5 comments about Elizabeth Taylor: The Queen and I.

1. But I still like this book. I love some of the shots of Elizabeth. She was, and still is, one of the world's most beautiful women. I like some of the single shots of her and also the ones of her with Richard Burton. I also like the shots of the kids. I don't like the pictures of the photographer; they weren't necessary. Some of the photos ARE average, but some are beautiful. Too bad some of the shots show Taylor's frumpy figure; I would've preferred to see more of her face. I also wish there had been some colored photos in this.



2. I love the cover of the book. The pictures I didn't like were the ones with Elizabeth in the bathtub And the pictures of the Author and his marriage This is a book about Elizabeth not Bozzacchi Overall, though I love this book. Elizabeth Taylor's beauty is dazzling right into her forties!!! That's amazing! This is one of my favorite Elizabeth Taylor books (and I have several).



3. Gianni Bozzacchi's "Elizabeth Taylor: The Queen and I" is really is a treasure trove of photos from the Taylor-Burton years! It's one of three books that I consider my Dame Elizabeth "Bible's" - the other two being My Love Affair with Jewelry, and Bob Willoughby's Liz an Intimate Collection. In a way, Bozzacchi's book sort of starts up where Willoughby's ends. I was sort of disappointed when I bought the Bozzacchi book two years ago. It had fewer pages than I had anticipated, and at the time I was never really a fan of the late Burton years. I hadn't really seen any of her films from that period. But I found myself grabbing for that book first on my shelf, and I really adore it. I have also discovered the films from that time, like X Y and Zee, Secret Ceremony, Ash Wednesday, etc. and I love them! It was a completely different kind of glamour from the 1950s, but the clothes were stunning. And of course all that Taylor-Burton excess of diamonds, furs, and yachts were at their peak. It's a time that will never be repeated, for better or worse. I reccommend this book to any Dame Elizabeth Taylor fan!



4. Being that the author knew Elizabeth Taylor so well, the photos could have been on a more upscale tone. Some very mediocre photos when we all have seen gorgeous photos of a gorgeous lady. Somewhat disappointed.



5. I just recieved my copy of Elizabeth Taylor: The Queen and I" I think the book is completely engaing from cover to cover. Gianni's personal memories to the time when the pictures were taken, makes you feel as if your just that bit closer to Elizaebeth. Elizabeth is trully displayed as a human being, human or star, this woman radiates confidence, luxury, and beauty. My favorite picture in the book would have to be the one where she is running in the Dorchester Hotel, skirt all the way up, hair racing towards every directions, very free and bohemian feeling. I love this woman, not because she was for a large time Hollywood's calling card, or the worlds most beautiful woman. But because there is a purity in her eyes, and her soul can literally touch you through simple pictures. Anyone in doubt whether to get it or not, take my word, the book is worth any price, youll have alot of fun looking through it.

1 comments about Lawrence of Arabia: Mirage of a Desert War.

1. What a precious story. After reading "A peace to end all peace" and after that, watching for the first time in my life the movie "Lawrence of Arabia", I was desperate to read a biography of this remarkable person. Undoubtedly Lawrence was quite a personality, who saw in the Arab revolt an opportunity to discharge his intellectual ammunition, and what an excellent work he did. Even Churchill admired Lawrence, and after reading this book, everything is clear to this respect...just imagine yourself travelling through the desert, with no comforts, figthing the Turks and trying to unite the Arabs for a definitive attack to Damascus --- well, that was what lawrence accomplished.
   
   Reading a book like this is highly recommended for anyone because beside learning history, you learn about personalities, cultures and war strategy. I hope I have the time to read the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", and maybe one day, travel the cities that Lawrence once walked.

5 comments about Out of Sheer Rage: Wrestling With D.H. Lawrence.

1. Not especially distinguished as a storyteller, or a travel expert, or a memoirist, what Mr Dyer is primarily is a writer - he has the rare quality of rendering anything he alights on into literature, no matter what the genre. His wide-ranging interests, reflected in his bibilography, are a result of his admitted indolence, his oft-stated desire to run away from any kind of graft and 'watch telly'. A curse for him perhaps, but a blessing for all who read him. Every sentence which isn't simply descriptive resonates and lingers; better to say that every sentence is a kaleidoscope, lighting on things half-remembered, half-known by us all. The biggest compliment you can pay him is that while reading, you wish he would tackle your own favorite subjects so that he could illuminate them in all the ways you would wish to. Midway though the book he quotes George Steiner as saying 'The best readings of art are art' going on to say that 'in such instances the distinction between imaginative and critical writing disappears'. He's not Lawrentian enough to claim this status for his own work, but most who read this would I think agree it fitting.



2. Read this book after Joyce Carol Oates mentioned it on CSPAN as a hilarious memoir. Hadn't read anything funnier in years and have been recommending the book since! Coincidentally, the June 4, 2007 issue of New York Magazine has an article titled, "The Best Novels You've Never Read - Sixty-one Critics Reveal Their Favorite Underrated Book of the Past Ten Years" and Out of Sheer Rage is mentioned. I couldn't agree more!



3. It is actually disturbing to think that I might have lived my entire life without knowing about Dyer and this book had not a friend recommended it to me. Dyer's memoir/rumination/travelogue/indictment/paean is one of the most brilliant, original and engaging books I've ever read. I'm amazed that it is so little known.



4. This is a funny, brilliantly written book about not being able to get on with writing a study of D.H.Lawrence. If you're a writer too you will groan and wince with recognition (unless you're a model of Trollopean industry)--though you're unlikely to take writerly procrastination to Dyer's wild extremes. The book is endlessly self-referential and yet--in spite of this or because of it?-- is interesting, compelling, compulsively readable, and laugh-out-loud funny. How does he get away with it? Well, it's not just about Dyer, but also about many many other things that he sees and experiences and reads as he travels the world with Laurentian rootlessness in the company of the longsuffering Laura (one's heart goes out to her). And it's about how to live; and how not to live; about hope, and despair. And much more; while also conveying a vivid sense of what DHL might have been like as a person, so the study of DHL is finally achieved in the end.
   Is it memoir? literary biography? Travelogue? it's all of these and more.
   In the end the pleasure of a book like this can't be conveyed in a review, because the brilliance of the book is in the writing.



5. Geoff Dyer's study of D.H. Lawrence was conceived as a distraction. Dyer wanted to read Lawrence with a purpose. Preparation postponed the task. The Lawrence project was supposed to take him out of himself. Lawrence wasn't too keen on islands and Geoff Dyer isn't either. Dyer and Rilke both had difficulty doing nothing but work. To Dyer it seemed that making a start on the Lawrence book seemed more boring than doing nothing. After a moped accident and on the mend Dyer began to believe again in his Lawrence project.
   
   Huxley noted that Lawrence had a great responsiveness to the world. Dyer looked at pictures of Lawrence he had collected. The closer Lawrence came to dying, the more he looked like D.H. Lawrence. Dyer and his friend, Laura, traveled to Sicily, one of those touchy respect cultures. Geoff and Laura went to Villa Fontana Vecchia. There was a plaque. Dyer had driven to Eastwood. According to Lawrence the workers hungered for beauty. For Rilke the real work was to organize his existence, but not so for someone like John Updike who began his productive writing life early. Lawrence was untroubled by this sort of thing. His mature work was based upon his relationship with Frieda. Lawrence had found a home within himself as had Rodin.
   
   Reading Lawrence's letters was a perfect excuse for not writing the book. 'The Ship of Death' was written in autumn, 1929. The first intimation, though, came in 1913 in a letter to Edward Garnett. What we want years later is a Lawrence in the midst of his sensations. SEA AND SARDINIA has a note-like immediacy. The essence of Lawrence's writing and life moves in the opposite direction of achieving serenity. Lawrence wanted to turn his emotions into a philosophy. He shows it takes a daily effort to be free. For the writer work means the suspension of life.
   
   This postmodern treatment of Lawrence and the act of writing about him is very good.

5 comments about Balancing Act: The Authorized Biography Of Angela Lansbury: The Authorized Biography of Angela Lansbury.

1. Hello Ms. Lansbury:
   
   I just wanted to tell you how much enjoyment your performances have given my wife and I, over the years. Oh, and your decision to move to Ireland after your house in Malibu burned down: Brilliant! I grew up in Santa Monica, where there was too much money and too many drugs... So many kids my age (I was born in 1954, and graduated from Santa Monica High in 1972) had their lives destroyed by drugs. Los Angeles and Hollywood are terrible places to raise kids! You are so very lucky, to have raised a beautiful son and daughter, and to have had a husband who loved you, for so many decades. I only hope that my wife and I can enjoy over 50 years of marriage, as you and your spouse successfully did! Best wishes to you and your family. [...]



2. If you are an Angela Lansbury fan like I am, you will love this book. It tells of her family, her marriage, children, her days at MGM, her talks and encounters with movie stars, her movie career, Murder She Wrote and after. It is a well-written book not trashy like the Kitty Kelly biographies or sugar coated. I enjoyed reading this book. A GREAT READ.



3. This authorized biography of Angela Lansbury is interesting and well-written...but she was a part of the project, had final say over what was and wasn't included, and left SO MUCH out! Her personal life is covered much better in the other two unauthorized biographies of Angela Lansbury. But what really floored me in this one was her descriptions of "fan psychology" and the way she talks about teenagers who looked up to the character she portrayed in shows like "Mame." She describes the kids' adulation of her in terms of being "a tragedy." While one fan clearly became out of control in terms of following her around and pestering her, the rest of us - legions of us - didn't. Hello! What's so tragic about children looking up to, and being inspired by, a responsible celebrity?



4. With angela Lansbury's cooperation, the author was able to construct the life of the star and her dreams without being intrusive into episodes of her life. He truly respected the subject and the star rewarded him with candor. it is too often that authors choose biographies to sensationalize a life. In this case, the author told it straight but with humanity and dignity and affection for a woman of icnredible talent and character.



5. This is one of the finest celebrity biographies that I have ever read. Actress Angela Lansbury is profiled with candor and wit in Martin Gottfried's "Balancing Act". Gottfried conducted countless interviews with the star herself of whom he says, "No biographical subject could have been more cooperative.", and many, many of those who knew her and worked with her. The book details her early life in London, her arrival in America during WWII, and her first film, at MGM, where they promptly decided to change her name to "Angela Marlow". The book writes with candor about her first failed marriage and her Hollywood years into the late forties, when she married Peter Shaw (and the marriage is still going strong). In the early fifties, she gave birth to her son Anthony and daughter Deidre Shaw, and in the late sixties, with her Hollywood career in a slump, she bounced back on Broadway in her Tony-Award winning title role in the musical "Mame". The book is at its most exciting when detailing her Broadway career, and not just with "Mame", but with her three other Tony-Award winning roles in "Dear World", "Gypsy", and "Sweeney Todd". And after Broadway, Lansbury conquered television with her ever-popular "Murder, She Wrote" series. Since then, Lansbury has enjoyed steady acting and puttering in her rose garden. Many humorous anecdotes and behind-the-scenes stories told by Lansbury concern stars like Ingrid Bergman, Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, and Bea Arthur among them. She is a rueful raconteur and thrilled with her extraordinary professional and personal life. With the color and gusto of "Balancing Act", Angela Lansbury is profiled up close and personal and, as always, absolutely great!

5 comments about Michael Collins and the Troubles: The Struggle for Irish Freedom 1912-1922.

1. This is a great book, but it certainly can do with a new title --Michael Collins is only mentioned a few times within the first 3/4ths of the book. Don't let this stop you from reading it, though. O'Conner's conversational style makes it an engaging read on the events leading up to the wretched free state and the war for independence.
   
   And I must disagree with the reviewer who wouldn't recommend this as a 'starting point for studying the Irish rebellion.' It's great. Read it. If you want some more on the topic read Rebels by Peter de Rosa and Bloody Sunday by James Gleeson.



2. I didn't mean to read this book. I had bought it for someone else but it never quite got there. Ulick O'Connor begins by relating a little of his own family's history and then goes into what can only be called a chronological ramble about Irish history.

   This is by no means a biography of Michael Collins. In fact very little of the book is spent on Michael Collins himself. It is however an engaging conversation on the history of Ireland in the early 1900's.

   This conversational style is hard to follow. To get something out of this book you must read it as though you are listening to a witness describe to you what happened in those critical days and do it over a pint of Guinness. If you can read the book in that perspective you will find that you have been given a personal introduction to the many men and women that drove the Irish freedom movement to the front of the world stage.

   The author writes in a style that feels very personal. Not so much history but a story. A tale of people that were and are important to the author. However, because its so personal it is not very balanced. This is a tale of Irish Repulicans told by an Irish Repulican. No love is lost on the British Government or the Ulster Unionists.

   I cannot recommend this book as a starting point for studying the history of the Irish rebellions and the roots of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I can however recommend this book as an excellent addition to a well rounded education on the topic.




3. If you've wanted to know about Michael Collins but all you've ever seen was the movie (dramatization) this is a great primer book for his background. I think Tim Pat Coogan's book is better for an in depth analysis of Mr. Collins. I've just started that one but would recommend it as well.



4. O'Connor's title suggests that this book is strictly a biography of Michael Collins focused on the years 1912 through 1922. In actuality, it covers a wide range of people and events and I cannot recommend it strictly as a Collins biography. However, as a history book that happens to have an emphasis on Collins, particularly in the latter part, I can recommend it. O'Connor has relied on materials from the library of General Richard Mulcahy (the IRA's chief of staff in Collins' time) and on interviews with Eamon de Valera, et al. For those reasons alone, I believe it is worth at least a cursory glance. Because of O'Connor's interest in and work for the Abbey Theatre, this book does emphasize literature and the arts in terms of how they fueled the independence movement. For someone interested in humanities as well as history, this would be one of O'Connor's advantages. This selection is divided only into numbered chapters rather than parts and that can be a bit irritating at times, especially because this is not a traditional biography. Chapter One actually begins by discussing Charles Stewart Parnell and the untimely end of his career. From there, the reader is taken quickly through the Irish political climate from the late 1800s to 1912. It is not until the last third of the book that the audience learns of specific ways Collins kept the republican struggle afloat in tough times. Therefore, this book's usefulness can only be determined by what you intend to use it for. If you are trying to accumulate materials for a general study of modern Irish history, this book is worth owning. If you are looking for a typical Collins biography, this wouldn't be the best starting point.



5. When I got the book I thought it would be more on Michael Collins . Despite this I thought it was a good book that help put into to prespective the events and people around him.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.



2. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



5. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

5 comments about Pepys' Diary (Highbridge Classics).

1. 
   I chose to listen to this book because I felt I "should" be better acquainted with what can arguably be called the most famous diary in history. I looked upon it as a chore that would improve my mind.
   
   I may have, indeed, improved my mind but it turned out to be no chore! What an absolute delight. I've read many historical novels that weren't half as exciting, funny and fascinating as this book. I kept having to remind myself that this man REALLY lived through all these things -- the plague, the great London fire, the machinations of the court.
   
   Plus, his willingness to expose in frank (and sometimes bawdy) detail his personal life, health, sexual dalliances, etc., brought *him* as well as his times vividly to life.
   
   I doubt if trying to read through the actual diary would be as much fun, but the editors' careful selection of entries culled out the best bits while never losing continuity.
   
   And what more can I add to the praise of Branagh as narrator? The man is a phenomenal talent and shows it in this book. Never over-acting, he manages to convey a perfect tone (for instance, just the hint of a whisper at the more personal parts, as though Pepys was confiding in us).
   
   All in all, this book convinced me that improving my mind doesn't HAVE to be tedious.



2. Of course it is not the complete Pepy's diary but is wonderful to listen to while on long drives. Kenneth Brannagh as the reader brings life into the English language of yesterday. I wonder if a movie is in the offing.



3. Samuel Pepys' Pepys' Diary is an outstanding classic which comes to life in audio cd format, narrated by Kenneth Branagh whose background in film and direction lend to a vivid narrative indeed. Pepys' classic has lasted centuries because it records in vivid descriptions the bygone world of 17th-century London life: this vivid written word in turn translates well into audio and brings a rich history to life.



4. I loved these tapes. I concur with the reviews that they are addictive - better for a long country ride than a harried rush hour. Then let Pepys (Branagh) be your witty and engrossing travel companion.
   
   It obviously helps to be familar with the Restoration to enhance your enjoyment of these diaries; though many with even a general background will still find them entertaining. Highly recommended.



5. This is a remarkably entertaining audio book for those who wish to have a birds-eye view of life in seventeenth century London. Samuel Pepys began keeping an extensive diary in 1660, which he religiously kept for nine years. He finally stopped writing it in 1669 due to his failing eyesight. Samuel Pepys personally lived through the restoration of the Crown to Charles Stuart after the fall of Cromwell, the Plague, and the Great Fire of London. So, it is remarkable to be able to hear Samuel Pepys' vibrant, eye witness narrative of these historical events. Read by the great British actor, Kenneth Branagh, whose beautifully nuanced reading of this abridgement is one that the discerning listener will find compelling, the diary of Samuel Pepys is one book that history buffs of the period will surely love.
   
   In his diary, Samuel Pepys recorded not only events that had historical significance but also those day to day details of his own life that shed light upon the way that people actually lived and worked in seventeenth century Restoration London. The diary chronicles all those mundane little details about which life is made. His meetings with friends and colleagues, his desire for social and professional advancement, his treatment of his servants, his spats with his wife, and his brief extra-marital affairs and bawdy romps, all this and more is contained in his diary. In detailing his affairs of the heart, he often used a code which appears to be a combination of English, Spanish, Latin, and possibly French. It was understandable to me, as it would be to anyone with some knowledge of these languages, and, consequently, understandable as to why he would write it in code. He obviously would not want his wife to know what he was up to!
   
   His is a unique voice that should be heard by all those who would wish to know more about seventeenth century life in Restoration London. Suffused with period detail and written in the linguistic style of the day, this book is a must for all those history buffs who are interested in Restoration England. Bravo!

5 comments about The Love There That's Sleeping: The Art And Spirituality of George Harrison.

1. This book is like a sunrise in George Harrison literature and the Beatle Literati are quite pleased with this one. It is a brilliant look at how spirituality and art married well and how George Harrison's work showed this to be a match made in heaven.
   
   This author celebrates George's art, core values, beliefs, religious views as how each had an affect on the art he created. I am glad to see more information provided in re George's view of Catholicism in adult life, indeed, a beautiful statue of Mother Mary graced his home at Friar Park. While this author suggests that George abandoned it and viewed the church as being corrupt, I don't quite get the sense that George jettisoned Catholicism out of his core values for good. While as a young man, George explained his disillusionment with people using church as a place to showcase new clothes and his questions about Jesus being God's only child, he still retains some seeds of Catholicism in the beliefs he would later embrace.
   
   While he does take a bit of a poke at Catholicism in "Vatican Blues," where he questions the morality of church officials, I don't get the sense that he is critizing the faith, per se. Again, in this song, one hears a young George lamenting about how the priests in his boyhood neighborhood would knock on doors, requesting money and use it to build pubs as well as churches. It is the actions of people that George has criticized, not the faith itself.
   
   In "Rising Sun," one gets the sense that George has reached a point of acceptance. In a somewhat ironic twist, my church (which is a Catholic church) uses a lot of George's songs for our prayer meetings and discussions. There are parishioners who have said that George's music helped them appreciate and recognize their own spirituality. It was George himself who said that our search for God cannot wait; he was making an inclusive statement and not one confined by any one religion or ideology.
   
   Allison is truly a scholar and is brilliant in outlining George's view of life, death, religion and the beliefs of others with dignity and grace. It is always a treat to find genuinely good books about my favorite Beatles, the Messrs. Harrison & McCartney, but to find one of this caliber is a bonus treat.



2. Allison brings his considerable skills as an exegete of religious texts to Harrisonology. The results are stunning. See the blurbs below from the dust jacket.
   
   "What have we here? A delightfully revealing analysis of George Harrison's songs by a world-class, religious scholar. An obvious labor of love, this book is as lively and as enlightening as its subject matter warrants. Fans of the former Beatle are certain to learn things about his songs that no ordinary rock historian could teach them -- and students of religion and culture will find a compelling introduction to a pop-icon whose imaginative work merits serious attention. It is enough to catch more than a glimpse of that elusive inner light Harrison himself hoped we would see." --Mark Allan Powell, Professor of New Testament (Trinity Lutheran Seminary) and author of The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music.
   
   "A sensitive, thorough and fair-minded appraisal of the issues and beliefs central to George Harrison's life and art presented with great clarity. I welcome this addition to the newly formed genre of Beatles' theology!" - Steve Turner, author of The Gospel according to the Beatles
   
   "For more than forty years fans have celebrated George Harrison's music, enjoying its poetry, sharp wit, and virtuosity. But as much as his songs delight, they also puzzle those not familiar with the Hindu inspirations behind them. Harrison enthusiast Dale C. Allison comes to the rescue with The Love There That's Sleeping, an accessible introduction to the religious and philosophical worldview that informs so many Harrisongs. Allison is well known for his careful analyses of religious texts and in this book he brings his considerable skills to the religious poetry of George Harrison, helping us appreciate Nelson Wilbury's art on yet another level." --Michael J. Gilmour, author of Tangled Up in the Bible: Bob Dylan and Scripture



3. This book is a study and a celebration of George Harrison's life, religion, and music, and will be a joy to read for any Beatle's fan or devotee.
   Allison follows George's spiritual journey beginning with his childhood experiences of Roman Catholicism to Harrison's eventual discovery of his love of Hinduism. With knowledge and insight that only a scholar of his caliber could possibly offer, Allison does a grand job of sorting out the turmoil of George's feelings about this world and the afterlife with class and candor.
   And not only is this book an insightful read on so many levels, it is also full of delight and entertainment for those who perhaps don't know very much about George's music or want to know a little something about Hinduism and his beliefs in general. Also, "The Love There That's Sleeping" will hold enchantment for those who just plain love classic rock.
   
   Also, who knows what's wrong with the moron below who didn't realize this book could be purchased in paperback for $12.95. By no stretch of the word is this book a "rip-off."



4. I just want to thank the author for this work on the spirituality of George Harrison's music. He was always my favorite Beatle and I came to love his solo music because of its spiritual expression. I have a very personal spiritual life myself, and very much enjoy the insights in this book regarding his lyrics and experiences. It is by far the most interesting work I've read about him aside from George's own words.



5. When will Beatles fans realize they are being ripped off. This book is a real bust.

5 comments about The Sisters: The Saga of the Mitford Family.

1. Just read this for my book club and OY, OY, OY, did I ever hate it. I really did not find any of the sisters to be sympathetic. They were so spoiled and out of touch with reality. Furthermore, they were so mean to each other. I also had a hard time keeping them straight with all of their stupid nicknames. The biographer's apologetic yet pedantic tone bugged the hell out of me. Lady, we all get the peerage system and the nanny system. Oh and BTW, hobnobbing with Nazis does not make one fascinating; it makes one despicable, even if you are the most classically beautiful woman to grace the world. How bout another OY for good measure... OY!



2. A biography clearly more sympathetic with some sisters more than others, but overall a comprehensive look at the sisters and the time and world in which they lived.



3. If you've read even one book about the Mitford family, you've read this book before. It relies heavily on Jessica Mitford's HONS AND REBELS, and/or THE HOUSE OF MITFORD, by Jonathan & Catherine Guinness, and Nancy Mitford's comedies. The author merely borrows fact (or fictionalized fact) and conclusions from all other authors, and sets them forth yet again, in this waste-of-time effort.
   
   I wanted NEW insights into this family, and all I found was repetition. While I appreciate a biographer who allows me to draw my own conclusions, there should be times when an author's feelings come forward about the subject(s). We should have some sense of where the author stands, in other words. In this case, I think the author was too concerned about not causing offense to the Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Mosley, who gave her assistance. There is absolutely nothing fresh about this multi-biography.
   
   Very disappointed in this, and very glad I only borrowed it from the library.



4. Mary Lovell's interesting book on the Mitford sisters (and on Tom, the ill-fated brother) is a guilty pleasure indeed. Lovell has a completely new take on things that urges us to find Diana Mosley a brave 20th century heroine who fought for what she believed in and whose imprisonment during the first part of World War II was a shocking act of injustice comparable to the internment of Japanese-Americans in prison camps in the USA. Revisionist much? Yes, indeed, and that's part of its fascination. Lovell seems most determined to set on its ear David Pryce-Jones' biography of Unity Mitford. Unity, the tortured British Nazi who set her cap on the biggest Nazi of them all, Adolf Hitler, here emerges as the funniest and cutest of all the funny and cute sisters. Yes, Lovell admits, she should not have laughed when Hitler boasted of forcing a party of Jews to cut a sward of German lawn with their teeth alone--that was cruel and unMitfordlike. But outside of that, did Unity really do any actual harm? Lovell says no.
   
   Meanwhile there is a continual hum of approval for Debo, Duchess of Devonshire, and her substantial work keeping together her husband's ancestral estates. For Lovell, preservation work of a zillionaire's estate merits the highest commendation.
   
   Decca (Jessica) Mitford, comes off the worst, and her elopement with Spanish Civil War buff, and her first cousin, Edmond Romilly, shows how unfeeling she was to her mother and father, and she stayed a Communist for years and years (until 1958) when she should have abjured the party years ago. Well, she should never have joined up in the first place.
   
   Many reviewers praise Lovell's evenhandedness and lack of judgement, but I haven't seen a trace of an even hand. In one telling passage Decca is stuck overnight in an Alabama church with Martin Luther King Jr, while Ku Klux Klan and 1,500 other white protestors surround the church with tear gas. "The uproar," Lovell writes, "had been caused by the surprise appearance at the event of the Freedom Fighters, a sort of flying squad pf black youths on motorcycles, who were much feared by whites in the Southern states." Oh so that's why it happened, eh? Why not just say, "The uproar has been caused by racism"? That's shorter and much more on point than your ridiculous "Freedom Fighter" excuse.
   
   Debo and Pam aren't in the book that much, and Pam is like the invisible woman. When she goes gay ("she's become a you-know-what-bian," Decca writes to her husband) Lovell makes absolutely no comment, though she analyzes every little variation on the Mitfords' uncountable family nicknames. It's obviously not important to her, but it leaves the reader thinking, well, Pam is really a bore, which is terribly unfair to Pam (she whom her sisters called, "Woman," for she was the best of all of them) who deserves a biography of her own, one in which the biographer didn't wish her away with a "well done, Pam" from time to time.
   
   That said, the book is like a big box of delicious candy and you just can't stop eating it till all of the sisters die (but one) and we are left contemplating the terrible, wonderful legacy of an aristocracy who could do whatever they pleased and managed to get it wrong 95 per cent of the time, empty candy wrappers scattering in the breeze. I loved it, pretty much.



5. I loved the way the author achieved combining the personal lives of the Mitford family and the history of the times. In hindsight, it's easy to say that Diana and Unity should have been smarter about Hitler. But it was a time when he almost had a whole continent enamored with his achievement shown by the economic advances of Germany. No one in the free world acted on the atrocities that happened on his watch because these acts were incomprehensible at the time..so how could the two Mitford sisters, Diana and Unity even anticipate the horrors that he was finally associated with. They were attracted to the glamour, the power, the popularity and intelligence they believed Hitler had. Were they wrong?? Yes...but at the time it seemed like he was the rescuer, and I thought that Lovell was very fair portraying the situation..never revealing her feelings about this. It was a beautifully researched book which presented the sisters and family as very real..even Tom, who was absent during the time doinng his wartime duty, but portrayed as a very influentuial and loved character in the family. I thoroughly enjoyed this book..I became very attached to all of the sisters for different reasons..and I loved Sydney and thought she imparted a great sense of confidence for her girls to develop their independent selves..

No comments about The Reign of Henry the Eighth, Volume 1.