I have read this book three times, and this latest review is for the 2016 Paperback Edition.The biggest difference between the “Kindle” eBook Edition and this paperback is the format: I have found only a few format issues in the paperback such as the missing indentation on page 16 (She glanced at Ran for permission...). On the other hand, the form’at of eBook vers’ion was all broken, and I was really disappointed.However, the author addresses that she has edited the eBook Edition, so now I want to believe the Kindle Edition, too, exhibits a fine quality like the paperback at least when it comes to the “format” issue.This newer copy that I have recently received and read does have the quality of a bestselling book on the market. It is a beautiful product from the book cover as you can see it in the pictures I have posted here on Amazon.com review page.It is impressive to find that even the words the author chose for the paperback seem different than those I previously found in the eBook Edition; I mean they seem more proper and vivid in the paperback.The author is definitely a talented writer.Her beautiful description throughout pages often helps the readers feel like reading a classic literature while it even makes us feel like we are right at the scenes together with the very people of the story.As a fiction creator, the author Ms. Sarah Gerdes has already been a "top-class" writer I can tell. With her amazing describing skills and all, as long as they in-formed the author with accurate information, I believe she would be a top non-fiction writer as well.That much I endorse her writing talent, and I’d give the author all the credit as the storyline of this book is really lively and fun in general.However, I still had to reach the conclusion that it was the life stor’y of a person with "insecure" mentality that I couldn't really admire. It is not about the author’s writing skills, but rather about Mrs. Sue Kim Bonifazio’s frustrating mentality and behaviors. I even feel like that, at some point, the author’s talent became kind of a victim since she had to defend her client in her story.Although Sue's husband Mr. John Bonifazio has been like a saint to her and her family, especially to her baby sister-in-law whose addiction of gambling literally destroyed her own life, John himself ran his own casinos and has probably ruined countless people's lives after all, so I don't know what to talk about him either. Was he a good man for the society? Or was he a villain as a “successful” casino boss? You know what that “successful” means in that industry.At least John Bonifazio was a great, real man to his family.I’m not sure about Sue Kim Bonifazio, however.Despite all the weak points and personality issues of Sue and her mother Ran, it seems like the writer tried hard to defend them at the expense of the others like John or his father Tony Bonifazio, who were actually great husbands with their happy families, and it is clear the two men contributed the most building the big, happy family. All right, not “alone,” but I mean the “most.”After having read this story three times, I still don’t understand why the story makes Mia sound like an irresponsible person. Jane left the group too, so Jane was bad? The book never points that out. Why the double standard? And about the money Sue kept sending Mia after she had left the group, did Sue really deserve to blame others for that mismanagement? Seriously, Sue did the same for a long time to her mother even after she had passed away.The truth is that Sue was simply flat-out stupid when it came to managing income in those years. It was John, who tried to step in and manage it better for her, but she frantically opposed it blaming John for not liking her way to take care of her family as if she was the head of the whole Kim family including all the relatives.As the “leader” of her group, if she really believed that way, it was definitely her own fault to have mismanaged the group’s income for so long. It was her fault not to be able to lead her family members to the “right” way where they could help themselves to live independent, responsible, healthy and meaningful lives.It must sound a lot harsh on her, but the truth is truth that it was Sue, who led her baby sister to destroy her life if she really believed she was “responsible” for taking care of her family because all she did to her baby sister was spoiling her.Of course her intention was good and out of love, but the way was wrong, and if she had listened to John, it could have been prevented. John was really like a saint to her and her family making better decisions than Sue ever did for the family after all. Look what he did to Pastori for his sister-in-law when it was really necessary. He took her misfortune as if she was his own baby sister.It was always John, who dealt with Sue's negative attitude and unreasonable decisions like “Buddha.” No matter how ridiculous the situation was he was always there for her!(Sarah Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim, the Greatest American Story Never Told,” 2016 Paperback Edition (Seattle, WA: RPM Publishing (24th Reprint), 2022), p. 285)“If you don’t like the way I am, then go **** yourself,” she said a third time. “I’m not changing for anyone.” Seeing she was serious, John changed tactics. “Sit down,” he said firmly but with a hint of compromise. As much as Sue wanted to leave, anger didn’t eradicate her hope. She sat down, defiantly jutted her chin out.Sue never tried hard enough to change herself, yet she wished her surroundings would change the way she liked. Why wished for "the" perfect man while she wasn't even close to be perfect herself? She was so easily breaking down for the smallest things. What a baby she still was after all the experiences including her harsh life for survival in a war-torn country under the full-scale atrocity.It was always Sue, who threatened John with the word "divorce." Was the vow of their marriage that light, careless and meaningless to her? She always told John that she’d NOT change for anyone. Then why did John have to change for her, eh? He tried because he was now married to her! How come John could see that, but Sue couldn’t? And you can really call this an equal and healthy relationship? She was so immature and selfish to her partner.Despite all, John always gave her hints of compromise to protect the family.(Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim,” p. 287)“Sue had—and still has—an innocence about the world that I didn’t want to break,” John explained. “She’s the only person I’ve ever known who believes the best about a person, and almost willfully tries to ignore bad when it’s right in front of her.” All those years of keeping quiet weren’t meant to keep her in the dark, hurt her feelings or feign indifference. It was meant to shield her from the dredge of society. “Some of the worst people are dressed the best and act the nicest—and they are the absolute bottom.”This is exactly what John was always like to Sue.The clear difference between Sue and John was that Sue measured her marriage for her own good while John put his family first, thus the marriage & his wife before himself!If you read the book carefully to the last page, you’d realize that the couple is still happy together after more than 50 years of their marriage life thanks to John's devotion to their family, and Sue admitted it herself at some recent point proving that she has now become a better person with the wisdom of age.Like she admitted herself, John has, indeed, always been so faithful and committed to his wife. And so was his father Tony to his family! Just look how Sandra reacted when the old man was dead. The old wife, too, knew the man was not the perfect one, but really a good husband and father to the family.Moving on to the next issue, I’m afraid that I still believe, just like I thought after reading her “Kindle” Edition twice a year ago, the author should re-write the early part of the book about the historical facts of the Korean War. Seriously the timeline's all mixed up “misinforming” the readers!I don’t just mean the section for the Korean War, but things are really wrong with the whole early part of the book.Unfortunately, I will have to say that this early part of the book is like a “disaster” as an “authorized biography,” which is clearly categorized as a “historical record” based on direct experience of a person that could be one day used as a “first-hand history source.”In this regard, either Sue should have informed the author with better knowledge in Korean history, or the author should've researched harder on the topic herself at least.(Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim,” p. 14)"The massive dining room was full of members of the ruling party; powerful political figures who controlled Korea, all finding their places at the table..."Under the Japanese occupation of the Korean Peninsula... Was Sue’s father one of these pro-Japanese figures the Korean society calls the "Traitors" today?Well, sounds like he must have been, “unless” Sue gave the author a false testimony. I’d like to believe that it was just her mistake. And if Sue remembered the Korean culture right, she wouldn't testify something that doesn't make sense: “Powerful politicians invited to a successful entertainer's dining hall and watch him acting like the most arrogant jerk in the whole society right before their eyes?”Even after the Korean War the society was still soaked in the old idea that the politicians, scholars and philosophers were to be the ruling “re’aŋ-/ ni’aŋ-bͻn (two-bases = administrators and military leaders)” nobles while entertainers were mere commoners or even purchased slaves.That Caste-like notion bugged the people’s mind even during and after the Korean War. Yeah, the war kind of really helped the country open the eyes towards the real quality of each individual, not one’s title and birth-right, yet it didn’t easily disappear until the country’s industrialization in the ‘60s to ‘70s that totally shifted the wealth and prestigious social status from the old ruling class talking over the table to the daring common people much more prone to ACT’ual pr’ACTical ACT’ions.Yes, it is definitely normal today in South Korean society, but I think Sue was confused between the American and Korean societies "of the time." And how would the American music be freely played in 1943 while the fascist Empire of Japan was at war against the United States of America? Her testimony "simply" doesn't make any sense.Again, I’m afraid to say that I am very disappointed how so flat-out ignorant Sue Kim really is about her own heritage.She’s got the publicity with enough fame and success in her field to be a fine cultural ambassador, supposed to be someone who gets her heritage and speaks fluent Ӕngl’ish communicating to help the world understand her mother’s country better. It is not the case, however, as she doesn’t really speak good English as I realized watching her interviews that she is not bilingual (surprisingly, after dec’ades of her life in America her only mother tongue is still Korean), AND she doesn’t know her heritage either. It’s, unfortunately, the worst combination that could easily misinform the world.(Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim,” pp. 17-19)...his resistance to authority, and his singular focus to bring out the best in a performer...Hai’s rebellion came in the form of music, skillfully weaving the universal themes of loss and death, loyalty and strength with a cultural flavor sensitive to the Koreans without raising the ire of the authorities. He also embraced the music and attitude of the west, where capitalism, freedom of speech and expression were valued. As Hai pushed against authority through clothing and music, his wife defied the unwelcome occupants by refusing to give her children Japanese names, a mandate...Ran was also able to quietly retaliate against the aggression and rapes that followed the foreign invasion. She helped individuals the Japanese had deemed potential threats and had beaten or forced out of their homes...And they were not arrested. In stead, they were so successful and wealthy under the worst period of the Japanese o-ccup’ation in the early-1940s? Trust me; no one in Korea, except idiots, will buy it.(Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim,” p. 19)Had Ran been on a public stage of lesser importance, in a city of smaller size or in an occupation less publicly visible, she might have left her husband and started over. The women’s movement of independence sweeping America at the time didn’t end at the shores of the Pacific. It had continued across the seas, hitting Korea, and for Ran, emphasizing the sense of independence...You mean “hitting Korea” in the 1960s and 70s with the industrialization of the country, often referred as the “Miracle of Han River,” not before the foundation of the Republic of Korea in 1948.(Ibid, p. 19)...In both the Korean and Japanese world, the educated were superior to uneducated, and everyone adhered to the prescribed roles or face severe consequences. Ran supported the legacy that determination and education was valued above all, imbibing in her children the fierce work ethic Korean’s revered.Does everyone see that the lines on page 19 contr’a-dict each other, or it is just me? And there are couple of typos found in a single line here:i) ...Ran supported the legacy that determination and education was valued above all...Correction => ...Ran supported the legacy that determination and education “were” valued above all...ii) ...the fierce work ethic Korean’s revered...Correction => ...the fierce work ethic Koreans revered...(Gerdes, “The Authorized Biography of Sue Kim,” p. 22)...her father Hai rejoiced his musical freedom. He’d defied authority by playing western music during the Japanese occupation, and as long as he stayed within the boundaries of western music and didn’t write songs that defamed the Korean culture and lifestyle, he’d been largely left alone by the authorities. Having thrown off the shackles of oppression under the Japanese, Hai’s company performed popular American Broadway shows with zeal.Wait. Just mentioned on page 19 about the Japanese authority even forcing the Koreans change their names into Japanese names to eliminate the Korean heritage, but the Japanese authority left Hai alone as long as he didn't write songs that defamed the Korean culture and lifestyle? Again, no one in Korea, except idiots, will buy it.It’s a great writing and book, but this early part of the book really needs to be thoroughly revised and edited. It might be easier for the author to rewrite some early chapters.This edition, too, exhibits many typos and errors that do not seem to make any sense.It begins even from the very first sheet of the book. What is this?...Reprint 2018, 3rd 2019, 4th 202, 5th 2021, 6th 2022, 24th 2022...The year of 202... I don’t know whether to laugh or sigh.(More Typo Ex. No. 1 on p. 14)...The Japanese had done away with many of the Korean traditions, but not the ancient Nodal floor system that kept the wood floors warm...Correction: It is “Ondol,” not “Nodal.” Maybe Sue informed the author that it was called “Ondal?” Yet, Nodal is totally wrong.(More Typo Ex. No. 2 on p. 20)...Sook Ja arms were now swollen...Correction: ...Sook Ja's arms...(More Typo Ex. No. 3 on p. 18)The footnote No. 1: Hai Song Kim, circa 1950Correction: ...circa 1941 (Check out the image on p. 94)(More Typo Ex. No. 4 on p. 22)...Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese armies successfully taking over the country which was surrounded on three sides by waters making it an easy target for lethal waves of suppression...And what? Is this line a long subject? There’s not a single “verb for the subject” here, and it sounds really funny when you finish reading the line.Correction: ...Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese armies successfully “took” over the country which was surrounded on three sides by waters making it an easy target for lethal waves of suppression...(More Typo Ex. No. 5 on p. 22)...officially ending the occupation of Korea after nearly thirty years...Correction: ...nearly forty years... (or) ...over thirty years... (From 1910 to 1945)(More Typo Ex. No. 6 on p. 282)...generously endowed with his grandfather’s gift of communication, fearlessly approaching adults and kid’s alike......adults and kids alike...There are literally tons of more errors throughout the pages.Despite all these errors, the book is precious in many ways; especially it tells the people of the world "including the young Korean generations" the horror of war and teaches us a lesson about the importance of homeland security to secure our “basic” needs for a normal Human life.We tend to forget things and stay ignorant and indifferent when the threat doesn't directly hit our lives unprepared to defend our precious homeland.At the same time, Kim family's life story proves that even when we hit the flat bottom having lost everything in such an unexpected disaster, it is never over as long as we stay alive with hope for a "better" future. We just need to stay alive and keep trying to make it better day by day.Look how successful Sue and her family have become again at the end.The book will be a complete gem if the author works on the issues I have pointed out. Over all, it is a good read.