<< 1 >>
Rating: Summary: DREADFUL Review: For the first few pages of this book, I was prepared to enjoy a brief recent history with the occasional jab at the sport, much like the far-more-entertaining "WrestleCrap". However, by the time I had finished the first two chapters, I began to see that the writer of this book (I'd rather not call him an "author" if I can avoid it) was not only lacking insight, but was merely spewing his own opinions in lieu of actual facts or knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I know this book is simply a "fan's point of view," but why did it have to be THIS fan? not only does he rip on Mick Foley for "guiding the fall" off the steel cage in his unbelievable 15-foot drop, but he then goes on to cry about Owen Hart's inability to guide his own drop when he fell to his death. Basically, this writer has got to be one of the following three guys: 1. The loudest guy at the party who has one too many Hard Lemonade's and won't shut up about how much better the WWE would be if HE were in charge.. 2. The bloated salt-sucking machine who sits behind his computer all day, drinking his weight in Caffeine-Free Diet Coke and wondering why nobody else in the office wants to go out to Chili's with him at lunch time. Or 3. The most obnoxious member of a group of pimple-faced wrestling fans who all use WWE catch phrases in their everyday lives, who is constantly hounded by his friends to enter the Literary world with phrases like. "Dude, you know EVERYTHING. You should write a book. That'd be killer. If ya smell what the Rock is cooking.." Whatever the case, the book is a testament to the power of editing, as this sweaty buffoon begins to buy into his own supposed brilliance, spitting out stale jokes like corn chip crumbs and calling major stars childish names, clearly out of "I-could-do-this-better-than-him" jealousy. With nobody to tell him he's not funny, he has to assume he is, and the book eventually becomes a bad stand-up routine that leaves us all wondering why this guy didn't surround himself with more honest friends. I've read a few books on wrestling, and this one was increasingly horrible as it continued. After reading "WrestleCrap" and Sex, Lies and Headlocks", this was more like a mother-requested phone call with a mentally challenged cousin that I was too polite to hang up on. Don't buy this book. Contact me and I'll send you my copy of it. Just please pardon the booger on page 112. I didn't want to ruin a good Kleenex.
Rating: Summary: Great read...albeit a little short. Review: I have always enjoyed Scott Keith's rants on WWE's shows on the internet so I figured I'd pick this up. This is an excellent read and I liked it enough to read it again. I read a review that said this book would be for new fans only. I wouldn't completely agree with that. I've been a wrestling fan for 23 years and while granted the chapter covering 1963-1993 is brief, it gives a decent overview of what was going on. And I agree on Scott's opinion that it would be best to skip the 1980's anyway because the late 90's was a much more exciting period. The paragraphs in shaded grey in the book gives you information that most wrestling fans (except the diehards) wouldn't have known. Scott has his share of match rants in here, but not to the point where it overshadows the content. Chapters 2 though 5 are fantastic as it gives an excellent view of how exciting the WWE was becoming with the rise of Steve Austin, Rock and HHH. The book loses some steam in the last chapter but I think that's because the WWF was losing steam as well at this time. I'd love for Mr. Keith to write about a book about the rise and fall of WCW next since that would be even more interesting read than the WWF (e). All in all a great book that both casual and dedicated wrestling fans will enjoy.
Rating: Summary: A brilliant story Review: Normally, I like Scott Keith's writing fairly well, but that's usually in short doses when he recaps various shows and videos. The problem is, his schtick kinda wears really thin over the course of a full-length book. There's only so many times in a book someone can write about how they don't like this person or they don't like this idea without it getting pretty repetitive. And what makes it worse is that Ketih is pretty unoriginal with his jabs at Triple H, Vince McMahon, etc. often repeating the same things several times. Not that he doesn't have valid points, but they lose their impact when he spends the majority of the pages saying some combination of the same things. There are moments of real insight and you tell Keith is really interested when he talks about some angles in such detail that he spends two or three pages on one or two months worth of shows. But, in contrast, sometimes he sums up half a year in the same amount of space as well. Like I said, I normally like Scott Keith and his rant-style, but it just kinda gets old after a hundred or so pages. I guess that's why I'm dissapointed with the book, because I'm a wrestling fan, but Keith, whether he meant to or not, geared this book to the "marks" and the less knowledgeable of wrestling's history and backstage politics. I'll keep reading his Smark rants, but when I want long form wrestling writing, I'll stick with Chris Hyatte.
Rating: Summary: Good for casual wrestling fans, weak for the hardcore ones Review: Normally, I like Scott Keith's writing fairly well, but that's usually in short doses when he recaps various shows and videos. The problem is, his schtick kinda wears really thin over the course of a full-length book. There's only so many times in a book someone can write about how they don't like this person or they don't like this idea without it getting pretty repetitive. And what makes it worse is that Ketih is pretty unoriginal with his jabs at Triple H, Vince McMahon, etc. often repeating the same things several times. Not that he doesn't have valid points, but they lose their impact when he spends the majority of the pages saying some combination of the same things. There are moments of real insight and you tell Keith is really interested when he talks about some angles in such detail that he spends two or three pages on one or two months worth of shows. But, in contrast, sometimes he sums up half a year in the same amount of space as well. Like I said, I normally like Scott Keith and his rant-style, but it just kinda gets old after a hundred or so pages. I guess that's why I'm dissapointed with the book, because I'm a wrestling fan, but Keith, whether he meant to or not, geared this book to the "marks" and the less knowledgeable of wrestling's history and backstage politics. I'll keep reading his Smark rants, but when I want long form wrestling writing, I'll stick with Chris Hyatte.
Rating: Summary: A hateful essay masquerading as "History" Review: On page 98, Scott Keith tells you almost all you need to know about his perspective--he "can truly say he [hates]" both Vince McMahon and former WWF booker Vince Russo for "killing" Owen Hart, Keith's favorite wrestler, who in fact died in a tragic accident. Keith's hatred for McMahon, the WWF, and a strange, unprofessional Canadian bias destroys his credibility as a chronicler of wrestling history. And despite the sub-title, this is not a "history of professional wrestling". Instead, it's one man's editorialized version of very recent WWF history. It's a shameful lie, and anyone expecting a serious consideration of Ric Flair's career, the steroid scandal, the Hulk Hogan era, etc., should look elsewhere. Instead, you get a curious treatment of the WWF, which became an entertainment force (again) in the late 20th century. But Keith spends more time applauding Bret Hart (surprise! Owen's brother AND a Canadian), who in fact was "on top" of the WWF during its deep skid, then he does explaining Steve Austin or the Rock's celebrity. (You'll close the book unaware that the phenomenon of both men far eclipsed Bret Hart or any other WWF star.) Likewise, Keith offers that certain (Canadian) wrestlers were held back by the WWF, but fails to prove it other than by simply saying so, and he also misses opportunities to explain the differences in how, say, Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit were "created", or what benefit Shawn Michaels "received" that Chris Jericho has been denied. Without that explanation, Keith's rants and mocking (and he's negative on every page) ring hollow. Included in the text are also several "reviews" of wrestling matches over the years, but they suffer from being written apparently years ago in some cases and without the perspective of hindsight and any effort to frame them in the current text. (By contrast, the brief interludes included, which were written contemporaneously with the rest of the book, are much better.) Further, the reviews are just plain boring: if Keith wrote movie reviews they'd look like, "Tom Cruise says 'I want the truth!' and Jack Nicholson says 'You can't handle the truth'. 3 stars." Keith usually substitutes dull play-by-play for historical reflection and context. To his credit, Keith has written a page-turner. However, that's more a tribute to the fascinating WWF product of the period than his prose.
Rating: Summary: ****1/2 Review: Sung to the tune of: "The Brady Bunch"
I know a man...his name is Scooter...and I know that he has never touched a hooter...he's a fat, fat man...just like his daddy...he played with his test-i-cles...
Till the one day when Scooter met computer...and he knew, it was much more than a hunch....and he knew he must somehow write a novel...all while eating a carb and fat packed Scooter lunch!
SCOOTER'S LUNCH! SCOOTER'S LUNCH! THAT'S THE WAY, 2,000,000 CALORIES BECAME THE DAILY RECOMENDATION FOR SCOOTER'S LUNCH!
DA DAT DAH, DUNH DUNDA DA DUH DUH DUHDUH DUHN!
Rating: Summary: Funny but flawed Review: This book is funny, but there are way too many grammatical and factual errors. I find it amusing that a lot of the reviewers who didn't like this book seem to be upset about Keith's opinions. Hey, I don't agree with every word he says, but I appreciate the humor with which he writes. Keith's a passionate fan and he has an understanding of the long-term effects of various angles and matches - something the WWE lacks right now. He has an incredible knowledge of the product and a bunch of backstage stories. Even if some aren't true, they're definitely interesting. It's obvious he favors certain wrestlers and hates others, but he's always fair when it comes to the in-ring product. I do have problems with his writing style. If you've read his stuff online, you're probably familiar with his horrible grammar, but I thought the editors would clean that up for this book. Instead, there are numerous example where he screws up the difference between "who" and "whom," writes "it's" instead of "its," ends sentences with prepositions, writes "myself" and other reflexive pronouns in situations where he shouldn't, writes "whether or not," and throws in weird commas where they're not needed. He writes like he's in grade school - passive voice is everywhere. He also makes all kinds of errors about wrestling. Example - on page 21, he talks about how Bret Hart defeated Owen (actually Owen beat Bret) at WrestleMania X before going on to win the title. He misspells all kinds of names. There are references to Matt "Bourne," Mike "Rotuno," Debbie "Micelli" and her alter ego "Medusa." Often times, he can't make up his mind, so he'll use multiple spellings in the book. He writes "Badd Ass" Billy Gunn and "Bad Ass" Billy Gunn. Steve "MacMichael's" wife is Debra McMichael. Debbie "Micelli" is both "Medusa" and Madusa. Marlena is both Terri "Runnells" and Terri Runnels. Is it "Bubba" Ray Dudley or "Buh Buh" Ray Dudley? Keith uses both. These things are minor annoyances. I think the editors didn't do their job, but if you're reading this book, it's probably not a big deal. Keith has strong opinions about wrestling, and I think that makes his jokes even funnier. If you, like me, and unlike some of the other reviewers, can keep your mind open long enough to laugh along with Keith even when you don't agree with him, you'll get a kick out of this book.
Rating: Summary: Not much beyond match recaps Review: Todd Martin just wrote a comprehensive review on wrestlingobserver.com that absolutely destroys this book. That review is particularly informative as to the plethora of factual errors and unfounded rumors one finds in the book. I am a big fan of Scott Keith's work, but after two books, it has become immensely clear the former "Netcop" should confine himself to the net. The title itself is misleading, as several reviewers have pointed out. The book is not a "history" of pro wrestling, but a chronicle of the last five years. The "history" of the previous 30 years is little more than a rushed introduction. Arguably, Scott Keith isn't a "fan" either. He admitted that after Owen Hart's tragic death, it's immensely difficult for him to be entertained by the WWF/E anymore. I had two major problems with the book. Firstly, much of it is composed of material that can be obtained online for free .... While it may have made sense for Keith to include his "King Lear" and "Lazarus" rants, it was a huge mistake for him to include his match reviews of pay-per-view events, written when they had occurred. Since Keith simply pasted the reviews without editing them to fit the context of the book, they often seem out of place, confusing and at times, even contradictory to what he just wrote. They would refer to storylines and characters not mentioned in the book, and often Keith would speculate in a review about what would happen the next night on Raw (without informing the reader of what actually did occur). This was a double-edged sword. Readers who'd never read the reviews before would be confused, fans who did read the reviews when they were originally written would justifiably feel ripped off. The other major problem is that despite the title advertising this as a "history" book, not one of Keith's assertions is backed up by a citation. This is particularly troubling given the rather gruesome drug (and sex)-related allegations Keith makes about people such as Missy Hyatt, Tammy Sytch, Jimmy Snuka and a whole host others. It is virtually impossible for the reader to distinguish between documented fact and unfounded internet rumor. The really sad aspect of all this is that Shaun Assael (a writer for ESPN) came out with a book a year before this one detailing virtually the same time period in wrestling, Sex, Lies and Headlocks. Despite the fact that Keith has probably seen more wrestling in the past year than Assael has in his lifetime, the latter's book is clearly superior in terms of accuracy, writing style and research. I strongly recommend that book, especially if you want to learn about past WWF scandals such as the 1994 steroid trial. Tonight . . . In This Very Ring is not worth your money.
<< 1 >>
|