This book was a big disappointment. Using brain scanning imagery AMEN has deduced that there are six types of ADD. I find his taxonomy questionable, and while I don't object to anecdotal evidence to support medical views, Amen turns very slight differences in behavior into major types of diagnoses. The descriptions of the various types interweave to the point that the differences among them are very slight. Why six? Why not 60? Amen's selective perception seems to be pseudo-science and reductionist to me. The traits for the six types overlap, and one could easily fall into three or four of them. His suggestions regarding diet are laughable: he recommends a healthy well balanced diet as a component to "healing" ADD. Well, now isn't that the most innovative idea about improving one's health: a good diet?!?!?! The term in the title seems to be more marketing ploy than accurate empirical statement. I do recommend the book SCATTERED by Gabor Mate, a physician with ADD. That book is far more informed, holistic, thoughtful, incisive. It is also very well written. The style and methodology of Amen's book makes the DSM-IV seem as though it were written by God him/herself.

I cannot add much more praise than what has been said about this film, but I would advise film students, film instructors, and screenplay writers and teachers to study this film and add a proviso to their pedagogy that great filmmaking cannot BE TAUGHT. Imagine how many film schools, film students, and books on filmmaking and screenplays have been churned out since the nearly two decades that this film was produced, and ask yourself the question, why don't films today measure up the quiet brilliance of this fabulous work. The answer is plain. Inspired filmmaking, directing, acting, and genuine love for the medium and the audience cannot be taught or bought. Take my simple test: read and study Robert Mckee, Syd Field, etc., go get your M.F.A. in filmmaking and go out and make your film. If it's even close to the quality of this film, I'll eat my DVD player. Like a rock music addict's ears that have been damaged by loud music and can't distinguish the nuances of sound, our post-millenium sensibilities have numbed us to the nature of cinematic, albiet commercial art. To paraphrase Alan Paton, "Cry the Beloved Medium."

Kay Jamison had bipolar (manic-depression) with psychotic manifestations. But although the book is interesting as any well-written book about mental illness is,this book is deceptive and at one point even dangerous in what it profers. First, Jamison had the fortune of living among some of the leading experts in bipolar disorder; she comes from an affluent, professional, educated family and had every conceivable benefit in terms of health care access, understanding and professional friends and colleagues, who were no doubt helpful to her (a luxury that many people with mental illness are not so lucky to possess). So to read this as a case study in the illness is quite erroneous. But what I found much worse, perhaps unforgiveable, is that after peppering her narrative with accounts of people who are/were bipolar and who have committed suicide or have attempted to commit suicide, and then, having the poor judgment of saying that even if she had the choice of living through her disorder or never having it to begin with, she would choose the former since it opened up dimensions of experience that made her life much richer and fuller is downright irresponsible and just plain stupid. To offer this reflection, even if it is from a personal perspective, is asinine. Does that mean that certain readers of this book who suffer through the disorder will follow suit and somehow rationalize that bipolar disorder is ultimately worth it? What about those who decide to adopt this position and then commit suicide when they are in a less lucid state? If the author thinks such radical changes of consciousness are a gift, maybe she ought to get a more interesting life, or just recommend that everyone drop acid to enliven their life experience. In short, this book is seems to be written by a spoiled, articulate rich kid with a huge social and professional safety net. No wonder we have such a fractured mental health system.

In an age when M.B.A. programs compete for students over the airways and in the newspapers, and promise degrees on weekends, when parents are training their infants for Harvard, it is welcome to find a book that deals with the serendipities of life, the ironies, the contradictions and illusions we place on ourselves to present a face to the world that we know just who we are and where we are going. America, the externally optimistic country has a "shadow," and to not admit it exists is to escape the nature of being human. In this book, we encounter men and women who thought they knew who they were, had dreams they thought were authentic, but found out through experience that their true natures lay elsewhere. This is a great book for anyone who believes one must always feel centered, focused and targeted toward goals that are encouraged by our culture, but has had at one time or another a knawing sense that what the world sees is not what you are feeling. In its conversational, authentic style, Po has managed to reveal the substance of our doubts and shows us that for true growth to occur, sometimes we must go through periods of confusion. I'm sure there are some people who have a straight-arrow focus on their goals and objectives, but for most of our confused and confusing society, the many and varied stories in this book will be a friend and make you feel like part of a much larger community than we are willing to admit.

While reading this book, I had the feeling that the author was making his observations from the perspective of an overgrown teenager, home from school around 3 pm and making puerile rants at the (...) tube, while downing a coke and potato chips. The author, who has said elsewhere that TV has become "our ground of being," borrowing Paul Tillich's phrase, doesn't seem to acknowledge or understand that most American adults work hard for a living and really don't invest a lot of mental effort in watching TV. They're actually busy with making dinner, dealing with their kids, paying the bills, downing a couple of cool ones, and getting up in the morning to do it over again. This is not to disparage the hard working American, but rather to suggest that most people really don't take TV all that seriously, or even pay it much attention. Just because the TV is on, doesn't mean people are watching it, or at least watching it critically. They have more basic needs to attend to. From 1980 to 2002, the time on the job (any job) has increased by about ten hours a week. I don't think information or pseudo information gets through to a culture that is so sleep-deprived. (...) Additionally, Gitlin takes his subject matter entirely too seriously. I mean understanding media was pretty much covered by McLuhan, and, just as A. Whitehead said that all philosophy was a footnote to Plato, one could say the same for McLuhan in relationship to his progenitors. Additionally, Gitlin's perspective's really couldn't be that profound since he seems to be called upon by the media as the academic in residence for news shows. I think it may be time for some producers to cull their rolodexes (or is that palm pilots?) I started this book, believing I would be at least somewhat intellectually challenged, but in the end, the sentences sort of just rolled over me like a syndicated drama series rerun.

Although this book was written in 1986, it's still the best book of its type I've come across. It's pithy, focused, articulate, and smart, and devoid of the "academic gobbly-gook, turgid, quasi-illuminating, look how smart I am" school of scholarship. It's actually very well-written. If anything, Postman demonstrates that there are some social commentators who actually have a mastery of good English prose. Such talents were once considered important, say, in the way the oratory of Lincoln was or the satire of Mencken was or the smoothness of Orwell's style. Thus, in a sense, Postman's ideas are excellent, but what clinches his work for me is that he demonstrates that the written word really can thrive and convey meaning elegantly if we paid more attention. Unfortunately I think we're losing it to just the force Postman is suggesting: the mass media. Postman shows us that you can't write about society with elegance and intelligence just because you think a lot or think you know a lot. You should also brush up on your Shakespeare. Addendum! April 8 2004. Who would have thunk it? First pages of newspapers around the U.S. have reported a new study that powerfully links loss of attention span among infants in proportion to the amount of TV they watch.

This is a competently, straight-forwardly written book by a high-level Presidential insider. It is remarkable to read all the one-star reviews here that aver that Mr. Clarke is either a) all wrong or b) has a secret agenda. Unless these reviews were written by Condi Rice or Dick Cheney, it's rather incredulous to believe one could have such insider knowledge of the inner workings of the executive office to accuse Clarke of being an equivocator. Perhaps, some of these one-star reviewers would provide their C.V's so we can honor their forthright and expert responses to the issues and events mentioned by Mr. Clarke, which have been have been corroborated under oath by numerous members of the executive intelligence community.

Think about it. If you browse through Borders or Barnes & Nobles (the real live stores) not their websites, you can tell what sort of books are popular and which are not. If you need a book to tell you what types of books people are looking for, you probably don't know much about a) American culture, b) the media, c) the daily concerns of most people, d) the buying habits of most people. Do you REALLY need a book to tell you that a book about making money in antiques would probably sell better than a book on the history of the Crimean War? Do you really need a book to tell you to be sure to do your research when developing a book proposal to make sure there aren't a whole bunch of books on your subject that are probably at least as good as yours? Do you really need a book to tell you that to write a book you should know how to write? Well, if you don't know these things, by all means buy this book, but if you are of at least average intelligence and curiosity, you should re-title this tome, "Damn, why did I buy this book." There is a good book on the market, "How to Think Like Your Editor" which is a lot better. And I have no financial stake in it. However, it is written with intelligence and savvy and without the pie in the sky idea that it's easy to write a widely selling book. Think of it this way: if you saw a book entitled, "Damn, why didn't I write that highly rated TV show?" and bought it thinking you were on your way to another hit like The Simpsons or Seinfeld, do you really think a book could give you the answers? If it did, it would be a national best seller. Let me ask you another question before buying this book. Is THIS book a national best seller? If not, why not? Because you can't learn these things from a book.

If you want to read a novel written in masterful, melodic prose with exquisite character development, an intriguing and beguiling plot structure, and a work of profound substance and meaning, read this book. It is a true work of art. Read it, then read any contemporary American novel, read any winner of the National Book Awards, Pulitzer Prizes, etc., and see the dearth of talent that exists among even our most "distinguished" prose stylists. Read it aloud and hear how a master of the English language can construct a narrative that is as perfect to the ear as a piece of classical music.

I don't know how much you can learn about being a good writer from a book. I have read about 100 books on writing, but it wasn't until I listened to my inner voice that I started writing better and getting published. Another way to say it, perhaps a bit more metaphorically is that if you have to read a book on how to be a renegade lover, you're looking in the wrong place. So, if at least this book gets through to writers that you have to make your own sense out of the crazy world of writing, art, publishing, human motivation and desire and beauty,it's a step in the right direction. If you want to understand what good writing is though, you should read Shakespeare, The King James Bible, and all the great classic and modern writers, let it all sink in, then marinate your brain in the lusciousness of great language. Then go read what purports to be "good" writing nowadays, see how it's mostly junk, and avoid contributing to the junk pile. And if you can write good stuff that's worth publishing and worth the trees that have to be cut down to produce paper and all the computer crashes, you'll do fine.