5 comments about The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty.

1. I truly enjoyed this book. Well- researched and presented.
   
   The short background chapters that provide an overview of the core topic in each section are very full of insight.
   
   I especially like the lack of sensationalism about henry viii in this book. It is fascinating to read, yet has an almost somber tone to it.



2. I've read a few books about the Tudors, and they tend to get repetitive. Let's face it, there's only so much information on that era that survives, so a new perspective can be hard to come by. So much to my surprise, I did actually learn new things by reading this. The author portrays the Tudors in a more negative light than other books I've read, and that lends an interesting perspective. Many authors come across as thinking the subjects of their books are the greatest people ever and downplay any negatives they may have. Meyer does the opposite. I'm not even sure he finds the Tudors admirable in the least. He isn't shy about expressing his opinion on the people who appear in the book. If you're strict about history, that could be off-putting, on the other hand, his biases are out there for everyone to see and evaluate accordingly.
   
   One thing this book is NOT is the complete story. The bulk of the book is about Henry VIII. Henry VII is mentioned only in passing and only as the father of Henry VIII. I can understand why the sections on Edward VI and Mary I are shorter--their reigns were shorter, but Elizabeth I, who ruled longer than any other Tudor, barely figures into the story until the last 200 or so pages. And even then, she doesn't seem very present--the author focuses more on the men around her than the Queen herself. I got the impression the author got bored with the book about halfway through and started rushing. Large clumps of time are covered in a few pages (this happens throughout the book, not just the latter parts), while some events are covered in excruciating detail (this happens almost entirely in the Henry VIII parts).
   
   Each chapter is broken up by a brief "background" chapter. These will be a like 'em or hate 'em thing. I liked them--they provided good information about life in England beyond the Tudors and broke up some heavy reading. I can see why people would hate them, though, as they don't flow into the text naturally and often bear little relation to the chapter before or after their location in the book.
   
   Overall, I did enjoy reading it. Meyer has a nice writing style* provide some much-needed balance on the subject. If you've read other books about the Tudors, this would be a nice contrast to those and chances are good you'll learn something new. But it's probably not for someone who knows little about them--you'll wind up hating them and not read another thing about them, which would be a shame. The Tudors, warts and all, are a fascinating subject.
   
   *My copy was an unproofed review copy, so I'll refrain from dwelling on the typos, bad sentences, etc. that plagued almost every page in hopes his editor was a darn good proof-reader.



3. Although I mostly enjoyed this book, I have to take issue with the tagline of the title -- this is not the complete story of the Tudors; in fact, the book assumes you know the basics. As just one example, Elizabeth's execution of Mary Queen of Scots is only mentioned after the fact, in passing.
   
   Meyer doesn't much like the Tudors, particularly Elizabeth, and in the introduction he states that part of what he wants to do is to deflate to some extent the glamorous image that this dynasty has built up over the centuries, and to show how they were responsible in part for the positive image of themselves that has come down to us over the centuries. But mostly what Meyer wants to do is examine religion during the Tuodor era and how it relates to matters of state and the creation of Renaissance England.
   
   Meyer is at his best when discussing Henry VIII. There is a chapter early on in which Meyer tries to sum up the events giving rise to the reign of Henry VII and to how Henry VII changed the government of the medieval English state, but it is entirely confusing, even if you already know much about the history of the Tudors. If you don't know anything about the era, the names will be impossible to follow. Once Meyer really gets cooking, however, about Henry VIII, the book starts to become very interesting. He goes in depth into the workings of Henry VIII's government and finances and explores in great detail how Henry's position on religion changed over time under the influences of Cardinal Woolsey, Thomas Cromwell and others, and conversely, how politics shaped the state's religion.
   
   Meyer challenges some of the characterizations of Henry, pointing out what a truly awful man he became and what the cost was for much of England's nobility and for its religious leaders and institutions. He continues to examine the motivations of the nobility, in particular, during the brief reign of Edward VI and the even briefer reign of Lady Jane Grey.
   
   Meyer presents a much more sympathetic view of Queen Mary than is generally held, examining the conflicting pressures that were exerted upon her during a reign in which the Catholics and Protestants were very much at odds. It is when Meyer gets to Elizabeth, however, that the book really begins to break down.
   
   Doubtless, Elizabeth was not a very nice person, but Meyer clearly loathes her. It also seems like the author may have had deadline pressure when he got to the section on Elizabeth as his tendency in later parts of the book is to make very broad conclusions that seem personal in nature. He is of the opinion that Elizabeth's primary interest as Queen was her personal survival and that this led to her inability to make decisions. He presents a fairly compelling case, but it would have been much better work were it more balanced and were his personal dislike of her less on display. As it was, my reading pace in the latter half of the book slowed tremendously and while the first half of the book, which is devoted to the reign of Henry VIII merits five stars, the coverage of Edward VI and Queen Mary slips to four stars and by the end of the book, the writing barely merits three stars, despite the wealth of useful information.
   
   All in all, there is much to like about this book as it does present an alternative and probably more accurate view of the Tudor monarchs, particularly the intersection between government and in religion during their reigns. The complete story of the Tudors, however, can not be told in one book, and if you're looking for much of a personal glimpse into the lives of people during this era, you'd do better to look elsewhere. But if you are interested in church and state in late medieval/early Renaissance Europe, this book is quite worth a read.



4. Meyer, a journalist and Literature professor, should know better. Leave history to the historians, and particularly, leave modern interpretations of people with even pre-Enlightenment values to authors of historical fiction. Reasons not to buy this book, much less waste your time reading it...
   
   1. The narrative is dull, tedious, and frustratingly interrupted by grossly brief surrounding histories (such as interludes about the state of British schools in the 16th century). Any decent author would weave the necessary bits into the story itself, instead of attempting a lax history of the entire 16th century.
   
   2. Sources, sources, sources. The most prominent, reliable, and unbiased historian on this era and dynasty, Alison Weir, is blatantly absent.
   
   3. Don't be fooled by the title. More than 50% of this "history" is devoted to Henry VIII. Why? Meyer states that there simply isn't enough info about his father, Henry VII, so dimisses him by devoting a mere 10 pgs. In return, he launches into nearly 250 pgs of the tedious political backdrop of Henry VIII's reign, before even arriving at his marriage to Anne Boleyn!! Edward and Mary (Bloody) are glossed over, and significant events, such as Seymour's attempt to kidnap Edward VI, are conspicuously absent. Elizabeth's reign is described as a protracted, successful attempt at self-preservation. Reductionist at best.
   4. Meyer commits the fatal flaw of pseudo-historians; using a 21st century lens to capture 16th century ideologies, motives, and acts. While always tempting to apply Freudian theories to say, the question of why Elizabeth I never married, and admittedly, Meyer is probably correct in describing Henry VIII as a narcissistic, spoiled inept ruler who later brutally justified murders to assuage his ego, any astute reader can come to that conclusion based on the facts alone.
   
   Suggestion: Buy a few histories of these individual monarchs, Weir's work being recognized as the most accurate, thoroughly researched and best written, and let Meyer continue to capitalize on the recent popularity of the Tudors with someone else's dime.



5. "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty" offers an overview of Tudor England -its monarchs, influential personalities, and crises- for those who would like to understand the era and its famous kings and queens but who don't want to read half a dozen biographies of every major figure. If you want that degree of depth, you will find no shortage of material. But G.J. Meyer tries to bring the major points together in this single volume for the more casual Tudor buff. He covers three generations of Tudor monarchs over 118 years, beginning with a lively account of Henry Tudor's defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, after which he would be Henry VII, through the reigns of Henry VIII, young Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I, who died in 1603.
   
   Fewer than ten pages are dedicated to Henry VII's reign, though more address his background. The first 20 years of Henry VIII's reign get another ten pages. About half of the book is about Henry VIII, concentrating on the events leading to his break with Rome, his pursuit of an annulment from first wife Catherine of Aragon, his battle with clergy over the Act of Supremacy, and Thomas Cromwell's role in it all. Meyer covers the boy-king Edward VI's brief reign, his efforts to promote Protestantism, and Edward Seymour's government. The author takes a more favorable view of Mary I's rule than it seems to merit. Finally, about 140 pages are dedicated to the reign of Elizabeth I, concentrating on foreign interventions, religious persecution, her "favorites", and minister-in-chief William Cecil.
   
   Every other chapter departs from the main storyline to explore some "background" feature of Tudor England. These digressions address subjects such as: the War of the Roses, the Reformation, the Tower of London, monasteries, Renaissance popes, Calvinism, education, the Turks, and the poor. I appreciate that the author is trying to give the reader a more complete picture of Tudor England, the background against which political events played out, without referring us to volumes of social and economic history. Some of the background chapters are good, but others are so cursory as to be misleading. And they interrupt the flow of the story. Fewer background chapters and more depth might have been better -or just omit the weaker chapters.
   
   The author would have done well to shorten the book by being more selective with the background chapters, trimming some detail, and restraining some of his opinions. And he needs to give some indication when his facts are in fact hotly debated. Meyer is downright snarky toward Henry VIII, who deserves it, but I found his tone too flippant at times. Some chapters are overloaded with detail while others skip important topics. It makes for a bumpy ride through the Tudor dynasty. Meyer doesn't think much of the most famous Tudors. He presents Henry VIII as a murderous megalomaniac and Elizabeth I as indifferent and childish. Some debunking is in order, and I like the idea of a overarching Tudor biography or history. But "The Tudors" is too casual and uneven for my taste and, I suspect, too long for the casual reader, whom I believe is the intended audience.

5 comments about Churchill.

1. THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO AMAZON IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WHEN YOU GET YOUR BULK SHIPMENTS OF DVD'S, THAT THEY ARE NOT DEFECTIVE.
   OTHER THAN THAT YOU ARE TERRIFIC.



2. Just excellent! Paul Johnson does a masterful job of illuminting the man who saved western civilization.



3. This is one of the very best biographies I have ever read. It's got just the right amount of detail, moves briskly, and is incredibly well written. The author brings his personal knowledge of Churchill in with a light hand, and doesn't shy away from advocating why he believes Churchill saved Europe and possibly the world. I loved the Epilog, with the examination of why and how Churchill was such an effective person. Very uplifting and positive. A fitting tribute to the man.



4. Johnson gives someone unfamiliar with Churchill a wonderful description of the action packed and extraordinay life of possibly the greatest leader of all time, and certainly of World War 2. Churchill was also a prolific author who wrote perhaps the definitive books on both World Wars. Few know that he had more words published than Charles Dickens, and that his Nobel Prize was for Literature. In addition he was a talented painter and a visit to his beloved home "Chartwell" allows the visitor to view hundreds of his works.
   
   Johnson amazingly gives the reader a good view of Churchill the man, the leader, and the icon, all in only 166 pages. There is enough here to give even the most devoted and well read Churchillian new information. A terrific achievement.
   
   Highly recommended



5. We're pretty North American-centric here in the U.S. Watching the Winter Olympics reminds us that we Yanks are hardly the center of the universe. Plus, I've always felt a tad guilty that my reading list had never included anything on Winston Churchill. No more guilt.
   
   Paul Johnson's 166-page chronicle of Churchill's amazing life and leadership has received excellent reviews. The page count also works. The author's masterful scan of Churchill's 90 years (1874 to 1965) includes insightful detail, laugh-out-loud sidebars and absolutely relevant commentary on leadership and politics, war, success and failure (lots of failure).
   
   If you're under 40, don't skip this book--thinking it irrelevant to our Twitter times. Churchill was a member of Parliament for 55 years, 31 years as a government minister, and almost nine years as prime minister. He served in the trenches of (and reported from) 15 battles, was awarded 14 campaign medals, "had been a prominent figure in the First World War, and a dominant one in the Second."
   
   And get this: he published nearly 10 million words, including his 880-page book, The World Crisis: 1911-1918. His five-volume War Memoirs book deal in 1947 paid him $2.23 million ($50 million in today's dollars). And in his spare time, Churchill painted over 500 canvases. In 1953, he received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
   
   He overcame family challenges. His cousin noted, "Few fathers had done less for their sons. Few sons had done more for their fathers." Yet the author writes, "Among all the twentieth-century ruling elites, the Churchills must be judged to have had the most successful marriage."
   
   In the epilogue, the author includes five specific ways that leaders can learn from Churchill. Number 2: "There is no substitute for hard work." Yet, this giant of a world leader "also manifestly enjoyed his leisure activities," including his painting, which created a sanctuary-like retreat for his mind and body. He worked 16-hour days (often with full working mornings in bed--to conserve energy). "The balance he maintained between flat-out work and creative restorative leisure is worth study by anyone holding a top position."
   
   He knew the value of face time. He forced himself "to travel long distances, often in acute discomfort and danger, to meet the top statesmen face-to-face where his persuasive charm could work best."
   
   Speaking of charm, the writing enticed me page after page. Churchill's famed oratory: 111 words per minute, "with Gladstone's 100 as the standard." After touring Africa, he wrote My African Journey (completed on his honeymoon): "...full of schemes for industrializing Africa and harnessing the Nile." His politics: "Churchill was carried forward by intellectual conviction, but his reverence for tradition acted as a brake."
   
   He ribbed others, including the Labour Party leader, Clement Attlee. "Yes, he is a modest man, but then he has so much to be modest about." And this: "An empty taxi drew up outside the House of Commons, and Mr. Attlee got out."
   
   He popularized (if not invented) the terms "cold war" and "iron curtain." Dependent on U.S. help to win World War II, he became a student of FDR and wrote more than 1,000 letters to him. With pen and cigar (up to 12 a day) he was a brute force writing factory. He documented all verbal orders in writing, and his results-driven memos began with the famous headline, "Action This Day."
   
   "So did the endless series of brief, urgent queries: `Pray inform me on one half-sheet of paper, why...' Answers had to be given, fast." (This from Johnson's insightful list of 10 ways that Churchill saved Britain. Number 4: "a personal example of furious and productive activity.")
   
   All of this, and more, in just 166 action-packed pages. This is a fantastic book!

5 comments about The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn.

1. Weir's biography of Anne Boleyn begins with the appearance of prejudice. In the second paragraph we are introduced to Anne, "one of the most notorious women in Christendom." We are told that she was `not the handsomest woman in the world': she had swarthy skin . . . and she had a double nail on one of her fingers." (It is highly unlikely that Anne had such an obvious physical defect; Henry VIII was a superstitious man living in a superstitious age. People believed that the outer appearance reflected the person within - physical defects were indicative of sinfulness or evil.) It is doubtful that Henry would have risked his kingdom and his immortal soul for a woman who bore such a blemish. A few pages later Anne is described as "haughty, overbearing, shrewish, and volatile."
   
   Of necessity, Weir relies on the writings of Ambassador Chapuys, correctly noting his bias against Anne Boleyn. He never met her and did not have a good command of English; rather he employed a number of paid informers who may have been more interested in providing information that would please him rather than facts as we would understand them. Weir also uses the "Spanish Chronicle" which were written by an unknown Spaniard living in London at the time. Again this document is controversial and often inaccurate as Weir herself notes.
   
   Weir states that Anne had no friends and was hated by many, at court, in the English countryside and abroad. Yet, when she was to be executed, Cromwell ordered that foreigners be conveyed out of the Tower. "There seems to have been official concern that foreign ambassadors would send home sympathetic reports of Anne's end that could reflect badly on the King." In contrast to the description in the first chapter, witnesses at her execution said she "had never looked so beautiful; her face and complexion were never so beautiful."
   
   The Lady in the Tower suffers from Weir's habit of recounting events, citing sources, explaining why the sources cannot be trusted and then saying but maybe these events did happen. A discussion of how long a severed head might remain conscious was perhaps unnecessary. The illustrations include four non-contemporary paintings, all dating from the 19th century, which add nothing to the story. The captions include five references to the Concubine or whore. In the text Weir often refers to Anne in the same way.



2. Just when one thought that Eric Ives had the last word on the subject, Alison Weir comes along with this scholarly and rivet-
   ing analysis of Anne Boleyn's devastating fall. Ms. Weir makes the documentary evidence the focal point of her narrative, rather than relegating it to footnotes, leaving the reader in no doubt as to what was reported at the time. She also explores
   subjects avoided by others such as the horror of death by decapitation. No one interested in Tudor England can afford to pass this one up.



3. Alison Weir's account of the fall of Anne Boleyn and its aftermath is, as many reviewers here say, well researched however, I urge the reader not to take all of her *conclusions* at face value. The book reads almost like a first draft; the contradictions and leaps of logic and inconsistencies are at odds with her own diligent research.
   
   Weir tends to make rather large leaps based on her opinion of what people would or would not do under the circumstances. For instance, she insists Henry VIII "would not" have done or said this or that unless he really believed Anne Boleyn was guilty, without taking into account that people (especially people of questionable mental stability) don't always do what one would expect, and without taking into account the pattern of Henry's behavior with his wives throughout his life. As another example, she concludes that Anne's former love, Henry Percy, certainly did not collapse at Anne's trial due to distress over having to help convict her. Her reasons? He said bad things about Anne Boleyn during her reign, and he was suffering from an severe illness when he fainted at her trial. But how can we know whether or he still loved her -- has no one ever said bad things about an ex they still had feelings for? Nor can we know for sure what caused him to collapse. It might have been distress over Anne, it might have been his illness, it might have been a combination of both, or even something else altogether.
   
   Her selective reliance upon certain sources is puzzling; sometimes she tells us to take bias or unreliability into account, but sometimes she herself does not do so. For instance, in my opinion she takes far too seriously, a poem about the alleged lovers of Anne Boleyn; just because a poet implies George Boleyn was a rapist does not mean he probably was one. She relays that ambassador Chapuys said chancellor Cromwell told him he'd misled Chapuys into thinking that he had thought up a compromise between the Holy Roman Emperor and Henry VIII, that in fact it was Henry VIII's idea, and he did nothing without Henry VIII's say so. However, in the very next chapter, she concludes that because Cromwell told Chapuys that Cromwell thought up how to bring Anne Boleyn down, then it's *certain* Cromwell, and not Henry VIII, instigated the plot against Anne Boleyn and Henry was tricked. She doesn't appear to consider that this is all second hand information from Chapuys; nor does she consider that, if Chapuys is telling the truth, Cromwell must have lied to him once (either in saying the compromise was his idea or in saying it was Henry's idea), thus Cromwell could have lied to him again when he said the plot was his own idea.
   
   Finally, Weir tends to contradict herself, on one hand appearing to agree that the case against Anne Boleyn was a strong one, on the other hand, concluding Anne Boleyn must have been innocent. If the case against her was strong, how can we conclude she was innocent?
   
   In conclusion, I recommend this book but when reading it, do think twice about any conclusion she reaches, and carefully examining each of her sources for its reliability and bias.



4. Alison Weir makes history fun. I love the history of England and this is another fasinating blend of fiction and reality.



5. I tried to like it but it seems Weir had her opinions and simply molded the slight evidence to agree with herself. The first 100 pages never lists the incest or treason crime she was charged with.. why? Hiding the facts? Grade high D book.

5 comments about Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage.

1. An absolutely fantastic account of an ordeal almost beyond belief. The reading was wonderful, because the writing was impeccable. Granted, one can't really go wrong with a subject this fascinating; Shackleton's voyage (actually several voyages in one, or so it seemed) is something that is hard to fathom. How he actually accomplished what he did in those conditions is something I don't think we'll ever really understand, unless you believe in miracles. And Lansing's account of it is flawless.



2. Definitely non-fiction, but written in an easily read manner. Even knowing how it all turns out, it was a great adventure.



3. There are a few books we can consider required reading of a modern educated person. Anne Frank's diary would be one, and I think this version of the Shackleton drama would be another. I have a friend who reads it every year.
   
   Because there are so many strong reviews of this book, I'll speak briefly of something that might be overlooked.
   
   In the eyes of most readers, the most astonishing thing about this adventure is that not a single life was lost. And that truly is amazing. Obviously, things could have gone much worse with just a tiny bit more bad luck. But I'd note something that might be just as strange. In all of the grueling and painful twists in this adventure, Shackleton seems never to have lost the trust and respect of his men. Think of that. Every little decision he made was potentially fatal for the whole crew, and he often had to make decisions that had every chance of being lethally wrong. And yet his men stood stoutly behind "the old man" and were prepared to die with that kind of total trust.
   
   Anyone who wants to be a leader should read this book annually and think about what qualities were present in Shackleton that allowed him to be such an effective leader under such wretched circumstances.
   
   Sometimes our minds can be our worst enemies. Rational thought can save the life of an explorer caught in a life-threatening crisis. But when the situation we are in is apparently hopeless, rational thought is our potential enemy. There were many times during the Shackleton adventure when a rational person would have to conclude that the story had no chance of getting a happy ending. That is when "endurance" becomes a queer virtue, when you put one foot in front of the other in spite of the fact that you are suffering hugely in an effort that is "surely" doomed to fail.
   
   I am not a great fan of adventure literature, and yet the best of it is utterly captivating. In a sense, extreme adventures can be like laboratories that experiment with human nature, testing the limits of what it can do. Nobody would ever get permission to put humans in such grim and painful circumstances as they chose to put themselves in for these grand adventures. Since they do volunteer to do dangerous and painful things, we can take advantage of the chance to see how the human spirit fares when exposed to the worst possible tests.
   
   And that is the particular gift of this book. Without blinking in its description of the hell these men experienced, the author shows us how magnificently they were led and how courageously they fought to keep alive. In the end, they proved that the human spirit can soar above threats and challenges that seem perfectly invincible. The salvation these men ultimately earned was bought at a terrible price, and yet we can thrill with them when we see them prevail when it was surely "impossible" that they would.



4. An earlier reviewer, with experience of frigid conditions in Alaska, cast some doubt on the ability of these men survive while wet in below zero temperatures and howling wind chill factors. It does sound incredible, especially when they were in the boats with no source of heat. But I note that they wore mostly wool undergarments, trousers and sweaters, with gabardine overcoats. Also fur-lined boots. Gabardine, at least back then, was made of worsted wool. Their sleeping bags, often soaked as well, were made from reindeer hides. Fur-lined, that is. I also note Allan Frey's excellent survival book, based on 40 years of living in the Yukon territory, often in a teepee. He prefers wool as well -- and I have cashed in some of my outdoor gear for wool pants and parka. It retains insulating qualities even while soaked and compressed. How else do you think the critters who originally wore it survived outdoors without tents or roofs over their horned heads?
   
   Had these men slept in and been garbed in what most outdoorsmen wear today -- down shrouded in nylon or polyester -- we wouldn't be reading this phenomenal book because they would all have perished in the first year. Even the newest miracle fillings -- Hollofil and the like -- would have blown out of their shredded shells like that down wafting from weeds in the Spring. I don't think they had duct tape for patching such shells back then -- a common site among modern outdoorsmen in their Michelin-man coats.
   
   Yes, in a long, dire emergency -- give me Shackleton every time. And I had btter be clad in leather and wool.



5. This is one of the very best "adventure" stories of all time. You can not possibly go wrong buying this book if you have any interest at all in adventure books. I have read several books on this subject. This one, in my opinion, is the best.

5 comments about The Six Wives of Henry VIII.

1. Was wonderful reading!! I enjoy almost everything about the Tudors. This was one of the most comprhensive readings on them that I have ever seen. Gave lots of tidbits not known before. Very heavy paperback but had it entirely read in about 2 1/2 weeks.



2. Very informative. I dont know if I was the only one that felt this way, but you do see a difrent side of the King ... Not of a monster as many historians put him out as but of a man, a king doing what he thought was right to protect his legacy and his heart...... Anyways .... I truley enjoyed this book ... its a long read but a very well documentation of King Henry and his six ladies....



3. I have never been much of a reader, but this book is AMAZING! The author provides unbelievable amounts of well-researched detail without letting the plot drag a bit. Henry and his wives have made a reader out of me!



4. Alison Weir can serve up a historically accurate account that entertains as well as informs. I still wish I could kick Henry in his well-upholstered backside.



5. I have loved every book by Weir that I've read. She's an excellent author who doesn't stray from the facts and keeps the content clean.

5 comments about The Children of Henry VIII.

1. The title of this book is a bit misleading. While Weir does her usual fine job of elucidating characters and their times, calling this "The Children of Henry VIII" is a bit misleading, since Lady Jane Grey's nine day reign is included. Her story as a child until her brief reign is also told. This makes a great deal of sense historically, since she was labeled sovereign by some lords upon the death of Edward VI and before Mary's supporters drove Grey's "handlers" from power.
   
   The book does a nice job of outlining the personalities, experiences, and beliefs of Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, the children of Henry VIII as well as Lady Jane Grey, also of royal blood. Edward's reign after his father's death was brief, with his death from tuberculosis in his middle teens. Weir outlines his personality and his positions on issues of the day. He never ruled as full sovereign because of his age, but many thought him promising material. He was strongly supportive of a more radical religious stance, moving further from the Catholic Church. The story of efforts by his Council members to manipulate him and compete with one another for influence through him is well told. When his health began deteriorating, with Mary the heir to the throne, some of the nobles realized that they could be in serious trouble, given her know adherence to Catholicism and to her anger at her poor treatment by some of those nobles.
   
   Hence, the coup that placed Grey on the throne, even if only for a short while. It was an effort surely doomed to fail. When troops flocked to Mary to support her claim on the throne, the conspirators were defeated. The sad ending of Jane's life is spelled out. Mary did not want her death, but she served as a symbol for those who did not want the return of the Catholic religion. Thus, she was disposed of as an effort to defuse unrest.
   
   Far more troublesome, as discussed here, was the prickly relationship between the sisters--Mary and Elizabeth. The latter ended up in the Tower of London for awhile, sometimes sure that she was to experience her mother's fate (Anne Boleyn was her mother). Mary's marriage to Philip of Spain and her inability to produce an heir; her efforts to return England to Catholicism and the ensuing burnings at the stake for heresy (she was later referred to as "Bloody Mary").
   
   And, with her death, the book ends with Elizabeth learning that she was now Queen.
   
   This is a standard Alison Weir work, which for me means a well written story, with plenty of details of the main focal characters and the contexts in which they found themselves. There is a nice genealogical table at the end, to see how Jane was related to Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. Another good product from Weir's pen.



2. I loved this book because Weir is an excellent writer and I appreciate that she doesn't delve in to the speculations around their lives.



3. Perfect copy as promised; excellent communication and fast shipment. I wouldn't hesitate to buy again; couldn't be happier.



4. I loved the book, and i think it would make a splendid film script too! However i bought the paperback and that ruined part of the pleasure : nasty paper and tiny font. For those of you who care about that sort of detail, spend the extra money and get the hard cover.I really regret i did not.



5. Most books you read about Tudor England was either about the sex life of Henry the 8th or a psychoanalysis of either Henry or Elizabeth. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read a book on Tudor England that actually accomplishes what it sets out to do and good for the author for actually giving biographical information about all of the children and future monarchs.
   
   I don't know how many books on the period I've read that basically said "Edward came to and he was sickly child who soon died." He was followed by his sister Mary who everyone hated but thank the good protestant God Elizabeth soon came to the throne and England entered a golden age. The author even included information on Lady Jane Grey who always gets overlooked by everyone.
   
   Bottom line-A pleasure to read I will be looking for more by this author.

5 comments about We Two: Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, Rivals.

1. This is a fascinating biography that turns upside down the love story of Queen Victoria and her consort Prince Albert as they cherished one another while battling for dominance of their relationship, which denoted dominance of the British Empire. In other words the early period until Albert's death could easily be labeled Albertan-Victorian age. Prince Albert was a classic example of employing a defense mechanism of being everything his family was not and not being anything they were. Thus he came across as prim, proper and starched, which ironically set the future's look back at the Victorian Age are his belief on how a ruler should behave. He kept his Queen seemingly pregnant all the time and was a major supporter of science and technology. When he died in 1861, Victoria grieved her loss for several years. However, when she finally moved on, the Victorian Age blossomed as if the student had learned from her late master while she described his virtues and buried with him his faults.
   
   This is a terrific biography of the nineteenth century's most powerful "power couple" as each thrived in their love and rivalry, especially Victoria. Gillian Gill makes a strong case that Albert was in some ways her mentor as much as her partner. With numerous illustrations and letters included, fans will relish this profound fresh look at We Two: Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, Rivals.
   
   Harriet Klausner



2. Gillian Gill has written a lovely book; by providing facts and dispelling fictitious stories about Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, I came away with a better understanding of these two historical figures as well as this married couple. It's nice to find that just as we commoners, the Queen and Prince had their ups and downs and moments of struggle. What is at the heart of the story is the love they had for one another. Well written, it made what could have been a droll, dragged on recount of their history, you get a true glimpse into the lives of two very private people told in such a way that kept me interested and riveted.



3. Queen Victoria (1819-1901) reigned over Great Britain from 1837 until her death. The entire reign is called the Victorian era and marks Britain's ascendancy to the world's greatest power. She was the daughter of the foolish and greedy Duchess of Kent and the Duke of Kent a feckless son of the mad Geroge 3rd. She was a young virgin eager to escape the dominance of her mother and Sir John Conroy a friend of the family who wished to control "Vicki" during her early years on the throne. Victoria always sought the advice of older men and was guided by Lord Melbourne as she took the reins of power. Queen Victoria was intelligent, spoke French, German and English and was an inveterate letter writer and enjoyed riding horses, pets and music. She was also headstrong, willful and nobody's fool. She was never beautiful but was a handsome young lady from the Saxe-Cothburg family which had ruled England since the days of George I the Hanoverian King (1714-27). She liked to dance, was a romantic and devoted in her duty to England. She was England's greatest monarch since the formidable Elizabeth I.
   Prince Albert was a German born first cousin of Victoria. His mentors were Baron Christian Stockmar who came with him to England and Leopold of Belgium who had been married to Caroline the daughter of George IV. Albert came from a dissolute family. He was close to his wild brother Ernst. Albert was prim, proper and brilliant. He was multilingual, played music and was a handsome man. In 1840 he wed Victoria and was named Prince Consort. The couple had nine children. Victoria enjoyed marital sex but hated the pain of childbirth. She sought to make Albert the head of the family and deferred to him. The marriage was, though, not always smooth. Victoria liked to get her own way and became an excellent queen seeing the expansion of the British Empire. Victoria's son Leopold suffered from hemophilia which was passed on to male members of her family. Gill has a great chapter on helping the reader understand this dread disease.
   Victoria was crushed when Albert died of tyhoid in 1861. He had been a workaholic who had made the Crystal Palace and the Great Exhibition of 1851 happen; had sought to restore dignity and a strong and sober morality to court life and was stern but loving with Victoria. The fat little queen went into seclusion following his demise and began to see his memory was preserved in countless statues, the Victoria and Albert Hall and in his lavish burial monument at Frogmore. Victoria tended to blame Prince Edward for his father's death. Edward was a womanizer who had been raised harshly by Victoria and Albert.
   Victoria was closest to her oldest child Vicki who became the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia. Later in life she developed a warm friendship with the gillie John Brown whom she came to rely on while vacationing at the Balmoral estate in the Scottish Highlands. Whether she had a romantic relationship with him is not known. Victoria also enjoyed living at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight and Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle in the London region. She wrote a five volume life of Albert. He had not been loved by the British public who did not care for Germans.
   Gillian Gill has produced a fascinating dual biography of the power couple of the nineteenth century! We learn how monarch functioned and was served on a daily basis by servants and governmental officials. It is detailed yet readable. The book is the basis of the movie "Young Victoria."



4. Gillian Gill's "We Two" is an excellent history that, yes, sorry for the cliche, reads like fiction. There's a lot of interesting stuff to learn from this book. I had always wondered how princes and princesses from these tiny German duchies ended up marrying into nearly all the royal houses of Europe and the answer is easy--there were a lot of them! Since royals can only marry royals, preunited Germany offered lots of royalty from teeny debt-ridden countries. Who cared if the palaces were firetraps and the country the size of a city block--they were royal and Protestant. With no other way to support themselves, Saxe-Coburg and similar places became shopping centers for royal spouses. They tended to be pretty good looking and raised to rule, even if they were first cousins.
   
   It is amazing that two people raised in loveless households could have a pretty successful marriage and create an unusually happy childhood for most of their nine children. This was Albert's realm--Victoria hated being pregnant and did not really like children--but because this was important to her beloved husband, she did her best. Little Vic enjoyed dancing, music, lively conversation, and ruling. Albert seems to have been somewhat depressed for much of his marriage. He had planned to rule in Victoria's place, and that certainly didn't happen.
   
   If you enjoyed "Young Victoria" this is a great follow-up, placing the story in an acutely-observed historical context. Highly recommended.



5. I love history, mystery, and psychology and have continued a study of each for more then 50 years. I'm also a member of several books clubs and will highly recommend this book. I found it new and yet old in that the story is old but the telling refreshing to the mind and spirit, here, a young girl overcoming the rule of a mother who was engaged in tactic to support her own gains and little asssitance to the new Queen and a lover who taught in a kind fashion and yet might not have been the best father. This is a good read, well done, 5 stars.

5 comments about The Life of Elizabeth I.

1. I thouroughly enjoyed this biography from start to finish. Alison Weir has an obvious passion for history that is evident in her writing. I highly recommend this book.
   
   The beginning of the book picks up from the end of The Children of Henry VIII (which, in turn, picks up from The Wives of Henry VIII). I had read both books prior to this one and found this to be by far the best. Ms. Weir has a compelling way of presenting the facts in an interesting fashion, almost as if it were a novel. The pictures in the center were helpful because you could picture in your mind what was happening.
   
   My one criticism is that she spent a bit too much time on political issues, but I suppose that was necessary to completely understand Elizabeth.
   
   Overall, a very compelling book.



2. Weir does not approach her subject as an academician. This isn't to say that the information within her book is inaccurate, or not backed by extensive research. Rather, Weir is more intent on establishing Elizabeth as a person, rather than a historical relic. Her attempt is to fill Elizabeth with flesh and blood. And this she succeeds at, beautifully.
   
   I'm sure that there are more academically detailed analysis of Elizabeth I, but I doubt there are any more human.



3. This book was very interesting from an historic view, but a bit tedious and boring. A lot of jumping back and forth making it difficult to follow at times.



4. My interest in Queen Elizabeth I has long been fed by documentaries, movies, and historical fiction titles such as I, Elizabeth by Rosalind Miles. I've always found her to be very fascinating and thought it was high time I read a biography about her. But which one do I choose? I found it serendipitous when a student at the high school library at which I'm interning checked in this extensive biography of the Virgin Queen, so I promptly checked it out myself.
   
   I'm so glad I did. I've been on a bit of a non-fiction tear lately, and this biography didn't disappoint. Weir is very thorough, covering all aspects of the queen's reign, from her foreign policy to her personal life. The most discussed topic throughout Weir's writing is Elizabeth's battle to stay unmarried. Elizabeth spends years and years doing a courtly and strategic dance with other heads of state, leading them on for as long as possible in courtships she has no intention of agreeing to in order to keep the peace with foreign nations. Weir makes an excellent point that Elizabeth has good reason to be very wary of marriage. Just look at the disastrous marriages that her father kept entering into, and what happened to her unfortunate mother! Elizabeth knew that in order to be the true head of her country, she must remain single. I cannot imagine the pressure she constantly felt from both her advisors and subjects to capitulate and marry.
   
   This book is recommended to all who are interested in Elizabeth and who want to read an extremely thorough narrative of the queen's private and public life.



5. This is an absolutely wonderful biography of Queen Elizabeth I. The story begins with her uncertain childhood, following the death of her mother, Anne Boleyn, by order of her father Henry VIII. Her first passion is briefly told and her fears for her life as her sister, Mary, reigned.
   
   But it is really the tracing of the arc of her reign that is at the heart of this book. The volume weaves together Elizabeth's personal life, her court life, and the political context in which she operated. You need a scorecard to keep all the actors straight here!
   
   The book does a superb job describing the relationships of Elizabeth with intriguing people such as Mary, Queen of Scots (how Mary could have survived so long given her perpetual scheming to overthrow Elizabeth is stunning), Robert Dudley (Leicester), Robert Devereaux. Also well done is the tale of her on and off again courtships with foreign leaders, as she moved to (a) produce an heir, (b) create useful political alliances, and (c) retain her power. The latter, holding on to her power, always trumped the former. The story of her hot and cold linkage with Anjou is nicely done.
   
   Inherent in a work like this is the poignancy of the Queen and her leading advisors aging and dying.
   
   An important adjunct to reading is a set of genealogical tables at the end of the book. Keeping the players straight calls for some aid such as this!
   
   Overall, an exquisitely written book that brings the character of Elizabeth I into focus. The amount of information available about the Queen allows for such a detailed book that the people and times seem to come to life.
   
   In the end, a book well worth looking at if interested in the times and the people. Highly recommended.

5 comments about Mistress of the Monarchy: The Life of Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster.

1. Weir's book is fascinating not only for the life of Katherine Swynford but also the people and the period. Her delivery is fascinating and clearly she dug deep into the history and records of the period which rarely showed women, even those of the noble class, as individuals seperate of their husband's or lovers. For anyone who has read Seton's KATHERINE, this is a must read by a biographer with an well established track record for providing readers with histories of "not well behaved women" in history. For anyone who is interested in this period of English history this book is a must. That Katherine and John of Gaunt's children's descendants influenced both the English (Tudor) and Scottish (Stewart) thrones makes her influence all the more important.



2. In 1376, a powerful noblewoman named Katherine Swynford was publicly criticized for not doing her part to clear a section of the silted-up Fossdyke Canal that ran through her property in Lincoln. The 12-mile canal had been built by the Romans in 120 A.D., but the poor and unimaginative English of the dark ages and medieval times had let it slide into disrepair. In 1384, John of Gaunt (who had been Katherine's illicit lover and would later marry her), headed a commission that also directed Katherine to do her part in fixing the canal. Nothing happened. In 1518, another commission made the same demands of property owners alone the canal. Finally, in 1670, Parliament decreed repairs must take place, and it allocated funds for the job.
   
   This minor anecdote illustrated for me the life-and-times of Katherine Swynford and other nobles that are covered in "Mistress of the Monarchy." On the one hand, there are letters that testify to sophisticated efforts to facilitate commerce, and the political negotiations that took place among the rich and powerful. On the other hand, nothing happened for 300 years! Yet, England was stable enough that three centuries later, the needs of commerce still justified the repairs. It's hard to imagine anything that exists today being commercially relevant (not an historical artifact) in 300 years.
   
   I love that anecdote. Unfortunately, too little of "Mistress" is as memorable. The book is a good attempt at uncovering the life of Katherine Swynford and the times in which she lived. But the actual historical record is so paltry, and some of the sources are so biased, that author and historian Alison Weir has little material with which to work. The historical record is little besides laundry lists of payments to her, gifts she gave and received, and homes she rented. The author is left to making guesses and surmises, and then repeating the same information to pad the text.
   
   The padding and repetition are excessive. At least 37 times, I counted a reference to Katherine as "good with children," reflecting on her work as an attendant to various nobles and their children. Similarly, I read over and over again about how a gift was an indication of the high regard with which Katherine was held by John of Gaunt or someone else. I got the point -- the nobility gave gifts to each other, and those gifts had monetary and symbolic value. These repetitions made the book rather dull reading at times.
   
   The book also suffers in that the author is trying to please two audiences: truly knowledgeable people and people with superficial knowledge of the history of England and France in 1350-1400 (me). There were times when the dynastic histories, for example, were merely lists to me. I have no idea whom those people were, nor why they were important. Just as critically, the book uses numerous religious and historical terms that were not familiar to me. A glossary of 30-40 terms would have been immensely helpful. Could I have picked up those words on the Internet? Sure. But I was reading the book during my daily train commute, so I didn't have online access.
   
   Given those objections, I'm satisfied that I read the book. Its evocation of a crucial period in English (and French) history is interesting. The book's descriptions of major historical figures rings true, and the author is scrupulous about indicating when she has good information, and when she either has no information or is working with sources of questionable accuracy and objectivity. Weir does a good job of giving a sense of the wealth of the highest circles of the court in those days, as well as where glimpses of that period can be seen in contemporary England (and, alas, they are few). And it explains why the public love that Katherine and John of Gaunt shared was so remarkable for its time, and how that strong bond forged the Lancastrian and Tudor empires.
   
   One final note. I'm stunned by the amount of traveling that John of Gaunt did during his lifetime. According to this book, it seemed that every two weeks, he was on the move from one of his castles to another, or going to and from attendance in court. He sailed to France seemingly a dozen times, and he journeyed repeatedly to Scotland for battle or negotiations. I doubt that a US president is busier today than John of Gaunt was. Obviously, John's journeys were orders of magnitude more difficult than what political leaders face today. So this book did something that I always value when I engage a new topic: It spurred me to look more deeply, as I will soon look for a strong biography of John of Gaunt.



3. I have read all of Alison Weir's books and have enjoyed all of them. I have a degree in history and I am fascinated by medieval history especially, but Alison is off her track this time usually I can not put her books down but this one I find hard to pick up just to finish it. The style of writing is just to hard to keep up with, it's a jumble all thru and it takes all my effort to figure out where her thoughts are and where they are going, nothing but jumble. Sorry Alison this is the worst book you have ever written. Better luck next time



4. This is overall a very satisfying book. The author, Alison Weir, takes what scraps of information we have about Katherine Swynford and creates what is at least a plausible tale of her life and times. In addition, we get a detailed portrait of her lover and, later, husband--John of Gaunt, son of a king and father of kings. Indeed their liaison produced several lines of rulers--York, Lancaster, Tudor, and Stuart/Stewart. Indeed, the last paragraph of the book notes the even more remarkable descendants of the two focal figures in this book--Queen Elizabeth II, Diana, Princess of Wales, and most monarchs in Europe today, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Bertrand Russell, and others.
   
   Weir seems careful to separate what is speculation and what is known about Katherine (e.g., she speculates that Katherine might have been in the royal court and might have met some future associates at that time). The context of the times is well described, so that even thought details are scarce on Katherine, the context in which she lives is richly depicted. Katherine herself comes off well as a character. Weir speculates that she might have been the model for one virtuous woman in Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" (Chaucer was her brother-in-law). Katherine wed Hugh Swynford, who served as a soldier in the king's army and was often away for long periods of time. As were most marriages of the time, this was more of a business deal than an exemplification of "love." Indeed, the record is unclear as to whether or not Katherine was happy with her husband. After having lived at court for a lengthy time, it must have been disheartening for her when she saw the rather plain housing into which she moved upon marriage.
   
   Then, there is the twinned story of John of Gaunt. He was an important figure in royal circles. He married Blanche of Lancaster, and--odd enough for the time--they were truly in love with one another. His story details his role in English politics and international politics as well as his life with Blanche. One of their sons became Henry IV, succeeded by Henry V and the hapless Henry VI. Upon Blanche's untimely death, he married Constance of Castile; their daughter later married the King of Castile. After his marriage to Constance, and after the death of Hugh Swynford, Katherine became his mistress for some time (they may have separated at one point). She bore him, out of wedlock it goes without saying, four children--from those children came the Stuart kings (Scotland), the House of Tudor, and the Yorkist kings (Plantagenets--Edward IV and Richard III). In an extraordinary twist of history, one of the daughters of Edward IV, Elizabeth, married the first Tudor King, Henry VII.
   
   After Constance's death, Katherine wed John and they lived as husband and wife for the few year together left them.
   
   This is a fast moving story, covering an important part of English history. Weir, as best she can given limited information, brings the different characters to life as much as possible under those circumstances. I found this a fascinating book; it is well sritten. And, the genealogical tables at the end were absolutely vital for keeping the players straight (the notables include: The Roet family (Katherine's ancestors and her siblings), the descendants of Edward III (including John of Gaunt), the House of Lancaster, the Swynford family, the Chaucer family, and the Beauforts (descendants of John and Katherine, including Stuarts, Tudors, and Plantagenets).



5. This book was the biggest disappointment to me. I bought it as my favorite category of historical fiction, but it certainly doesn't read as a story. It's full of if this happened, then we can believe this to be true and "credible sources". I understand liberties taken with history for the sake of a good story and that is what I thought I was getting. It is a rare book that I buy and then put down after thirty pages, but that's exactly what I did with this one

5 comments about The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary (P.S.).

1. I bought this book seeing it as akin to a "true crime" because one of the protagonists, Dr. Minor, is locked up in an asylum for murder. While in the asylum, he makes major contributions to the Oxford English Dictionary via correspondence with the professor putting it together, who for a long time is completely unaware that his correspondent is, in the parlance of the time, "mad".
   
   
   I ended up learning a lot about the Oxford English Dictionary and dictionaries in general. I had no idea that it took so long for anyone to get the idea of putting together a dictionary, and no idea how one was originally compiled, so all of that was new, interesting information to me. However, I didn't really buy this book for the purpose of learning about dictionaries. I was expecting Dr. Minor to have much more of an interesting history and play a bigger role in the story than he does. For example, I wondered whether Minor was really mad or whether, as happened in those days, he just happened to have landed in an asylum on false pretenses or unjust grounds. However, the book makes it quite clear he definitely deserves to be in there and no mistake, so there's no mystery or story to his being locked up. And the reasons why he is locked up, or at least the reasons that are definitely supported by the record, are pretty pat. Minor is simply not as interesting a character as the jacket blurb would lead you to believe.
   
   The author interjects a lot of speculation about events in Minor's life that may or may not have happened or might just be a pipe dream of the author's. In general, the author seems to have added a lot of padding to make this into a fairly slim little book. I felt that the whole story would have made a great article in Smithsonian magazine, maybe even a two-part article, or perhaps could have been a vignette included in a history book about how dictionaries came to be. But the story simply doesn't have enough meaty, factual content to justify an entire book-length treatment.



2. I was really disappointed with The Professor and the Madman, but I had bought this too and was determined to read it, so I did. Like Winchester's other dictionary book, it failed to live up to its promise, but for somewhat different reasons. His purple prose style, which I found nigh unto intolerable in The Professor and the Madman, is toned down to some extent in The Meaning of Everything, but this book ends up being equally disappointing for its own reasons.
   
   Essentially, this book takes a very interesting story and focuses on all the wrong parts of it. Winchester seems to fetishize Victorian England, a fetish I decidedly do not share; the space he devotes to romantic treatments of his Victorian gentleman scholars and their leisurely pursuits was thus wasted on me. He also devotes entirely too much of the book to discussions of political infighting among the various people and institutions involved in the making of the dictionary. He doesn't do this extremely well, so it's confusing, and it's not interesting anyway.
   
   This leads to the real crime, which is his inexcusable neglect of the really interesting story of the dictionary and of the language it sought to catalog. Throughout the book there are asides about various issues of language: that "black" was a "terrible" word that took three months of work, that words headed by consonants were expected to be "lexically and etymologically far simpler" than words headed by vowels, but the letter B was much harder than expected. He even explicitly acknowledges how interesting all of this is, as he calls the introductory essays to the volumes of the OED-in-progress, addressing these and similar problems, "essential reading." But he ignores all of it himself, in favor of little teasers he will never discuss in detail, and for the sake of spending more time recounting the politics!
   
   Very disappointing. This book could have been so much more.



3. Any lover of words cannot fail but be intrigued by this engrossing story of how the Oxford English Dictionary came into being--and how two very different men found their lives entwined by their mutual love of words, books, and language.
   
   What is most striking about this story is that prior to 1692, English dictionaries did not exist. In Shakespeare's time, there was no source for definitions and spellings (which may account for the great variety of spellings during that time). Words were defined by their usage in books. Then, in the mid-eighteenth century, Samuel Johnson published A Dictionary of the English Language, which defined 43,500 selected headwords. It remained the standard for the next century.
   
   In 1857, Dr. Richard Trench, a member of London's Philological Society, came up with a great plan: to collect in a "big dictionary" all the words in the English language, with their pronounciations, definitions, and usages. Each word was to be accompanied with quotations illustrating its various meanings and its first recorded use.
   
   Trench proposed that an army of amateur volunteers be recruited to read certain books, looking for words, each of which they would write on a slip with a quotation (with page number) showing the word's meaning. It was an incredibly bold and ambitious venture. Originally estimated to take several years, the first edition of the dictionary was completed over 70 years after it had first been proposed. To this day, the OED, as it is familiarly called, remains the ultimate English-language word souce worldwide.
   
   The Professor and the Madman focuses on two men who made the creation of this dictionary their life's work. Professor James Murray, the original editor, and Dr. W. C. Minor, a contributor of more than 10,000 of the book's well over half million entries. Although the two men worked as colleagues for over 20 years, they communicated primarily by post, and their shared interest in the dictionary belied the vast differences in their personal lives.
   
   James Murray was an academician and a scholar. From a humble background, he distinguished himself as a man of letters, coming to the attention of the brilliant eccentric Frederick Furnivall (the model for the Water Rat in Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows). Furnivall, who was secretary of the Philological Society and a member of the amusingly named "Unregistered Words Committee," recommended Murray as editor of the dictionary. Murray took the position in the spring of 1879, and immediately issued an appeal for volunteers, which was published in newspapers and distributed widely by booksellers. During his tenure as editor, Murray received more than six million small slips of papers with words from volunteers. He had the mammoth job of sorting through these many slips to select the best definitions and quotations illlustrating usage. He also faced a challenge Scrabblers can appreciate: Language is constantly changing, never "complete." Indeed, Murray's reluctant acceptance of that fact did not deter him. Were he alive today, he would undoubtedly revel in seeing the OED move from its twelve massive volumes in 1927, to a two-volume set with a magnifying glass in the late 1970s, to the online version available[...].
   
   Although not the foremost contributing volunteer to the OED, Dr. William Chester Minor was certainly the strangest. An American, Yale-educated army surgeon imprisoned for murder at the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum in Berkshire, Minor suffered from what is now called paranoid schizophrenia. Each night he imagined malevolent figures emerging from the floorboards or falling down from the ceiling and torturing him in bizarre ways. He ended up spending the majority of his adult life institutionalized. Responding to one of Professor Murray's nationwide pleas for dictionary volunteers, Minor found new purpose in his life, and his meticulous research and submissions earned him the highest praise from the editor. Minor worked on the project for twenty years, poring over books from the 17th century to find quotations illustrating meanings and the first documented use of a word. To this day, thousands of Minor's submissions remain in the OED, the majority appearing little changed from how they had been submitted.
   
   While the stories of Murray and Minor make for fascinating reading, the true star of this book is the dictionary itself. During the course of seven decades, the "big dictionary" project sees various contributors lose interest or die, and yet the dictionary continues on. To give an idea of the amount of work involved, the T section of the dictionary alone took a full five years to complete. At one particularly poignant moment in the book, Murray offers his dying supporter Furnivall a glance at final "majestically long" entry for the word take. With the many dictionaries of our time and their frequent updates, it is amazing to read how this dictionary, the great-grandfather of them all, came to be.
   
   Author Simon Winchester, who has written a dozen other books and is a frequent contributor to Vanity Fair, gives readers a provoking look at the world of that era. From the battlefields of the American Civil War, where Dr. Minor tends dying soldiers, to the rough Lambeth Marsh section of Victorian London, where the delirious Minor kills an innocent laborer, to the rarified world of Oxford, where Professor Murray and his colleagues discuss the future of the English language, Winchester tells a compelling story. Our lexicon today owes much to Murray, Minor, and the thousands of other volunteers in Victorian England who contributed to the OED. The Professor and the Madman is a remarkable look at what is undoubtedly one of history's most phenomenal achievements.
   
   The Professor and the Madman is available at Amazon.com.



4. One of the frustrating aspects of history is that so many important works of history are mammoth tomes. It's true that a well-written work of history is a delight to read whether it's 250 pages or 750 pages, but one must admit that several worthy books remain on the shelf because they are hefty enough to damage toes when dropped. Sure, the reader might say, I *want* to read Shelby Foote's magisterial three-volume history of the American Civil War, and I know I'll be a better person for it - but do I want to dedicate the next six months of my life to it?
   
   If you know anyone who cannot get over the hurdle of reading history for this reason, I wholeheartedly recommend Simon Winchester's "The Professor and the Madman." This book focuses on an obvious yet often-forgotten point - that the Oxford English Dictionary is one of the greatest literary achievements in the last two hundred years. Thanks to the lifelong dedication of a number of scholars, both professional and amateur, Oxford now has the title to the most important reference book ever published.
   
   What makes this story fascinating - and indeed shocking - is that the book's top contributor was a lonely American Civil War veteran, living out his sad life in a British asylum after killing an innocent British civilian.
   
   Winchester writes this too-improbable-to-be-believed story with the verve and dedication it warrants. One might imagine that a book about the creating of a dictionary would be the dreariest thing imaginable, but not so. Just like David McCullough brought the building of the Brooklyn Bridge to enchanting life with "The Great Bridge," Winchester injects fire and gusto into this tale of wordsmiths and eccentrics.
   
   He does so with a careful eye for what is critical to the story and what could safely be cut - this book clocks in at a mere 220-odd pages! For an effort that took decades to complete, producing such a lean book is a testament to Winchester's eye for detail and understanding of what makes a great story.
   
   I will issue no spoilers here, other than to point out that this is a sad tale of triumph - and would make for one heck of a movie.



5. American civil war veteran W.C. Minor, physician and gentleman, plays a notable role in the creation of the most comprehensive documentation of the English language ever produced: the Oxford English Dictionary. Over the course of many years, Minor was single-handedly responsible for making thousands of citations for word usage to be included in the dictionary. The quantity of his solo contributions to the OED effort are notable enough, but what makes his story worthy of a book-length exploration by Simon Winchester is the fact that Minor was criminally insane. He wasn't an ordinary criminal per se, but his madness had led him to murder a British citizen while in a delusional fit. The British government, finding Minor incapable of standing trial by reason of insanity, sentenced him to permanent residence in an asylum. Minor's incarceration provided him with ample time to do just the kind of methodical word investigation that the OED's lexicographers were asking of its volunteer research force. Years passed before the remote editors of the OED ever discovered the truth of Minor's identity.
   
   That's pretty much the hook. There's not an enormous amount of meat to this tale, but its history is just odd enough to sustain Winchester's relatively short book.