James Dixon (5)

Somewhat entertaining but the approach to both writing style and research/citation is flawed and detracts a lot. Where the story is about well-documented incidents like the Syracuse nightclub fight, the book is informative and credible but these moments are often lost in a sea of inconsistent writing which varies in style as if several different people have taken turns at the keyboard.

At times a detailed breakdown of a particular match will take place even though it doesn't really have any bearing on the overall story of the year, and the entire narration is peppered with reminders about spots being pre-arranged/choreographed/cooperative which is fine early on to set the tone of the book but the way it keeps being brought up as if it's a revelation is sometimes like reading a transcript of the voice over from Exposed! Pro Wrestling's Greatest Secrets.

This patronising tone is reinforced by the near-constant reference to wrestlers by their real names (Peter Polaco is referred to as such multiple times before finally being identified as the then-Aldo Montoya, which makes the references to him pointless if you don't happen to know his real name); this persists even when discussing the main event appeal of certain matches, leaving out the gimmick names as if the reader is supposed to be impressed with knowledge accessible to anyone with internet access; repeatedly calling Sid Vicious/Justice "Sid Eudy" doesn't add anything.

There is a lot of inconsistency in how major players' thoughts are sourced as well. Direct quotes from Jim Cornette and Kevin Nash for example (presumably taken from shoot interviews) are useful but then there are many strange 3rd person omniscient prose descriptions of what went through the heads of Vince McMahon, Eric Bischoff and others at key moments including descriptions of how they breathed (a deep breath or through their teeth etc.) and even how they sat in their chairs, which can be nothing other than speculation. I understand dressing up the narrative a little to keep it interesting but claiming an inside line on McMahon and Bischoff's thought processes with nothing to back it up has the unfortunate effect of calling into question the validity of everything else that's written.

Overall a weird mish-mash of an attempt at a true history, smarky posturing, and poorly judged narrative choices leaves it at 2 stars and me not particularly keen to read the other two volumes of the "trilogy".… (meer)

An improvement on the previous volume, this has a more consistent narrative voice, less smarky posturing (although the unneccessary insistance on using real names almost constantly is still an irritant), and less speculative fiction about what went through the minds of people who haven't commented on the record.

It ends weakly with excessively detailed breakdowns of a few matches which feels like they were included as a reach at trying to make the story end with some excitement as there wasn't anything really exciting about the end of 1996 that would otherwise serve as a climax.

Worth the read if you care about the history but it isn't stand-out in any way.… (meer)

If you are a Pro wrestling fan, you may enjoy this book about the WWE in the late 90s. This was the start of the "Attitude Era." During this period, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and other wrestlers began to make their mark. This was also the period where the WWE began to pull away from its WCW competitor. The most interesting part of the book has to do with the "Montréal Screw job." This was the wrestling bout where Shawn Michaels won the WWE Championship from Bret Hart. The result came from a "shoot" where the action and the chosen winner were off script. The book contained a lot of interesting stories and insights into the very characters, people and personalities in the wrestling business.… (meer)