an inspirational tail.  If you look past the author's simultaneous arrogance and idiocy, there is a positive message there.

As another reviewer noted, the author comes across as a spoiled jerk who trying to rationalize his past screw-ups by scrubbing toilets at a coffee house.  His reflections prove the opposite of what he is trying to assert: he still doesn't "get" middle- or lower-class life.

Two points immediately come to mind:  Firstly, with a family line so closely associated with The Kennedy family, British Royalty, authors such as Hemmingway and Frost, and Manhattan millionaires, why in the hell wasn't he able to secure anything better than a job at a coffee house after being fired?  Also, why does the concept of grout provide such a problem for this man?  Is it the brain tumor?

The writing style he uses is often...awkward.  The concepts expressed (however silly) are of a level that conflicts with the quality of his writing.  It smacks of being "dumbed down" by a team of editors to appeal to the typical 5th grader.

Not altogether a bad read, especially if you can manage to glean the message the author is trying to convey.  Just don't expect to feel moved.
2115473
As a fellow reader said, we need a ZERO stars option for books like this. As others have said, don't waste your time. I now know to trust NOTHING said by so-called reviewers to sell books. A few spoiler's ahead, but you will probably thank me. My thought while reading was that this was probably conceived by someone who's brain has been impacted by drugs--including LSD. It is a hodgepodge of bizarre ideas that never gel into anything meaningful. The main character's tenderness for his (ill) sister is the only touching part of the book, suggesting some true humanity.

The primary element in this book is Woody, the writers member. Yes, that member, which he refers to by a variety of names teens use. We read from the beginning about Horatio's sexual feelings for his Mom, his frequent masturbation, his sexual obsession and inability to control Woody who is still leading the adult Horatio around. This is rarely funny.  Then we have the stolen book concept where each of the three main characters is able to read about their own life. It yields only the stupidest idea (sex with a reluctant nun) as a way to destroy/save humankind. Then we have the direct line to a God filled with sarcasm and maybe a few comments a la "Conversations with God"--an actual spiritually based book. Oh yes, and the Angel of Death who is not really that pops up here and there. The most ridiculous element is the occasional interruption of this already bizarre and disjointed patchwork with comments on how we stupid humans are destroying our planet (true enough), but made by some superior alien life forms on another planet, but taken from recent scientific and political dialogue. I read the whole book, skimming thru some of the second half, thinking that there would be some point to it. There isn't.
270382
I have 4 things to say about this book.

1. About 1/3 of the way in my gut told me I should abandon the book and start something else, but then it picked up a bit so I finished the book. I should have listened to my gut.

2. I'm certainly glad I borrowed the book from my public library and didn't waste even one cent of my money on it. I hope other library patrons find it more satisfying than I did or the library will have wasted their money too.

3. You should only read this book if you really enjoy books with totally unsatisfying endings. Had it ended better I would have felt better about the book. The ending screams "Sequel on the way, buy it too." If a sequel appears, I won't check it out of my public library and certainly won't spend any $$$ on it.

4. The premise was interesting, the writing at times funny and clever but those were not enough to save the book.
4489160
First, as a novel, this is a very bad book. The characters introduced in the first chapter are interesting, but unfortuantly they are quickly drowned out by one dimensional over achievers and evil rich men. The dialogue is absurdly unnatural that I almost suspect it is ironic. Endless political discussions that no one has ever actually had. The tone of the setting is very inconsistent. Everyone is is basically past the basic homo / hetero divide in sexuality, yet suddenly modern race dynamics still hold sway. There is a strange riff on Pumpkin Spice Lattes that seemed dated already.

Second, The most unsexy sex scenes ever written.

Third, the ideas in the book are really interesting. I am still surprised that I actually finished a book that I found so poorly written. But I like world building, and Doctorow puts tons of interesting ideas into this world.

This is going to be an influential book, but people are going to be embarrassed to admit they liked it.
626307
This was a DREADFUL book. While there was some legitimate and sound advice, it was bare scraps afloat in a sea of detrimental ideas and inane drivel. Advice on how to be a good wife is interspaced with testimonials how well this advice worked. Within a few pages, I was appalled and disgusted by Andelin's advice. Her ideas encourage women, already weak in this area, to make men the center of their world, vision, mind - to replace God with their husband.

It is commendable to remember we, as Christians, are called to serve one another - thus a wife is to serve her husband. But this book encourages an unhealthy obsession with the husband, in turn encouraging the husband to developed an unhealthy pride and self-centeredness. I also objected to the advice that encouraged woman to ignore bad behavior or questionable morals in the husband. This reminds me of For Women Only by Shaunti Feldhahn -another book of dreadful advice. Both books advocate never making the man "feel bad"  - which sounds good until you realize it means the man should never feel bad about his actions - any action. And that's not Godly.

Marriage is a partnership, a sharing, a giving to each other  - and recognizing your mistakes (which often involves feeling bad) is a vital part! Neither of these books every speak of how to handle a husband who doesn't admit his bad actions.

My other issue is advice that is encourages manipulative, childish and conniving behavior. Why would you direct women to play more mind games, to be more scheming and cunning or to be more devious? Absurd. Andelin seems to think it is impossible to be direct and feminine, and encouraged manipulation instead of honesty.

Advocates of FW laud the principles set out - and if the goal is to make your husband the center of your universe and lose oneself completely in abject slavery - then by all means, listen to this blather. These advocates will say anyone who doesn't like this book has lost the true meaning of womanhood and femininity. I say to tell me a true woman only does or does not [insert pet character trait] is no better then a bra-burning feminist or a patriarchal moron telling me that. I look to God for who I am - not some foolish hooey.

I do not recommend this book to anyone. at all. ever.
2343164
**This review contains spoilers**

I never read the good reviews on these books I download. I start at the bottom and read the 1-stars first, working my way up. I like to see the criticisms and then keep those in my mind as I read.  After finishing this book, I have to say that the bad reviews seem to be rooted in homophobia and/or religious/political bias against gays. There are no other reasons to give this book a 1 or 2-star review. Is it Hemingway or Fitzgerald quality?  Of course not; it wasn't meant to be. A 1-star review is ridiculous for this book. One wonders why a person would download it if the subject matter held no interest for them. It's well written. Trust me, I've seen MUCH worse (the absolute worst being the "mommy porn" trilogy the author referred to all throughout the book. An obvious nod to Fifty Shades of Gray, which is atrocious writing.) But I digress...

It was the interesting premise that drew me in: a straight guy working as a gay escort. I was curious about this character even before I met him. What made him choose this work?  Desperation? Curiosity?  Money?  A dying sister turned out to be the reason, and I bought it, hook, line and sinker. Not implausible at all.  He needed money, he was good looking...so that set-up was easy for the author to sell.

Then I realized Andrew had issues from his childhood that were submerged.  Things he'd never dealt with until he'd faced them head on.  Some of the bad reviews spoke of the shallowness of the main character.  Bull.  He was fully developed. The reader finds out why he's "homophobic" and watches as this young man comes to terms with his own sexuality and his suppressed pain over what happened in his own family. (I won't reveal what that event was.)

One reviewer seemed upset at the "soapbox" preaching about gay rights and Republicans.  Sometimes the truth hurts, and people don't want to accept what is right in front of their face.  This author did not write anything that wasn't true in terms of the ultra right wing of the Republican party and their stance on gay rights.  Nor did he sugar coat the religious bigotry that exists against gays. If anyone thinks this is over-exaggerated in the book, then they don't pay attention to the news.  The other main character, Cormac, was a conservative politician who felt pressured to stay closeted to keep his position in the party. It's easy to judge a person like that as being a hypocrite, but the author presented Cormac's side very effectively. The reader can easily see the "rock and a hard place" that men like him are in.

The sex scenes were nice, (Yes, I enjoyed them) but to be honest, I loved the intimate moments in the book more. The cuddling, the talking, the slowly getting to know each other. I was glad that  the author let that relationship develop slowly and didn't have them jumping each other's bones within the first few chapters.  Quite refreshing to see a gentle love story develop amidst all the coarse escort work that Andrew was doing.

All in all, I l really enjoyed this story.  It wasn't cliched at all (like one reviewer said), nor was it full of stereotypes. It was full of real people, and unfortunately real people don't always act and look like some people want them to.

Great job, T. Baggins, whoever you are.
2436168
I was intrigued by the ideas this book presents but the writing style, portrayal of personalities, and even the author's grasp of current events were all so weak that this book was torture to read.
749135
A good concept in theory.... but the book is written like some sort of painful academic semester project.  No "character" emerges ironically from the author.  He seems to be rather pretentious.  I suggest you ignore this kind of nonsense posing as serious theology amd get down with someone like Brendan Manning, or John Eldridge, or even that "Blue Like Jazz" guy.  Even if they are flawed at times, they are at least real people, with a message that is relevent to real people.
445838
As someone with an interest in topics such as secession, panarchy, and anarchy, I've spent time thinking about what a "Republican" and a "Democratic" nation might be like, and when I saw this book, I was hopeful that the author would have done some original thought along these lines. I knew it was a short book, but I still thought there would actually be a *story*.

Boy was I wrong, on so many counts. The "author" didn't actually write a story. Basically, they took what should have been notes that one would build a story from, and just "published" those. He says it's a "work of fiction": well, it's not a work of fact, and it's certainly not a work of research, but it's not fiction unless there is a story. This is a thought experiment, and an extremely poor one at that. It is as if if you took the average rabid liberal commenter on a CNN political article and asked them to express their wildest fantasies about liberalism and their wildest hatred of conservatism.

I am neither, so I'm not here to defend conservatism, but it doesn't take a conservative to complain about what a liberal fantasy this is. There's no reason for me to make things up, we can just refer to the "book": in his thought experiment, two new nations are formed, one for democrats, one for republicans, around 2008. By 2018 - *10 years later* - the republican nation has already devolved into looting and quickly thereafter it is gone, replaced, one imagines the author barely held back from saying, by a population of former republicans who have now seen the error of their ways and are ready to embrace liberalism.

Meanwhile, the democratic nation has solved the problem of renewable energy so that 100% of the nation runs on that; I forget the details, but I think they have also managed to eradicate disease, hunger, and unhappiness, and have even found a way for their passed gas to smell like perfume while simultaneously powering rocket ships to Mars. Or something like that. Might as well have said that, anyway.

Sorry pal, but your understanding of economics, science, politics, education, and pretty much everything else is better suited to staying on the comment pages of cnn.com. You have added nothing to any reasonable conversation with this piece of tripe. Please use the $6 I spent on this to buy an economics lesson.

I want my 2 hours back.
4117053
This book was a disappointment because of the wonderful potential it wastes. Conspiracies within conspiracies, numerology, the ancient origins of man, immanentizing the eschaton, horrifying creatures from Lovecraft's imagination, a golden submarine, an evil rock band, and a sea monster nearly as old as time itself--all of these are fantastic fodder for what I expected to be the ultimate conspiracy book. Unfortunately, Wilson and Shea went out of their way to make the book as unengaging as possible, thereby squandering many of the great ideas they began with.

*Illuminatus* is weighed down by a small army of characters that, save for five or six of them, are either feckless, uninteresting, unlikeable or completely irrelevant. For every fascinating character like Hagbard Celene, we have guys like Markoff Cheney, who has an interesting background but adds little to the overall story. Same with Otto Waterhouse. And Atlanta Hope. And Jim Cartwright. The list goes on. The book's second-most intriguing character, Robert Putney Drake, gets several scenes and a terrific back story. The authors reward us for investing in Drake by having him brood about his purpose in life and little else. There are too many people to keep track of, especially frustrating considering several of them could've been combined (George Dorn/Joe Malik) or deleted altogether (Muldoon, Pricefixer).

A worse sin, however, was the writing itself. Plot lines and points of view will change mid-paragraph with no warning whatsoever. The prose is poorly constructed, loaded with passive sentences.

This book's defenders will say its free form style is done on purpose to create an acid trip-like reading experience, or pull out excuses like, "it makes you think," or "you just don't get it." The authors--and a few reviewers, apparently--cannot tell the difference between a "mindf**k" and "confusion for confusion's sake." Being irritating on purpose is still irritating.

Hey, some books are more challenging than others. I don't mind walking uphill to get into a novel. I do mind when the authors expect me to walk uphill while a gorilla throws barrels at me.

This book is not a complete wash. I loved the 23 enigma, the law of fives, the American Medical Association, and many other aspects of this book. The good parts are as fascinating as any book I've read. But you often have to wade through fifty-plus pages of rambling philosophy to get to them.

This trilogy could have--and should have--been shortened by at least 300 pages. The authors' inability to self-edit explains why this book had difficulty getting published originally. That they were able to get this self-indulgent mess into print at all is testament to just how good their good ideas are.
4033300
Reasonable ideas but not much substance or practical ideas to follow up on
580052
A book club of Muslim, Christian and Buddhist women chose this to read and I have not heard their responses yet but look forward to hearing what others think. I think this book is tedious and the author's good ideas are buried in lots of extraneous verbiage about himself and the situations he is describing often beleaguing the point of the need for dialogue. He spends about 1/3 of the book talking about the Crdoba Houst controversy, which I remember. While I think this suggestion probably arose out of good intention, I find it difficult to hear Patel talk about he great suffering of Muslims and then show so little understanding of the suffering of those whose loved ones and community died in the 9/11 terrorist attack, or in the ongoing aftermath of the illnesses many of those first responders still deal with. Then there is his assertion that Spain enjoyed 700 years of happy, contented and peaceful Muslim rule that was embodied in the art of Crdoba. At least three different waves of Muslim invaders from North Africa overwhelmed Christian Spain and while some Christians and Jews survived and continued to live there, they were heavily taxed and performed important functions, like banking, for the Muslims. Peace at the point of a sword is hardly happy co-existence. - I did not find his 3 keys to participating in a TV interview gratifying when number two is "never answer the question." I have seen this technique used and invariably find it annoying to disingenuous. - He makes a comment about thinking universities should offer degrees in interfaith and seems surprised when a State university president says "We don't discuss religion." Perhaps the concept of separation of church and state needs to be clarified for him. - There also seems to be a question about whether any minority group will every feel comfortable with the majority, as well as just how far a culture needs to bend itself to satisfy the demands of its minorities. And, I am definitely reminded at as of today in 2016 that there are few Muslim dominated countries that tolerate diversity, especially to the extent found in the US. In fact, I can't think of any. - I do appreciate that he is trying to create greater harmony through dialogue and I personally am committed to working with that in my community, and I think Muslim's have a long way to go to manifest that their religion is one of peace. We hear that said continually and then we hear about the bombings, and the molestations in Cologne and it makes those statements less trustworthy. - The promise of America gets stretched pretty far when pleuralism is thought to be "you have to accept us just as we are" or "we don't want to assimilate" or "this is our religion so you can't criticize it or judge it."
2582831
Well, this book was NOT in any way what I expected. Had I left a review based on the first few chapters, it would have been 3-4 stars. The author has a great premise - fleshing out what mothers do when were home with our children, naming and giving a vocabulary to all the important minutiae we cant name.

However, a red flag for me went way up when she posited that a mother either loves and cuddles her baby or believes her baby is the product of original sin (!) and lets the baby cry it out. That was difficult to even understand, frankly. The author picks up steam with these bizarre arguments as the book goes on. She praises mothers who feel too much anxiety to ever leave their children in someone elses hands without ever mentioning the very real specter of post partum depression and anxiety, which I found extremely dangerous. She criticizes feminists and related literature that acknowledges the ambivalence or even anger that can arise when caring for a tiny dependent person all day, going so far as to figure out why women like Adrienne Rich felt the way they did. Spoiler - its not because this is a natural and acceptable part of motherhood - and suggests if they loved and connected with their babies differently, they never would have felt this maternal frustration. Arguments like those are the worst retrograde tripe, damaging the safe space women now have to speak frankly and ask for help.

Ultimately, this book was a total disappointment. I feel the author had such an important premise, which was quickly lost and abandoned for personal opinion that Id never want any new mother to read.