I won't bore any or every one with a summary. If you want bored, then I suggest you read the book. However, there are a few things I want to say about it.

One. It is far too long. Faaaar too long! He could have shorten it to half, I'm sure, and still got the relevant pieces across. I bet they had come across even more actually, had it been shorter. For example, there are far too many shows described in detail for it to even be interesting, one or two set-lists and descriptions of the atmosphere and the bands drama would have been quite enough, for the important shows they did. I didn't need to know how their show in [pick an American city at random, and then repeat:] in 1987 went from beginning to end, how the audience seemed to feel, how much vodka Duff had had, how angry Axl got at something random, and so on.

Two. I read the book translated into Swedish (something I rarely do because it usually makes me annoyed, too many years of schooling..) so when it comes to language I can't REALLY say for sure whether the inconsistencies in the use of language and the poor proofreading is the work of the translator, or the author. I'm leaning towards the latter, because I can usually tell if a text is poorly translated from English to Swedish. Either way, it feels like he's changing writing styles every now and then, or rather, trying to change writing styles. You can tell, though, that he's a journalist, the whole thing reads as a long article. And, please proofread! It's embarrassing as a reader to have something presented as new information when you clearly remember reading it 50 pages earlier..

Three. If you're not very interested in the early eighties punk and metal scene in L.A. or the band itself or, say, the falling apart of a famous band and its members, then I would recommend you read another book.

Four. I really liked Guns N' Roses when I was in my teens, which is why I picked this book up to begin with. Though I've always been more for listening to and learning about musicians' work, i.e. the music, than knowing about them, so I didn't really know that much about the members of the band, or about the extensive coverage of them in the American press. But if what Stephen Davis writes about them is true, which I suspect, at least to some extent, I'm glad I didn't know. It's amazing how a bunch of sexist drunks and heroin-addicts with emotional and psychological problems teamed with a violent psychotic control-freak can create great music. But then, maybe that's just the way it works. What do I know, I'm just normal.