No comments about Night+Day Los Angeles (Pulse Guides Cool Cities Series).

No comments about California Sights and Scenes of Los Angeles (California Sights and Scenes of Series.).

1 comments about Los Angeles Complete Residents' Guide.

1. Moved to LA in 2007 and I wish this had been published before we arrived. Highly valuable resource that explains the domestics of living in the USA/CA/LA. Describes all the neighborhoods, shopping, utilities, things to do etc, but much more pragmatic than the tourist-biased guides... in fact I'd recommend this book over Lonely Planet/Rough Guide if you want to get a better feel for the place.
   There is still a lot of detail missing - but that's what we have the web for - and I hope they are able to update this book every year or so.
   Definitely buy if you're moving to LA from outside California, but is pretty good reference for anyone.

2 comments about Stairway Walks in Los Angeles.

1. A great way to learn and see unusual neighborhoods in Los Angeles. I have done about 12 of the 18 walks and it has opened my eyes to the city while getting plenty of exercise. Some of the staircases have approximately 300 steps. I can highly recommend this book for its charming commentary on old neighborhoods as well as the interesting walking routes.



2. far away from the movies and the industry, are the people and the houses that populated the city. If you really want to see Los Angeles, get this book and try all the walks

5 comments about Los Angeles: People, Places, and the Castle on the Hill.

1. This book offers an outsider's perspective on the city of Los Angeles, and all the things that make "LA" what it has come to represent culturally and geographically to the rest of the country. The interviews provided insight into the fabric of the city and introduced us to a variety of memorable personalities. I enjoyed looking at LA the way a novelist would approach a character in a story --> what makes the city tick?



2. I am a huge fan of Homes' fiction and it's really nice to see her branch out--what I like about this book is that it has some of the same characteristics as her novels and stories, a really unique point of view, and the people she selected to intervew are smart, interesting and end up telling the reader a lot not just
   about LA, but about human behavior and the need to need to be seen/noticed.



3. Don't waste your time and money on this piece of excrement. Ms. Homes HATES L.A. and lets the reader know it all the time. She knows nothing of the history of Chateau Marmont. She also has an ego so huge it wouldn't fit into Arrowhead Pond. No dear, it's not REALLY a pond! The writer refers to herself more than once as an "intellectual from the East." Usually when someone speaks so highly of themselves it's frequently because no one else does. Ms. Homes is like the one irritating girl in class that knows EVERYTHING and lets you know she knows everything all the time. If you want to read a truly splendid book about the Chateau Marmont pick up "Life at the Marmont" and don't waste any time and money on this one. My copy will be on the garbage truck in the morning. If I could have chosen NO STARS I would. A.M. Homes you are a disgrace.



4. but it ain't no great shakes either. OK, Homes doesn't like LA, and for the same reasons many don't. But she's the novelist, and she's the one who got asked to write the book, OK? That's no reason not to like it. What's far more revealing, though, is that Homes apparently had no idea of where to go in this book or how to organize it, so she just kind of jumps all over the place, even going to a first-person interview format in places, which is pretty disjointing to the reader. The other thing is that, upon reading this, you understand that Homes is nearly as neurotic (some would merely say nuts) as a lot of the characters in her books. Her abberations and just plain weirdness are right out there, and, unfortunately, they're nothing to be boastful of.
   She talks about the hotel as if it's a sacred place, when all it is is another exorbitantly overpriced LA hotel that has a tad more charm than some others.
   AM, stick to fiction. And maybe some therapy?



5. A.M. Homes is an otherwise respected fiction novelist, and National Geographic magazine asked her to particpate in a series of non-fiction books, each one being an author's take on a particular city around the world. Ms. Homes requested Los Angeles.
   
   In all fairness, I have not read the other books in the series (there are about 20 or so). But "Los Angeles: People, Places, and the Castle on the Hill" is a thin book (175 pages, in a small format) and is thinly written. It smacks of something written because the author had already accepted an advance and furthermore, was living high on the hog in the lavishly expensive Chateau Marmont hotel, so she had to produce SOMETHING. This is a pretty poor excuse for SOMETHING.
   
   Ms. Homes has relied pretty heavily on the far better book about the Chateau, "Life at the Marmont", although she does not credit that book. (She does manage to...errr...capture numerous stories and quotes directly from it.) Although the Marmont is an interesting hotel, steeped in Hollywood history, A.M. Homes has nothing very interesting to say about it except how utterly comfy she was staying there....imagine how truly dull it would be to read about someone's vacation, and have the entire story be about the Holiday Inn or Ramada that they stayed in. Now just adjust the daily room rate upwards by about 10 times.
   
   Bored and disinterested in LA (making the reader puzzled as to why she chose it as a subject), Ms. Homes narrative wanders and stumbles. At leat a dozen pages are devoted to why the author doesn't like flying...how choosy she is about what hotels she is willing to stay at (she often picks up and leaves if the "ambience" isn't just perfect) and so on. None of this is remotely related to the topic of Los Angeles.
   
   Apparently unwilling to leave the comforts of the secluded Chateau Marmont, most of the book is contained in five genuinely dull first person interviews: one with a Beverly Hills mailman, another with a Beverly Hills mohel (rabbi who performs ritual circumsision), etc. For Ms. Homes, there is apparently no Los Angeles that exists outside of a few very well known zip codes, immediately adjacent to (yes, again) the fabulous Chateau Marmont.
   
   If attempting to be a travelogue or a snapshot of an interesting and unique US city, this book is an embarassing failure. If I were the editor at the National Geographic, I would be pretty ashamed of handing this author cart blanche to laze around the pool, ordering room service and then turning out this kind of drivel.
   
   In conclusion: thin, boring fluff. And how can I get the National Geographic to underwrite my next vacation????

No comments about Los Angeles: A Pictorial Celebration.

No comments about Los Angeles County 2004 (Mccormack's Guides. Los Angeles County).

No comments about A Kid's Guide to Southern California (Gulliver Travels).

No comments about Disney Years Seen Through a Photographer's Lens.

5 comments about The Underground Guide to Los Angeles (Travel Guide).

1. When one hears the word "underground", one usually thinks you are going to get the inside scoop on something or get the unusual, strange or non-ordinary. This book is anything BUT those qualilties.

   This LA guide gives you the same ol' sites to see that any other tourist book would....Mann's Chinese Theatre, Universal Studios, Hollywood Walk of Fame. You might get a good reccomendation on where to eat, but that is about it. Nothing too underground about this book.

   However, for a tourist book it really isnt bad. Pick it up. Just dont go in with the pre-conceived notion that you are picking up something unusual. it is as good as any other tourist book of L.A.




2. While this book does include some LA basic tourist stuff, it also includes tons of record stores, thrift shops, strange history places, and Bukowski's grave site. Great dive bar recommendations and cheap eats, too. The chapter written by LA scenester Vaginal Davis is the funniest thing I've ever read in any guidebook anywhere and is itself worth the price of this book... a fun book for visitors and residents alike - loved it!



3. Whether one loves or hates Los Angeles, most people agree that it's an interesting place. The remarkable achievement of this book is that it makes L.A. sound boring.

   The book consists of chapters written by different authors, all of whom consider themselves to be knowledgeable insiders but who are generally clueless.

   There are a lot of good insider guides available for L.A. This is not one of them.




4. This book is a good idea, but even the standard Moon handbook has more hidden out of the way stuff than this one. It's more like a series of essays than a comprehensive guidebook, so you can't turn to a specific area or a specific topic, other than the essay titles. It's best as a guide to restaurants, shops, bars, and coffeehouses, but there are much better ones if that's what you are really after. Everything is treated too quickly to really give the reader a good idea what they are getting into.
   
   I remember one thing in the Hollywood chapter they pointed out was the Pink Dot, a convienence store that delivers. I "had to" go visit it, thinking it was a famous landmark, but it is really just one of a chain of mediocre conveinence stores. I have no idea why it made it into an "underground" guidebook.



5. A few unpleasant facts for Pleasant (the editor): Gathering together a bunch of your buddies and asking them to write a chapter for your book does not constitute good journalism and does not result in a good book. Omissions: I was looking for info. on the early punk clubs (The Masque, etc.) in this "underground " guide. Nothing. I also saw a listing for Jerry's Famous Deli in the book, but the writer failed to mention that Andy Kaufman had worked there as a waiter at the height of his Taxi fame. Errors: Too many to spell out, but one that made me slap my forehead was a writer's contention that Hawaii Five-O had been filmed at CBS Studio City with "ocean footage edited-in". In fact, that was probably the first television show to be shot entirely on-location, with interior scenes shot in their own studio in Hawaii.