The author had an extended interview (over one hour long!) on CSPAN Book-TV about this book. (It's available online.) He was very clear and informativ...moreThe author had an extended interview (over one hour long!) on CSPAN Book-TV about this book. (It's available online.) He was very clear and informative in the interview. Michael Lewis is very clear and informative in his explanations. The only drawback to this book is that it is so much about what is happening on Wall Street during the first quarter of 2014, and so little about anything else. Five years from now it will be like reading a 5-year-old newspaper, as opposed to reading today's newspaper.
Recommended for anyone who has an interest in economics and/or Wall Street.(less)
It was very interesting to read Nash's view on his life in the 1960s and 1970s. He was well-connected as a contributing member of the muscial scene of...moreIt was very interesting to read Nash's view on his life in the 1960s and 1970s. He was well-connected as a contributing member of the muscial scene of those times. The memoir includes gems like this one: p. 99: "In December, I went out one night to Blaises, in the West end of London, to see a kid from America whom Linda Keith told me about: Jimi Hendrix. I sat directly behind John, Paul, and George. " WOW!
The post-1975 portion of the book is mainly about the health of David Crosby. After spending pages describing how they continued to record music even while Crosby was freebasing cocaine, Nash will dedicate a sentence or two to: "then my son was born" or "I took a roll of photographs". I would have been interested in reading more about Nash and less about Crosby in the post-1975 years.
I read this when it first came out. It is a very moving book that (1) re-asserts the legitimacy and sanctity of her 10-year marriage and (2) exposes t...moreI read this when it first came out. It is a very moving book that (1) re-asserts the legitimacy and sanctity of her 10-year marriage and (2) exposes the dishonesty of the Catholic Church in annulling such a marriage.
What Sheila Rauch Kennedy did in this book was to interview dozens of Catholic women whose husband left marriages of long durations (years, decades). Most of these women had several children with their husband. The husband was pursuing annulment in order to marry again in the Catholic church, often (like in Sheila Rauch Kennedy's case) to marry the "other woman" who broke up the marriage. One fact that upset Sheila Rauch Kennedy was that the wife's testimony and experience were not considered in determining whether or not the marriage could have a Catholic annulment. If the erring husband says: the marriage was never a true, Catholic marriage, then that was enough.
The Catholic Church, predictably, was upset with Sheila Rauch Kennedy bringing attention to the practice in America of permitting a man who abandons his wife and children to remarry with the full approval and sanctity of the church.
Catholic annulments are a way of legitimizing divorce by calling it something else. Sheila Rauch Kennedy was right to call attention to what the American Catholic Church was doing.
Update: On June 21, 2007, the Boston Globe reports that Sheila Rauch Kennedy has won a decade-old appeal to the Vatican to reverse the decision that voided their 12-year marriage in the eyes of the church. She is quoted as saying: "I had help from outside of the Archdiocese. Otherwise I wouldn't have known about appealing to Rome and how to do it. I feel for the people who don't get help."(less)