Who wrote the good reviews?
582873
Very poorly written, it was totally disappointing and flat, and the underlying plot was fairly improbable. Time lines made no sense
2841720
We must not presume to review masterworks of literature!

Reviews are meant to let other readers know what you thought of recent releases. Volumes printed and coveted for thousands of years need not be reviewed by laypersons (I am a layperson.)

I'm satisfied that the previous review didn't insult the memory and achievement of Livy or his reputation established around 24B.C. but the reviewer was out of line to even press the "Write your own review" button.

Certainly readers will need to decide if they will be interested in reading such important works but you do yourselves a disservice if you let your literary decisions be influenced by the Jaywalk Allstars.

There are many websites devoted the the "Greatest Books Ever Written" and it's a simple task to do type "Livy History of Rome" into a search engine.

Amazon reviews are meant for new releases. A work that is still being collected after over 2,000 years is not a new release.
661277
Bill was a friend of the family, so we'd go to his house in the summer around the time this book was written, maybe even while it was being written. I also remember being given a copy of it by Bill. If memory serves, he had a second fawn some years later, which is the one I believe I met. It's been probably been 20 years since I cracked the book, so I can't remember the book, but I remember my experiences, which were pretty cool, especially being around 10. Anyway, check it out!
4951103
I finished the book this weekend, since I was unable to put it down. I found it to be the best of the series.

However, out of curiosity, I started to read the reviews on Amazon this morning, and it seems that in about every tenth review. the person gives away the surprises at the end of the book.  In some cases, this is obviously intentional, in others, I'm sure it is just out of thoughtlessness.  Can future reviewers try to be either more careful, or less mean spirited, as the case may be?  I'm sure at least some people reading the reviews are deciding whether to read the book.  Why spoil it for them?
213552
I learned about this book because I heard she had a real beef with James Frey and how his dishonesty might cast wrongful doubt on her story. I think she has a good point, as does another author who wrote a similar tale of hitting rock bottom and rising to the top- only his disease was mental illness rather than drug and alcohol addiction. In fact, Frey actually wrote a nice blurb on the back of that book "Hammerhead 84" way before Frey's book became famous.

Either way, these are fine stories and well written books that deserve to be believed and treasured.
1043588
Excellent read! Stop thinking about who wrote it and just enjoy it. I'm glad I didn't read it based on the bad reviews I saw before buying it!
4132085
"Adam" has the top most helpful positive review. It was posted on March 11,2014. IN HARDCOVER. ONE DAY AFTER IT WAS RELEASED.  So in ONE day "Adam" bought the book and it appeared on his doorstep early in the very next morning because he paid for FedEx overnight early AM. Now this Not in keeping with a man who would love this kind of material, but lets not digress.

"Adam" tore through all 600 plus pages before midnight and posted his glowing review. I see two possibilities here. The first is that "Adam" is unemployed as the 11th was a Tuesday and given that he writes so well I am going to assume he is educated and, if employed, would be working during the week.

The other possibility is that he is a shill and possibly a paid one. If you look at "Adams" profile you will find three reviews. All are books that if people, would be the most rabid fans of this school of thought.

So there you have it. My review of "Adams" review, and yes I did in fact read it. ;-)
3257804
All were written in a two-month span by people who have reviewed nothing else on Amazon, before or since.  They could represent a spontaneous outpouring of appreciation of the book's genius by folks entirely unconnected to the author, but it seems darn unlikely to me.
517732
It is a good book. Good read. Beyond that ... I'm sure there are others who have written far better reviews.
519520
Back in November 2012  I received (and reviewed here on Amazon) a new compilation CD titled "Dickie Goodman - Long Live The King". (You can see my review under that title). I remember getting my first copy of "The Flying Saucer"  (on the yellow Luniverse label) back in the 1950s. I lost track of the subsequent Goodman-produced "break in" records but enjoyed hearing some of them again. The Cd was produced by Goodman's son Jon.  This led me to this book that john self-published (using Xilbris imprint) in 2000. I was hoping to learn more about Goodman (Senior, not Jon). As others have pointed out here - I didn't read the reviews until I got the book - this is not the definitive bio of Dickie Goodman, but more of a memoir. Like a few of the hundreds of books I've reviewed over the years for Amazon, this is another case of a story that a lot of folks want to hear, and the author wants to tell, but it needs both an editor to "filter" the info and fact-check, plus someone with editing skills to get the grammar and spelling correct and to have the typeface properly formatted. This is the second book in as many years where song titles are not in quotes but in CAPITAL LETTERS. A simple correction but it needs to be done.
I just read the review here by fellow reviewer Paul Hickey and I echoed every thought I had. I won't repeat Mr. Hickey's words but will recommend that you read it. There are other reviews here that are plain right nasty and name calling. Many also contain typos.  I found none of those helpful. Again, Mr. Hickey said it best.

Goodman - the prodigal son - means well. He was obviously there for many of the events. He includes a nice listing of the contents of all of his dad's break-in records (a "Sampleography") . This list was edited by music journalist Chuck Miller. If Goodman had utilized the talents of Miller to edit the draft of his text the time and energy - and money - would have been well spent and this could have been a great bio-discography of a pioneer in the recording industry. It may not be too late; the book needs and editor who can work with the younger Goodman. But, as others have said, this is not the kind of book collectors want as a reference. And an independent editor would allow the son to tell his dad's story though his eyes (but with facts and comments from others) without allowing his own life to sometimes take over the story.

I do hope that Jon Goodman does take that extra step. The CD was a good move to get some of this rare material out there for a new generation (may my age, who bought those early 45s are, sadly no longer alive). It's time to get it right so both Goodmans' names will be committed to music history, not for the book that fell short, but for the book that gets it right in both facts, spelling and a concise compelling story.

I hope you found this review both informative and helpful.

Steve Ramm
"Anything Phonographic"
2053863
Same position as I took with James Joyce. When you're reading great writers you don't have to justify doing so by writing a superfluous review.
65787
I was considering buying the book, but I'm suspicious of the lack of reliable reviews. The only review, 5 stars, is clearly from the author or a relative... "Arkayen" = RK. N.
3454584
Rex Reed is in top form here as a profiler  of some of the celebs that fascinate us for better
or worse. Particularly re-readable is the one on the volatile late great George C. Scott.
  What I now would like to see is a collection of his record reviews for the defunct Stereo
Review of the mid-to-late 60's and early 70's. Does anybody remember those? They are
mentioned nowhere on his website.
3616150
I.asked.around to see if this book was worth reading and all it got was rave reviews.  It was a very interesting read.
1062021
This slim (34 page) volume was printed in 1939 by W. Somerset Maughams publisher to highlight the authors work.  In this regard, it is like the 1925 book "W. Somerset Maugham, Novelist, Essayist, Dramatist", and will mainly be of interest to avid collectors of Maugham material.  This volume was reprinted in the 1960s and 1970s, and various editions are readily available from sellers of used books.

"W. Somerset Maugham: An Appreciation" contains the following:

a brief (9 page) essay by the British writer and poet Richard Aldington (pp. 5-13);
the essay Sixty-Five by Somerset Maugham (pp. 14-20);
appreciations (excerpts from recent reviews of Maughams works) (pp. 21-26);
a bibliography (pp. 27-31); and
an index to Maughams short stories (pp. 32-34).

Aldingtons essay praises the quality and success of Maughams work, and rails against critics who assume that the two qualities cannot go hand-in-hand.  In Maughams contribution (written at the age of 65) the author reflects on writing and his own career.  It is available in the 1984 collection "A Traveller in Romance" (edited by John Whitehead).  The appreciations are excerpts from highly positive reviews of Maughams works.  The bibliography is bare-bones, and lists first editions of his works of fiction and non-fiction by title, date, and publisher.  The list of Maughams stories is even less useful; it indicates the collection where each was reprinted, with no mention of the original dates or sites of publication.  Given that Maughams essay has appeared elsewhere, contents of this work are of little value.  The bibliography and list of short stories have long since been superseded by works of professional quality.
2420465
I received this book from BookLook Bloggers to read and review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 55.
1791459
Finding "good" authors and reading their work goes a long way toward keeping this old boy informed. Choosing authors is as important as choosing good friends.