No comments about Harry S. Truman: Give 'em Hell Harry!.

5 comments about Blue Latitudes: Boldly Going Where Captain Cook has Gone Before.

1. Well, consider paradise thoroughly debunked, between Horwitz's far-ranging journeys of disassembly here and J. Maartin Troost's more narrowly focused The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific about real life on a South Pacific speck.
   
   Horwitz applies his witty and accessible style to a popular cultural, anthropological, historical, and gastronomical view of Cook's travel stops and his impact on them. He even finds parallels to his earlier "Confederates in the Attic" (see my review there) in the way that the distant descendants of both English and native island-dwellers see their shared and separate histories. On these journeys, covering a wider geographic and ethnic range, Horwitz finds more room to spread his reportorial wings, and the results can be hilarious.
   
   He is also often joined by an often-drunk Australian friend (Horwitz is married to an Australian and lived there for a few years), and the interplay between the two and the sights and people they meet on the way adds to the insights and insanity that ensues. But throughout the book, Horwitz weaves the background of Cook and his ships, crews, and journeys so that we learn more than we realize.
   
   If you are interested in a more narrowly focused biography of Cook, consider (in addition to the ones Horowitz lists in his biography) Cook : The Extraordinary Voyages of Captain James Cook by Nicholas Thomas, which I review there and which came out shortly after Blue Latitudes.



2. Blue latitudes is an excellent book about Cook's adventures in the Pacific and about the person Cook. Mr. Horwitz entertains in a marvolous way and as a reader one feels to the core the atmosphere of the places visted by Cook and how they have changed today. One feels, having read the book, the inclination to further explore Cook and his travels.



3. In Blue Latitudes journalist Tony Horwitz follows in the footsteps of Captain Cook, beginning with a week working as a member of the crew on board a replica of Cook's ship Endeavor. I'd always thought of Cook as this stereotypical British officer, all his buttons properly polished and looking down a very long nose at all these dreadful loincloth-clad natives. In fact, Cook was born in a pigsty, was subject in his youth to a strong Quaker influence, and worked his way up from shoveling coal to captain in the British Navy. He wrote about the aboriginal people he met with respect and admiration. His name is now a bad word all over the Pacific, but in truth Cook was the best white man they'd ever meet. This already lively narrative is made more so by Horwitz' travelling buddy Roger, one of the most cynical and funniest guys ever to walk through the pages of a book.



4. a very fun read. Reminds you how amazing Cook was...well before the he was roasted. :-)



5. This is one of those books that before you even finish it, you want to share it with your friends. It's a can't-put-it-down, feel-like-you're-there good read.

5 comments about Lincoln.

1. Well written book with great detail. The depth of research must have been great to give this reader a special feel for each progression of Lincoln's amazing journey though life. I'm really enjoying this book.



2. After hearing all of the hype about this Lincoln bio I finally got around to reading it. OK, I am spoiled, I read Sandburg's bio and it is hard to find anything close to that-certainly not in this book. To sum up my feelings, I don't know Lincoln any better after reading this than before. Prof. Donald misses the mark and I think he is somewhat awestruck that he can't seem to get any deeper. It is well researched and well written, but a bio needs much more.
   Here was a man with barely any formal education, not particularly succesful as a politician, elected over many who who knew they could do better and then the nation splits apart into Civil War. Not only did he face the undaunted task of trying to hold the nation together, but learn to be a general of sort, let alone his home life. Other bios show how Lincoln rose to the challenge to hold our nation together and finally find the right general, Grant, and become probably our greatest president.
   Somehow, Donald's book does not do it for me.



3. In giving this book five stars, it is easy to confuse the book with its subject. Who doesn't love Lincoln? (Well, I guess there are some, but there are even people who don't like Bob Seger.) Like many people, particularly those (like me) who grew up right in the heart of the Lincoln country of Central Illinois, I thought that I knew Lincoln, but there is a feeling that most of what I knew was mythic legend rather than facts. The biographies of Lincoln are many, and the classic ones are multi-volume and would take years to digest. Donald has given the English-speaking world the gift of condensing all of that into a thorough and modern account that can be easily consumed, and maybe leave the reader healthily interesed in more.
   The book literally begins with what little we know of Lincoln's birth, and ends just moments after his untimely death. The entire singular focus of the book is Lincoln. Precious little is devoted to any detail outside of Lincoln's life, so some prior elementary knowledge of Lincoln's place and times (including the Civil War) would be helpful. I think that the one deviation from Lincoln that I noticed was on the topic of Booth and his tragic plot to kidnap and, as it eventually turned out, to kill the President. Other than that, the reader is shown the world and its events as Lincoln saw and knew them, for the most part. I felt that there was enormous and significant gaps in the narrative in places, but it was also obvious to me that the gaps are the result of what we don't know about Lincoln; after all, for most of his life, Lincoln was not a historical figure, and he went about his life and career without keeping minute records of it, just as we all do. What we know of his early life (birth in Kentucky, the surprisingly many years that he spent in the wilderness of Southern Indiana as a young boy, and the New Salem years) we gather from the interviews and biographical accounts that were collected after he was elected President and the world had an interest in these otherwise forgotten facts. We can know much about his adulthood from the accounts of his law partners, fellow legislators, and others who worked and lived with him, and who no doubt recorded their thoughts and memories after it was clear that they had walked with one of history's true giants. Given the sometimes thin detail, I noticed that nowhere in the book were the smallest things noted with more triviality than in the few days between the end of the War (April 9th) and his murder (April 14th/15th). Clearly, those ironically joyous days became more important to the eyewitnesses, and every detail was recorded for posterity. So, whereas there are many important events of which we know little (say, the deliverance of the Gettysburg Address), in the final days and hours of Lincoln's life, we know almost every quip, word, and gesture that he produced. It is precious information, but also sad to reflect on.
   Like other reviewers here, I was astonished to learn of the evolution of the man. His country beginnings cannot be overstated: he began life with absolutely no advantage whatsoever, except for the very chemistry that drove him to become truly a masterful President. In one of the book's (that is, the historical record's) many gaps, I missed the force that drove him to leap into his successful law career, but looking back we can see that he parlayed a skill for analysis, speech, and human manipulation into a political career that catapulated him into the White House. This was a time in the young country when such things could be accomplished - even by rough-hewn country lawyers from the "West." The reader also sees his evolution from an inexperienced executive who has the very future of the Union on his shoulders, and whose political mistakes and challenges were as many as they were life-crushing, into a shrewd master of not only the Presidency but the known political world as well.
   I was surprised to find that there were places in the book where I find Lincoln to be unlikeable. His contempt of his father is hard to understand, as was his sophomoric early philosophy of "Reason." He certainly seems like he would have been a neat guy to know (major understatement), but he also seems to have been sometimes cold, too driven by his career and politics, and a bit of a jerk to those he could not tolerate (and there were many). Was he "Honest Abe" who would walk a mile to return a few pennies change? Yes, I guess so, but he was not a pushover.
   Anyway, this is a review of the book and not the man. Great book on a greater subject. I like what Donald has done: put together the singular and readable biography, and presented one of history's top subjects without too much editorializing or sentiment. Having now read it, I cannot imagine being an American and not doing so.



4. Dr. Donald's book is an excellent one volume biography of our greatest President, an historical figure of truly Biblical stature who led America and humanity through truly epochal changes. It should be required reading.



5. Read Leadership: Past, Present & Future by Carlos M. Rivera and then read this book. You will love both books.
   5 Stars

1 comments about Famous People in History.

1. I entertain my minivan-bound children with books on tape/CD. The best are the Harry Potter series. There are many other good ones. And this is a good non-fiction title for children.

   Kids need heroes, and this tape provides my 5 and 7 year old boys with some impressive ones. The heroes come from the worlds of politics, science, literature, religion... This tape is one of my 7 year old son's favorites. It has a very positive message for him. He gets ideas of what he could be.

   Volume 2 (the one I have) tells the stories of some historical figures, emphasizing all the positive and heroic qualities of each: Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven, Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, Mahatma Gandhi, and George Washington.

   As an adult accustomed to having his heroes routinely discredited, I find these idealized portraits naive, but kind of refreshing. If you have kids you know that they have a purpose: to introduce you to the world again, and show you its wonder. These portraits of heroes are simplified and abstracted in a way that highlights their abilities. No jaded cynicism here. These scientists, thinkers, statesmen, musicians, were all leaders. My young leader could do worse than to select a role model from one of these larger than life heroes.

   Two other notes.
   1. The tapes are abridged, while the CDs are not. Buy the CD.
   2. Amazon has one description for both volume 1 and 2. Misleading. They contain different people.

   Vol 1 - Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus, Horatio Nelson, William Shakespeare, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

   Vol 2 - Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven, Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington (This is the one I am reviewing)

2 comments about When You Can't Come Back.

1. This is a terrific book written with honesty and courage and filled with wisdom and encouragement. However, the title is a bit misleading because Dave and Jan do comeback: better and stronger than ever. I highly recommend this enjoyable and fast read.



2. This is a great book. I am a sophmore in high school and I am so glad the english department chose to put this on the summer reading list. It shows that the all-amercian family isn't perfect and how they coped with all of the hurdles that were put in front of them. They should be commanded on their ability to cope with any problem that arises. Their kids should be recognized also because they had to see Mr Fix-It(aka known to families as Dad) have something that couldn't be fixed. This is a great book and I recommend it to anyone who needs a little diversion from their problems, because there'll always be someone who has it worse off than you do.

5 comments about Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America.

1. Roger Morris served with distinction for Democrats Lyndon Johnson (president of the United States), Dean Acheson (Secretary of State), and Walter Mondale (vice president and candidate for president). He is NOT a Republican attack dog. He is reputable and this book is well researched with the facts.
   
   For his biography of Richard Nixon, Morris was a finalist for the reputable National Book Award, a very selective award of integrity. His biography of Nixon was authoritative and accurately showed Nixon to be ambitious, intelligent, willing to be ruthless, and at times paranoid. His biography of Nixon was not a Republican whitewash. It was fair, and Morris was part of the reputable PBS American Presidents documentary of Richard Nixon.
   
   Partners in Power presents the facts. It is NOT a Republican attack book.



2. His title sounds convincing for the evidence he sugests has already been proven to be fabricated lies, this is pure dirty political propaganda from the republican party propaganda machine.



3. The 'Prologue' of this 1996 book describes Clinton's Inauguration. The face in the White House changed, but the same people were pulling the strings (p.4). Clinton's highest margin was with voters under 30. Morris notes the decay of cities and the loss of jobs (p.6). People hoped for a change with Clinton. Clinton's past in Arkansas would soon catch up. The opening chapters tell of Clinton's middle-class life in Arkansas. Uncle Raymond was the power in the family (p.4). He went to Georgetown (p.64), then to Oxford (p.84), and avoided the draft (pp.81-82). Morris suggests Clinton was tied to the "intelligence community" (pp.102-103). Hillary was raised in Park Ridge, a bastion of right-wing extremism (p.111). She was a gifted mimic and chronic teacher's pet. In 1964 she was a "Goldwater Girl" (p.122). Hillary was elected president of the student government when she was a junior (p.128). She then went to Yale Law School. She became involved in the legal rights of children (pp.160-161). [Do children know what they really need?]
   
   Arkansas was "the most oppressed state in the union" (p.194). Their farmers were like medieval serfs. The newspapers and broadcast stations were controlled by the ruling class (p.196). [Is it different in your state?] Half the state Senators were paid off by the gas utility (p.197). Clinton had the support of the Stephens financial empire (p.199); he opposed local labor unions (p.200). Jimmy Carter's victory was a triumph of big money (p.201). Examples of Clinton's honesty are on page 211; he lied about the draft. Clinton talked liberal but acted reactionary (p.219). Hillary's financial prowess is on pages 229-230; BCCI is on page 234.
   
   The Reagan reign was a return to the past (p.253); government openly backed Big Corporations. Wealth was taken from most Americans and given to the rich (p.254). People were worse off than before. Carter's election brought more millionaires to his Cabinet than Ford, Nixon, of Eisenhower (p.264). Carter's cuts in capital gains and corporate taxes, Reagan's reduced taxes for the rich and increased them on wage-earners, both led to today's impoverished America (pp.266-267). The high cost of media advertising makes candidates depend on funds from the rich. [That is the plan!] Page 294 describes the "corporate seizure of power in Washington" and the effects on pages 295-296. Huge debt increases by Reagan and Bush are measured by devalued dollars (p.299), lost jobs, lower wages, and fewer middle-class businesses (pp.302-303). Increasing wealth at the top led to poverty everywhere else (pp.303-305). Median family income was less valuable than for earlier generations. Now America is less egalitarian than Europe. [Morris does not mention Nixon's 1971 devaluation of the dollar as leading to this.]
   
   Chapter 16 tells about the wide open town of Little Rock where money could be made fast (p.300). Was prosperity based on drug trafficking and money laundering (p.311)? Clinton's trick of "educational reform" is on page 320. Clinton's supporters for his 1984 campaign are on pages 331-332. Without Congressional oversight the special interests that donate to the President go unchallenged. The media monopolies won't tell (pp.349-350). Reporters who uncovered scandals saw their careers ruined (p.353). They avoid non-acute scandals to cover sensations. Chapter 18 covers the deregulation of S&Ls which allowed new scams with other people's money. Hillary was involved with McDougal's banking excesses (pp.324-325). The Clintons did not lose money on Whitewater (p.386). There was a multi-billion dollar drug smuggling operation in Mena that was linked to national politics (p.390); see Chapter 19. Clinton knew (p.405), and so did Bush (p.410).
   
   Clinton did in Washington what he did in Little Rock (p.432). It tells how Gary Hart's campaign was sabotaged (p.433-434). Did Clinton have a psychotic lack of control (p.441)? Clinton, like others, grew rich from their political success (pp.446-447). Clinton always served the special interests (p.453); he did less for the state than Orval Faubus. Arkansas was worst in the nation for health care (p.456). Clinton's first term was not a new beginning but the same old show (p.467). Morris asked if he was linked to drug money and organized crime.



4. I looked forward to reading about the early life of Bill Clinton and his early marriage and the Arkansas days, etc, and this book has a lot on that--quite substantial. So I was a little shocked to arrive at page 440, where Morris refers to "Clinton's extra-marital relations with literally hundreds of women" Hundreds? That would be a minimum of 200. That's really quite a lot. I had always assumed a dozen or two.

   I began to wonder how that would work. Is a governorship such an easy job (just a lot of paper signing and speechifying) that an accomplished shmoozer can fit it in between hundreds of trysts? Whatever you think of his politics, it must be admitted that it's quite an accomplishment, especially considering he wasn't really all that interested in the governorship or the trysts, but rather the presidency.

   And what of the "Partner in Power"? Could she see early on that her husband was a politician of such consumate skill that he was a shoe-in for the presidency, and so chose to overlook his turning Arkansas into his personal harem? And what of Hilary's other partner in power, Vince Foster, now dead? If Morris touches on their "semi-private kisses and furtive squeezes", an "intimate professional bond between two attorneys", then surely he ought to dig a bit deeper on the cause of Foster's death. No sign of depression prior to the suicide. No death threats. What on earth happened to Vince Foster.

   All these deeply intriguing topics--Bill's monumental multi-tasking, Hillary's apparent acquiescence, Foster's mysterious death--are touched on but lightly. What really interests Morris is financial scandal, into which category he places, seemingly, any transaction over $10,000. The book is larded with endless, and I mean Endless, details of money for campaigns, money made in teal estate, many made in banking, in retail, in government, in law, in public and in private--all with the implication or explicit assertion that a crime was committed. And Morris doesn't stop with the Clintons. The Republicans and Reagan in particular come under his moral lash for using too much money to get elected or to celebrate having been elected. Literally hundreds of pages are devoted to venting his indignation at the expenditure of money in politics, almost as though he believes that the only ones fit to govern are indigent altar boys or investigative reporters.

   This reader would have liked less of the sort or quasi-incrimminatory fodder that fills the pages of the Village Voice and more probing into the feudatory state of Arkansas, perhaps interviewing some of the hundreds of women. There's a gripping story there, a noir classic, but I doubt it will be revealed by poring over old account ledgers.




5. This is an excellent read! If you are unconvinced of the corruption we have had for the last eight years, then this book will cause you to reconsider. It also goes into detail as to how Bill Clinton got into this terrible condition.
   

   Anyone who dismisses this book as unsubstantiated is obviously partisan and hasn't been paying attention to the news for the last eight years nor of late. An objective and reasonable person will see the truth and the truth is what is written in this book. It is well written and well documented. Mind you this is a close friend of Bill Clinton who wrote the book! No agenda - just truth for those who can accept it.
   

   This book highlights the ongoing pattern of deceit, illegal substance use, womanizing by force and corruption. Frankly, I'd rather not be in denial but admit the obvious about this man. Hopefully the American people will never allow someone of this low caliber ever become President again.

No comments about Bridge Across Forever/Cassettes.

5 comments about Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (Nova Audio Books).

1. If you are over the age of 25 in America, you have heard of Natalie Wood. The tragically deceased movie star is akin to an icon in our nation's past. This thoroughly researched biography gives insight into her early life and behind the scenes information about her movies. With quotes from original sources, such as Wood's family members and staff, and second hand sources, such as magazine articles, the details of Natalie's life are spread before us.
   I was only semi-knowledgeable about this actress prior to reading the book. I had only ever seen her three most famous movies, Rebel Without a Cause, West Side Story, and Miracle on 34th Street. Since this book, I have been compelled to familiarize myself with more of her work.
   The author is, I believe, I first-time biographer, and although I haven't read terribly many biographies, I found her style somewhat heavy-handed. She also needs to familiarize herself better with the concepts of "foreshadowing" and "irony." One thing I found very annoying about the writing was that the author felt the need to remind us, over and over, of who people were. For example, she introduces us to Debbie Reynolds "who was originally considered for the part of Judy." Then, a paragraph later, she quotes Reynolds again, identifying her as "the actress who almost got [Natalie's] part." Scarcely a paragraph later, Reynolds "who almost played Judy" is quoted again. I did not need these reminders, as I (and I would imagine most other reasonably intelligent readers) can remember what was written from paragraph to paragraph. Also, I am quite unfamiliar with movie stars and directors from this period, so I would imagine people who were alive during this time or more well-versed on in this subject might be even more frustrated than I was.
   Finstad also kept pushing the idea that "Natalie Wood" was a "composite" of Natalie herself and her mother, Maria. I was willing to accept the assertion at first, as Maria pushed Natalie into stardom, but later, as Natalie grew up, it seemed Finstad was massaging the facts to support her claim.
   In conclusion, I learned a lot from Finstad's thorough research and interviews with close friends and family members of Ms. Wood, but I would not read a book by her again. I have wish-listed another biography of Natalie Wood, and would be interested to see whether this concept of the "composite" Natalie Wood is more pervasive.



2. This book read more like fiction than fact.I was horrified at the things Natalie went through to become and remain a star. I was thrilled by her ability to overcome all and become one of the most respected actors of her time.I wanted to lash out at someone about the way she died and I wanted someone charged with a crime.With that said, I thought too much time was spent describing her early years and her background but that is a minor complaint.Natalie was a favorite of mine so I enjoyed the book.Natalie: A Memoir by Her Sister



3. This is one of the very few biographies where i was left feeling i knew the subject intimately and deeply. I have always felt that Natalie Woods life was a highly fascinating and karmically complex one.
   The author certainly confirmed that and i didnt find the prose to be overly dramatic at all.
   She is a talented writer as well as a biographer and for me, that makes a huge difference.
   I like depth, insight, and good writing,
   a wonderful subject is of course important and this book had it all.



4. Simply the best applies to Natalie and to this bio by Suzanne Finstad. Speaking as a HUGE fan of Miss Wood who has been reading about her since childhood I say without question that this is the best bio written about the legendary star. Finstad takes the reader on a well researched journey through Miss Wood's troubled life. Finstad captures Natalie's vulnerability and at the same time communicates to her reader the strength within Natalie that enabled her to make the best of the cards she was dealt. The best aspect of this book is that unlike some of the other books written about Miss Wood, most notably Gavin Lambert's Natalie:A Life, Finstad had no ulterior motive in writing this book, no agenda, she simply wanted to tell Natalie's story and she did so in a loving, sympathetic yet honest way....If there are any new fans out there out want to read about Natalie, this is the book to read...



5. This book is good and absorbing, providing a comprehensive view of Natalie's life. I wish that it had gone more in depth about her various films and her experiences making them, but the info about the infamous drowning is quite interesting.

No comments about There's a Country in My Cellar.

5 comments about Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books.

1. After reading reviews I decided to give this book a try. Unfortunately I couldn't make it very far. This book was beyond boring and every time I picked it up it would put me to sleep. Maybe if I was able to push through the beginning of the book it would have gotten better but I just couldn't. Which is unusual for me because I try to finish all books that I start reading.
   I would definitely not recommend this book to anyone.



2. This is a great read, all women (and men) should read this and find out what really exists in the mid-east. This is written by a woman that lived there before and after the revolution.



3. 
   The main "character" of the book is Azar Nafisi. She teaches American literature to young Iranians at the University of Tehran, but when she gets dismissed for refusing to wear a veil, Nafisi decides to teach a select group of students at her house. I read the controversy and love they had towards books they read, which include Jane Austen and Vladimir Nabokov. Reading Lolita in Tehran is filled with Nafisi's explanations of how these books relate to the 20th century lives of her and her students.
   
   The things these women go through are unlike anything I've ever heard of before. I was astounded by the oppression they had such as, always having short nails, being in public with only their brothers or husbands, and not being able to read Western classics since they were taken away from book stores. I was depressed to learn about the lives of these women but it was good to know that they keep persevering. What seemed to keep them going was having weekly readings discussing fiction and becoming engrossed in stories and lives of characters that they knew they could never have. "Works of imagination that did not carry a political message were deemed dangerous." (Nafisi 277) Unfortunately, reading fiction was highly frowned upon in Iran because books that did not have politics in it were censored by the government. Not only did they discuss books, this was mainly a time for them to escape their lives and comfortably sit together and tell stories of the past, present and future. Although I enjoy non-fiction once in awhile, fiction is a great way of stepping out of your own life and becoming involved in someone else's. I don't know how I could live without having a good piece of creative literature and not being afraid of being punished because of it.
   
   Religion for these women play a huge part in their lives, it may even be the only thing they know. "The worst fear you can have is losing your faith. Because then you're not accepted by anyone--not by those who consider themselves secular or by people of your own faith." (Nafisi 327) Being attached to faith as much as these women are made me wonder if they somewhat became dependant on it. After all, religion was all they know and all they did. One of Nafisi's students, Yassi is worried if she ever were to lose it she probably wouldn't be able to sufficiently go on.
   
   Everything about their lives were powered by government and faith. Hardly ever did they get to things, at least publicly, that their heart desires. "She walked freely, hand in hand with Hamid, wearing a T-shirt and jeans. She described the feel of the wind and the sun on her hair and her skin." (Nafisi 326) This is a description of one's student trip to Damascus when she was able to walk on the street freely without being scared of going to jail. Reading this quote made me take for granted the fact that I'm able to walk outside in an outfit I wear because I want to not because I have to. There was so much emotion in one experience that it gave me the impression that she would probably not forget being free.
   
   "Peppering my account with justified and unjustified accusations against the root cause of all our woes: the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Nafisi 278) This quote sums up how these women were simply unhappy with the situation they had in Tehran. Reading this memoir gave me a better understanding of how lucky I am to live in America at a time when there is more women teaching, learning, working then any other time before. I have opportunities of traveling, marrying who I want, and even wearing a t-shirt instead of a veil. All of which these women couldn't freely do because of the Iranian revolution. It was a challenging book because it bounced back and forth between times and places. Also, I didn't have much of understanding of Iran's revolution and unfortunately the classic books, but I'm glad to say that reading "Lolita in Tehran" only makes me anxious to learn more about the two. The author now lives in America and a couple of other girls moved away from Iran to start a new life, but could they really leave it? "I left Iran, but Iran did not leave me." (Nafisi 341)



4. This book is remarkable, intense and thought provoking. I had to read it slowly to digest every chapter. Very well written.



5. I wish I could say I loved this book, but I didn't. I read it primarily to find out what life was like as a university professor in Tehran after the Revolution and after I had left the country. What I found out was that I am glad I left! The author does put a very personal face on the repression of women and intellectuals, and for that expose I am grateful.
   
   However, the book lost more and more of its punch the longer and longer it got. I think the book can't figure out what it wants to be...a personal memoire, an expose on repression, or a detailed and lengthy course outline on certain works of literature. The book would have been infinitely better if it had been condensed to 300 pages max and had left out the analyses of works of Joyce and James. I couldn't figure out what they had to do with the central theme, anyway. The contrast and comparison ot Nabokov to life in the Islamic Republic of Iran was right on, but the book just went downhill after that.