Narrator and audio quality is fine.
Stories are not Stephen Kings best work. Boring, silly, and unimaginative at best.
I did learn quite a bit from this book, but after trying to apply what I had learned I had zero success. For 3 months I went around flirting with women and asking for dates. I ended up with zero dates, but I did successfully alienate several friends and can no longer eat at some of my favorite restaurants. Clearly I am doing something wrong, but the answer to what that might be, is not explained in the book. I know these techniques can work, because I talked at length with a friend about what I had learned and he gets dates all the time using the advice I gave him. I felt disappointed that the author states that it doesn't matter what you say, it's how you say it. Sure, that's great and all, but I would have liked some basic conversation starters that I could start with or fall back on when my mind goes blank. Eventually I gave up and am back to where I started before reading the book, only with fewer friends. I'd also like to point out that the author goes on about how long he's been using the techniques and how much "success" he's had. Well, all that success and at the time of the writing of the book, he is not married nor has a steady girlfriend. Maybe that's not what he wants, but it's what I would like to have. I'm not going to go as far as saying this book is worthless, but I'm 38 years old now and it's looking like I'm going to be single forever and die alone. This book did give me some insight into how women think, but didn't get me any closer to a relationship with an actual woman. I learned that I was never particularly afraid of rejection, but rather afraid of making women feel uncomfortable. If you want to make women feel uncomfortable, by all means follow this man's advice, you will be very successful.
It's always great to have an audiobook read by it's author, however the sound quality was fairly poor. During several chapters there is an annoying hissing noise, and several times the author's cell phone receives texts. Also, the author occasionally mispronounces words that he allegedly wrote, that seemed odd.
One of the most compelling books I have ever read. John Keel investigates the UFO phenomenon from an objective standpoint and discovers that the truth is far more bizarre than the bogus stories the standard UFOlogists can dream up.
The title is somewhat misleading as the book is not about mothman, though he is mentioned. It is also true that the book is nothing like the cheap garbage movie that bears the same name. The producers of that movie merely bought the name so the could produce some trash and make a quick buck.
I would also like to address those reviewers that feel the book is a bunch of disconnected stories. You obviously missed the point entirely and Mr. Keel explains his point in detail in the first few chapters. The point is the common connection between the stories. The point is that all sorts of other weird things happen in the same places and at the same times that UFO sightings are recorded. All of these things must therefore be part of the same phenomenon.
If you have on open mind and the ability to read a story objectively without forming a "belief", prepare to be glued to your earphones for 9 hours.
Narrator's reading and Audio quality are very good.
Book is excellent, perhaps Stephen Kings greatest work.
My only complaints are knit picky. The book describes the game Roque as the predecessor of Croquet, but from what I have been able to deduce the opposite is true. Roque is an Americanized version of Crouqet, not the other way around.
I felt the hedge animal thing was a bit of a stretch and found my suspension of disbelief not able to quite make it that far.
Other than that, this book has everything you might want from a novel. I was unable to put it down and wasted the better part of two days.
Movie as producers and screen writers tend to destroy anything they touch and the original intent and artistic flare of a book are generally lost. Sometimes the story is completely departed from altogether. I do not find that to be true in this case. In fact, I found the movies were far more artistic and even, at times, much more descriptive than the book. Pachino, for example, can say more with just a look than Puzo can in an entire chapter of text.
The book reads like a stenographer's account of a trial. Puzo's descriptions of characters are thin and had I not seen the movies beforehand, I would have had a lot of trouble picturing the characters in my mind. Also, he seems to use the same adjectives over and over. Words like "curt", "cold" and "soar", are repeated ad nauseum. It would seem that Puzo's vocabulary is even simpler than my own. The only things described in detail are the sex scenes, these remind me of a cheap romance novel. Much like the paperbacks my grandmother used to read. I am no prude, but I found them to be somewhat crass and unnecessary.
The most striking difference between the movies and the book is the Kay Adams character. She is portrayed in the movie as a naive and annoying ninny. In the book, she comes off as a much more likeable character, intelligent, loving and loyal to Michael and his family. Her relationship with Michael in the book makes a great deal more sense.
There are several long chapters in the book solely devoted to the Johnny Fontane character. These chapters seem to be a complete tangent and irrelevant to the rest of the story. This portion was, quite wisely, removed from the movies.
Did Puzo even hire an editor for this book? It seems like any decent editor would have taken care of the shallow vocabulary and tangential story lines.
Report Inappropriate Content