James Reston Jr., in the "Saturday Review", calls Lane's book disreputable, in that all of the reports contained in it are admittedly unverified, and lean toward the salacious. "Lane makes no pretense of distinguishing between fact and a soldier's talent for embellishment", Reston observed. Commenting on the book's redeeming social value, Reston added that "it would be to show that a pattern of atrocities exists in Vietnam, proving that while My Lai was larger, it was not unique. This needs to be demonstrated, since the Pentagon continues to insist that My Lai was an isolated case. But the effort will have to be left to more responsible parties, like the National Veterans Inquiry." A review of Lane's book by Neil Sheehan in the "New York Times Book Review" claimed that four of the 32 servicemen interviewed by Lane for the book had misrepresented their military service, according to the Defense Department. Lane responded to Sheehan's inquiries by stating that the Defense Department is the least reliable of all sources for verification of atrocity accounts and that verification of simple facts about the interviewees was "not relevant." Sheehan called Lane's book irresponsible, concluding that, "Some of the horror tales in this book are undoubtedly true", and the "men who now run the military establishment cannot conduct a credible investigation... But until the country does summon up the courage to convene a responsible inquiry, we probably deserve the Mark Lanes." Because of Sheehan's review, Simon and Schuster reneged on the contract for the book. When Lane disproved Sheehan's charges, they were forced to settle with him.