This book gets 3 gold stars because it truly tells the tale of the Only Club that Matters from Manchester(tm). It is truly worthy of the 3007 supporters that grace Maine Rd. to queue up for the Greenall's bitter on the Kippax Stand. The only problem you may have is with the shipping and handling charges because this book is MASSIVE - just like the pitch and the floodlights.

With this book Nicholas Blincoe cements his position to me as one of those authors whose books sound and look good and then fails to produce the good. Acid Casuals was a total waste of time, and this one is only marginally better. The story is mainly about Jake, a successful London casino manager in his mid-30s. One night, a police inspector from Manchester shows up and coerces him into returning to that city where as a teenager back in 1981 he lived a hedonistic drugs and gay sex life. It seems that back then, Jake's best friend was murdered, and just a few weeks ago, another friend from the past was found dead.

The story switches back and forth between Jake's present day (1997ish) trip back to Manchester to dig up the dirt, and flashbacks to the days of seedy gay discos and Bowie clones. Clearly, Blincoe is also trying to contrast the gritty old days of Manchester's gay Village with the posh fin-de-millenium redevelopment of the city. Unfortunately, this never really pops off the page to someone who's never been to Manchester. Blincoe is too interested in the flash and sizzle of the past to keep the contemporary story moving, although at the end, as he slowly reveals the crimes of the past and Jake's role in them, the book gets a bit more interesting. However, if you like this stuff, a book with a similar plot, set in San Francisco's gay community in the early '90s, is Agnes Bushell's The Enumerator.

For those of us interested in what goes on behind the scenes, this is an interesting read about an English fingerprint expert and some of the crimes he investigated. The crimes are mostly murder, but also include robbery, rape and kidnapping.

The book includes plenty of human interest as well as technical details.

I had this textbook for one of my fourth year undergrad courses. It seemed that Hook & Hall know what they are talking about, but they certainly couldn't explain it to me. Perhaps this text may be useful for graduate studies or as a reference, but I could not recommend it for an introductory course to solid state physics.

When Professor Hall lectured Solid State Physics on an undergraduate course at Manchester he deviated from the approach taken in the book, which surprised me somewhat. I'll come back to this later.

The book is very sound if somewhat idiosyncratic. In particular, I found that Hook and Hall used explanatory devices quite different to those followed by my other lecturers, and by most other textbooks. This could be a good or a bad thing, depending on your mental aptitude and/or fondness for their exposition.

I suspect the reason Hall used a different approach in lectures was to tie in with the way we learnt related subject material at Manchester (solid state being just one of three or four compulsory 2nd year courses dealing with atomic and sub-atomic matter).

This is not to say that anything in the book is misleading. It's very well-written and comprehensive, and if this is a subject that you want to learn more about than you can in general texts, I can recommend it as it helped me on several occasions. Perhaps spend half an hour with it in the library or bookshop before buying.

I could not find a better text on solid state at this level when I took my degree in 1995 (IIRC the first edition of Hook-Hall was 1970's, the second early 90's), but that situation may have changed by now.

Make no mistake, William Manchester (1922-), who knew John F. Kennedy personally, can be a great writer at times. His two-volume biography of Winston Churchill (sadly, never to be completed now that Manchester is aging and ill) is superb, and so is "The Glory and the Dream", his history of the World War Two "G.I." generation from 1932-1972. However, when it comes to the Kennedys, Manchester's tendency to hero-worship simply overwhelms him, and has led to plenty of criticism and controversy over the years. In my opinion, "One Brief Shining Moment" is easily one of the most biased pro-Kennedy books that has ever been written, and is an embarrassment to Manchester's otherwise brilliant career. Manchester doesn't just praise John F. Kennedy is this book, he almost fawns over him, and it's obvious that he sees JFK as a modern King Arthur presiding over a (White House) Camelot. His chapter titles for this book tell it all - "There Thou Layest" is his final chapter in which he specifically links JFK to the Arthurian legends, and indulges in plenty of purple prose. As in his other Kennedy books, Manchester loathes Lyndon Johnson, and in this work he more clearly links LBJ with Mordred - Arthur's (JFK's) great enemy and the villain of the Camelot (Kennedy) legend - than in his previous books. In Manchester's prose Lyndon Johnson is little more than a redneck boor, a country hick whose crude habits, such as deer hunting, "horrified" the urbane, elegant, and intellectual JFK. In Manchester's view Lyndon Johnson was the "anti-Kennedy" - this despite the view held by many modern (and far more objective) historians that it was LBJ, and not JFK, who was the critical force behind the great Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation passed in the mid-sixties. This book repeats virtually every legend and myth about JFK as fact - the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 wasn't really JFK's fault, but the CIA's, President Eisenhower's, etc. Kennedy's womanizing wasn't anything that his predecessors (and successors) haven't done, so what's the big deal? And, of course, if Kennedy had only lived then none of the major problems and headaches of the mid-to-late sixties would ever have happened. According to Manchester, JFK would "definitely" have pulled out of South Vietnam - hence no Vietnam War, no dead American troops, no antiwar riots on college campuses, etc. If Kennedy had only lived the terrible race riots of the sixties would never have occurred, because blacks somehow "trusted" Kennedy more than they did Johnson, and would therefore have listened to JFK's urgings not to riot in the streets. Young adults would never have created a generation gap ("don't trust anyone over thirty"), because JFK was a young, "hip" guy like they were, and so they wouldn't have created a counterculture or become hippies. Of course, Manchester offers virtually no evidence to back up these claims - he simply presents them as "facts" that are accepted by everyone. In Manchester's rosy view, Kennedy was virtually perfect, with almost no flaws or weaknesses (and those few that exist only "prove his humanity"). If you still believe in the Camelot legends of JFK's Presidency and still have a romantic view of the man and his era, then you'll LOVE this book, as it takes the JFK legend and runs wild with it. But, if you're looking for a more balanced and objective work about JFK, then this is probably one of the last books you'd want to read. "One Brief Shining Moment" is simply the most biased "pro-Kennedy" book I've ever read. If you do choose to read this book, then I would recommend that you also read several other, more balanced Kennedy books. Among the best are Richard Reeve's "President Kennedy: Profile of Power", Herbert Parmet's "Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy", and Robert Dallek's "An Unfinished Life".

Make no mistake, William Manchester (1922-), who knew John F. Kennedy personally, can be a great writer at times. His two-volume biography of Winston Churchill (sadly, never to be completed now that Manchester is aging and ill) is superb, and so is "The Glory and the Dream", his history of the GI generation from 1932-1972. But when it comes to the Kennedys, Manchester's objectivity and tendency to hero-worship simply fails him, and has led to plenty of criticism and controversy over the years. In my opinion, "One Brief Shining Moment" is easily one of the worst books ever written about President Kennedy, and is an embarrassment to Manchester's otherwise brilliant career. Manchester doesn't just praise JFK in this book, he almost fawns over him, and it's obvious that he sees JFK as a modern King Arthur presiding over a (White House) Camelot. His chapter titles for this book tell it all - "There thou layest" is his final chapter in which he specifically links Kennedy to the Arthurian legends, and indulges in plenty of purple prose. As in his other Kennedy books, Manchester loathes Lyndon Johnson, and in this work he more clearly links LBJ with Mordred - Arthur's (JFK's) great enemy and the villain of the Camelot (Kennedy) legend - than in his previous Kennedy books. In Manchester's prose, LBJ is little more than a redneck boor, a country hick whose crude habits, such as deer hunting, "horrified" the urbane, elegant, and intellectual JFK. In Manchester's view Lyndon Johnson was the "anti-Kennedy" - this despite the view held by many modern (and far more objective) historians that it was Johnson, and not JFK, who was the critical force behind the great Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation passed in the mid-sixties. This book repeats virtually every legend and myth about JFK as fact - that the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 wasn't really JFK's fault, but the CIA's, President Eisenhower's, etc. Kennedy's womanizing wasn't anything that his predecessors (and successors) haven't done, so what's the big deal? And, of course, if JFK had only lived none of the massive problems of the later sixties would have happened. According to Manchester, Kennedy would "definitely" have pulled out of Vietnam - hence no Vietnam War, no dead American soldiers or riots on college campuses, etc. If JFK had only lived the civil rights mess - such as the race riots in the mid-to-late sixties - would never have happened, as blacks somehow "trusted" JFK more than they did Lyndon Johnson, and would therefore have listened to JFK's urgings not to riot in the streets. Of course, Manchester offers virtually no evidence to support these claims - he simply writes them as if they were "facts" accepted by everyone. In Manchester's rosy view, Kennedy is simply perfect, with almost no flaws or warts (and those few that exist only "prove his humanity"). If you still believe the Camelot legends of John F. Kennedy's Presidency and still have a romantic view of the man, then you'll LOVE this book, as it takes the Camelot myth and runs wild with it. But if you're looking for a more balanced and fair-minded work about JFK, then this is probably the LAST book you'll want to read. I've read many books about the Kennedys - some favorable and some critical - but this book is easily the least objective and balanced pro-Kennedy account that I've ever read. If you do choose to read this book, I would suggest you then read several other, more balanced Kennedy books. Richard Reeve's "President Kennedy: Profile of Power" is excellent, as is Herbert Parmet's "Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy".

A portrait of one of the United States' greatest presidents is not only a study of the politics of his administration, but the human himself. This book goes on about his qualities and how he acts. The book outlines a lot about some of the events that took place while he was in office. And I, having not been alive during his rule, found it very boring. I have no idea about half the things they talk about in the book. That is why my opinion may be debatable as others may have more of a background concerning these events. This book was written before he was assassinated. "Portrait of a President" really outlines Kennedy and what he was like, every single detail. If you want to read up about past events, read this book. If you want to read about who he truly was, read this book. If you want to take a nap, read this book.