5 comments about The Day Diana Died.

1. I usually don't go for all the books about Diana, Jackie, and other celebrities. However the author has written a concise book about the making and death of a Princess. It details how Diana fell in love with Charles, and then how the marriage soured. Then it details her after marriage relationships with other men including Dodi. The last half of the book details the relationship with the press, and how the accident fell in place after a number of variables. These include a defective car, a drunk driver with emotional problems, and Dodi trying to escape the grasp of the press. The accident resulted in the death of three of the occupants of the car.
   
   This is a surprisingly good read. The flow of the book was excellent, and Andersen went through and connected all the pieces. The author places all the information into a easy to read account of the death of Diana.



2. The book has a gossipy tone, and it portrays Queen Elizabeth II in an extremely poor light. For example, the author makes a big deal over the flagpole at Buckingham Palace and the Queen's alleged initial refusal to fly the flag at half mast. That flagpole is for the Royal Standard. When the Queen is home, the Royal Standard (not the Union Jack) flies full. When the Queen is not home, the flagpole has nothing on it. Merely following that tradition is not a sign of disrespect, except in the minds of people who are not knowledgeable.
   
   The book describes Diana and Mother Theresa as "two humanitarians." Give me a break. Mother Theresa did far more for the poor in a day than Diana did in her whole life. Shaking hands with an AIDS patient (as a lawyer meeting clients, I have done that lots of time) or spouting the liberal view on land mines does not qualify a person as "humanitarian." It is a genuine shame that Mother Theresa, after a lifetime of dedicated service to the poor, had the misfortune to die in the same week as Diana, and, as a result, be virtually ignored.



3. "No single event in history had ever been witnessed by so many people at one time. Across the globe, an audience of more than 2.5 billion watched the solemn progress of Diana's cortege through the silent streets of London and the funeral service at Westminster Abbey."
   
   This aspect gives the book a little gravitas -- the sheer impact of her fame and her death's interplay with her influence worldwide. This book was a fast read (2 days). The real value of the book comes, I think, from Andersen's reportage of the details in the opening of the book of what happened in the hospital in Paris right after she died: how Prince Charles reacted to viewing her body, how no one could find any clothes to put on her (since her pants and top had been cut off her in the ambulance and Mohammad Al Fayed had had all of her things immediately removed from Dodi's Paris apartment) so in the coffin on the way back to England she wore a dress from the British Ambassador's wife's closet, how the hospital had taken privacy precautions against the press, etc. The second part of the book that is interesting here distinctly is the last section, which dissects the events leading up to the crash (the driver Henri Paul's drinking problem and psychological state), the explication of exactly how the crash happened, who came on the scene first, how Diana was treated at the scene, her injuries, what she may have said (according to Andersen, her last intelligible words were, "Oh, God, what's happened?"), and how a variety of interplaying factors led to the deaths of Paul, Fayed and Diana. For example, if she had been wearing her seatbelt, which she almost always did, she probably would have walked away from the accident, and how, ironically, of all the people who got in the car that night, she was probably best qualified to drive it. This section and the first seem to contain the real reportage of the book.
   
   The middle section about her life appears to have a lot of recycled material in it, that if you've followed Diana stories and books, you've probably read this before (and to be fair, this may be just because I've read this six years after its publication). Morton's earlier Diana: Her True Story is quoted along with other somewhat accepted sources on the subject of her life. There are some tidbits, such as the assertion that Diana was set to star in a second Bodyguard movie with Kevin Costner, and that whilst Dodi was preparing to propose to her, no one who knew her well believed she would have accepted. While Andersen seems pretty objective in not portraying the princess as a saint, noting that she cut people out of her life when they said something to her she didn't want to hear, he does leave out of his book some well-traveled stories that paint her in a bad light (such as the comment she made to princes William and Harry's nanny post divorce that hinted that the nanny had had an abortion), or he glosses the negative trends in her life, living too much by (bad) instinct, her immaturity, etc.
   
   I thought that this book was going to be more serious reportage on the accident. While it did contain that element, it was really a book about her life, with all the usual suspects included. Really, the stuff that's new here is about the day Diana died. The rest seems somewhat tired.



4. When I first heard about this book coming out, I was afraid it would be a tasteless and exploitative piece of paparazzi trash exploiting the death of a beautiful woman. However, I was more than impressed and pleased with the way the author combines hour by hour events on the day Diana died with background on her life and relationships. Diana was one of my favorite celebrities ever, not just for her beauty and elegance but for what she survived through and the fact she was such a good mother. This book combines all of those elements and also gives us a window into what happened on the day she died. One of the only tasteful and well-written books to come out after her death...



5. I found this book to be incredibly informative and a fascinating read, which I read almost in one sitting. Instead of the usual tawdry gossip of most Diana biographies, it describes exactly, and in fascinating detail, about the events that led up to her death, the day she died, and the ensuing mourning that followed. We are made privy to details we never knew, and they are very essential details, in my opinion.

   To me, the most interesting and ironic part of this entire tragedy is that Diana lay in the hospital in Paris, dead, with nothing to wear. Prince Charles and Diana's two sisters were on their way from London, and the world's most famous and well-dressed woman literally had nothing to wear. The clothes she had been wearing when she died had been torn from her body by doctors who were attempting to revive her. Her luggage had been whisked back to London by a paranoid Mohammad Feyed. And, here was the world's most glamourous woman, at death, being forced to wear a dress donated by the wife of the English Ambassador to France. This irony is just one of many sad ironies and twists of fate in this account.

   We learn of the behind-the-scenes machinations leading up to Diana's funeral, the conflict between Prince Charles and his mother, the Queen, and how Diana's boys reacted. Prince Charles is definitely painted in a much brighter light than ever before. I was absolutely fascinated by this book, and I think it is well worth reading.

1 comments about We Are at War: The Diaries of Five Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times.

1. Continuing the thread begun in Hidden Lives, Simon Garfield offers selections from the Mass-Observation Project diaries of five people caught up in the preparations and then the beginning of the infamous Blitz. The uncertainty, the anger, the fear; it's all here and it leaps off of the pages in a way that keeps you turning them.
   
   Sometimes the diarists are not particularly likeable - you encounter racism and defeatist attitudes at certain points. But that is something that makes this volume particularly interesting. Knowing that these pages are going to be read by others, the diarists are still painfully honest in their fears and their prejudices. Very enlightening, and highly recommended, especially as a companion volume to Hidden Lives.

5 comments about Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders.

1. Looking at the title of the book I thought, "wow a book about Reagan and Churchill, what could be better?" But in the end I thought the book was more just a telling of facts more than an indepth review of their leadership characteristics and I never found in the book where it talked about the making of great leaders. It just seemed to say everything that happened to Reagan and Churchill and that seemed to be enough for the author. I did learn some things about Reagan that I did not know so I will go back to this book for those facts but it just was not what I thought it would be from the book's description.



2. Can greatness among human beings really be spoken of in modern times? Perhaps it is a politically incorrect, anachronistic idea in our egalitarian age. Indeed, regarding both these men, Churchill and Reagan, the media appears to have downplayed their legacies for just this reason. For example, Time magazine in 1950 named Winston Churchill "Man of the Half-Century" but passed him over at century's end for "Person of the Century", explaining that "...Churchill turned out to be a romantic refugee from a previous era who ended up on the wrong side of history." And Reagan? The news media, which had consistently downplayed him during his presidency, was astonished by the outpouring of public sentiment at his death in 2004 as this showed in spades the esteem in which he was held.
   
   Certainly the verdict of history is not passed immediately on the legacy of statesman; it takes time. Who would have thought in the 1980's, that the name of Ronald Reagan would be uttered in the same sentence as that of Winston Churchill, less than twenty years after the former had left public office? The idea that Churchill was a great man, though not agreed upon by everybody, still seems to be more easily embraced than the idea that Reagan was. But our response to Reagan's death, one of looking back and re-assessing his legacy, surprises us at the warmth we found ourselves feeling for the man. I don't need to read an essay to feel it in my bones that there was something about Ronald Reagan that touched greatness. Steven Hayward (the author) gives some insights into explaining what many of us already believe to be true. He spends most of the 170 page book comparing both men, demonstrating the surprising number of similarities that they had, from their childhoods, to their early liberal inclinations, to their switch to conservative political views, and to how they were perceived at the time. Certainly a common perception of Reagan during his presidency was that he was "uninformed, even ignorant, and relied on simplistic platitudes to get by." But some of Churchill's top aides said the same thing, that Churchill "has only half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities, and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense" (Field Marshall Alanbrooke). This is just one of many, many parallels that are listed. We remember that Reagan was charged with being a warmonger. So was Churchill. He alienated himself from many in his own party during the 1930s for his strident warnings of German fascism. In fact, Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 was not received very well and his own government made a point of distancing itself from it. Forty years later, Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech at the Berlin Wall had his own aides fearing that he would only embarrass himself. Even after Reagan's presidency, when the Berlin Wall had in fact come down, and the Soviet Union was no more, some felt that the credit belonged to Gorbachev. Time magazine, in fact, named Gorbachev "person of the decade" in 1990. But I think it is appropriate to ask for Gorbachev's assessment, since his early opinion of Reagan was far from flattering. His presence at Reagan's funeral in 2004, seated next to Margaret Thatcher reinforced his words in 2002 that "I am not sure what happened would have happened had he (Reagan) not been there."
   
   In his Iron Curtain speech Churchill said that World War II could have been prevented "without the firing of a single shot." According to Margaret Thatcher, Reagan brought the cold war to an end "without firing a single shot." Both men believed in peace through strength. Both men doggedly spoke their minds and followed convictions that had not only their political adversaries, but also those in their own party, scratching their heads. Especially regarding what they considered the evil of communism, both men stood alone at times, but history has vindicated them. They were far from perfect, but how many great men are? Arriving at a conclusion of greatness is made even more difficult when the concept of greatness itself in the modern world is called into question. Steven Hayward has done a masterful job of not only allowing us the possibility of considering greatness abstractly, but of applying it to these two remarkable men.



3. Steven Hayward extends his research of Churchill and Reagan to look at comparisons of leadership skills, styles and effectiveness. While the comparisons are interesting, I found it difficult to see the relevance. As a specific comparative analysis, the book brings forward otherwise obscure parallels in the life and times of these two great leaders. The title is misleading in that I found no insights on "the making" of an extraordinary leader. As a book on leadership, Mr. Hayward's work gives examples of Churchill and Reagan leadership, but the work doesn't analyze the leadership examples in a way that the reader could learn leadership tips.
   
   Overall, I found the book interesting, but not terribly relevant.



4. Hayward does a wonderful job in only 170 short pages of describing the similarites between Churchill and Reagan. It is a very quick read and will leave you feeling good about these two men and the accomplishments they achieved while in office.
   
   Hayward makes this statement, "Greatness is ultimately a question of character: Good character does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities." Are there any great leaders with character today? As in the lives of Churchill and Reagan, history will tell.



5. I found this book to be quite interesting but not at all what I had anticipated. Based on the title, I expected to see an erudite tome analyzing the lives of Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill culminating in a discussion of how great leaders, such as these, are "made." I was, of course, being rather naïve, for if anyone knew how great leaders are produced they wouldn't be so rare in human history. What I found, instead, was a side-by-side comparison of two great men with emphasis on the parallels in their careers; the manner in which they were viewed by their contemporaries and the media in their own times; their visionary natures; the constancy of their actions; and the many connections between them which can be drawn when their characters, actions, writings, speeches, and strangely enough their educations are closely examined.
   
   This latter point, their educations, may have come the closest to telling us how great leaders are created. Both men, it would seem, were rather poor students in their early years, but both men spent most of the remainder of their lifetimes reading and writing and, in effect, educating themselves without any presumed experts to tell them that this or that theory or manner of thinking was incorrect. In their solitude, much like Abraham Lincoln, they were left to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong. As a consequence, neither Reagan nor Churchill ended up conforming to the conventional wisdom of his time, with the result that neither one was fully understood nor appreciated during his political lifetime.
   
   This is an excellent book filled with little known, or at least little remembered, facts, anecdotes, quotes, and excerpts concerning two great statesmen. The comparisons are many, with surprising similarities that do both men great honor. Bottom line - This is a book well worth reading. I highly recommend it, but don't expect what the title offers but the book fails to deliver.

5 comments about The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era.

1. While the book isn't quite as bad as other reviewers or the Amazon star-rating indicate, it's not what the publisher advertises it to be - a book on chivalry and John of Gaunt. Threads of these themes appear throughout, but the book comprises random thoughts and insights about upper class medieval life, occasionally with comparisons to other centuries in Europe and the U.S. It reads like a series of classroom lectures in introductory medieval history.
   
   To that end, it has more value than earlier reviewers give it. If you are new to medieval history, this book is as good a place to start as any for information on the class structure, political and social attitudes, and economics of the times. It is not, however, an examination - even on an introductory level - of John of Gaunt. The author's attempt to interweave information about this important historical figure fails.



2. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that publishers should be held legally liable merely for publishing poorly written, banal, politically correct, ahistorical drivel like this book. We rightly protect the freedoms of speech and of the press regarless of the intrinsic value of the speech. (Although I do wonder if Profesor Cantor is solely responsible for this garbage. Perhaps it was his awareness that, as his life was nearing its end, he was bequeathing to the reading public this mess, which led him to so pointedly acknowledge how his literary agent and editor had both "been very helpful in shaping the manuscript" ... which coincidentally represents their last payday from the bestselling author).
   
   As I say, that's not why the publisher should be sued. No, my contention that someone should sue the publisher is based on their own baldfaced false advertisement on the book cover.
   
   They claim that "Norman F. Cantor brings to life John of Gaunt..." He does nothing of the sort. In fact John of Gaunt is really nothing more in the book than a foil for the author's social musings on class and sexual mores and a rant about today's "billionaire capitalists."
   
   To really see where Cantor is heading, just go straight to his last chapter, "The End of the Middle Ages." Here he abandons all pretense to historical perspective or even to staying within shouting distance of his supposed topic. The chapter staggers from unfounded assertion to wild speculation to sweeping generalization to confident prediction of the future like a sawdust preacher haranguing a tentful of simpletons. The moderately informed reader will feel both insulted and somewhat embarrased for the author.
   
   Real scholarship of the past 20 years based on examining a wider body of evidence is dismissed as the faddish popularity of medieval catholicism among historians (p.221). But never fear, Cantor assures us "the truth of the older [Protestant/Whig] view cannot be denied and will slowly be reasserted." Hogwash.
   
   Possible examples can be multipled from almost any page of the book but, as brevity is the soul of wit, I fear I may already have gone on too long.
   
   If someone ever gets around to filing that lawsuit, sign me up for the plaintiff's list. I figure they owe me for the purchase price of the book as well as a litle something in compensation for the hours I spent reading it and waiting (in vain) for it to get less worse.



3. John of Gaunt and his brother Edward the Black Prince have intrigued me since I first took an English History course for my MA, so I purchased this book despite the negative reviews. While it contains at least something on each and their relationship, the book is really not very informative. In fact, you might intuit most of what the author says from just a little knowledge of the period, so general are the author's remarks.
   
   The book was written by a popular although somewhat controversial medieval historian, Norman F. Cantor, during his twilight years. His earlier works were lauded as accessible to the reading public and enjoyed considerable commercial popularity, but according to the Wickipedia entry, his original research was scant and often at variance with other historians, receiving mixed reviews in the journals.
   
   This book is almost sad. The professor died in September of 2004 at the age of 75, and the book was published that same year. One presumes that it was an attempt to recreate something of his earlier success with one last book. I have read other books written by professors at the end of their lives and have been far more impressed. It is a nice way of summarizing the knowledge of a lifetime career and leaving a legacy of what was known and contributed by the author up to that time. I have read a couple of books of this type, including The New Catastrophism: The Rare Event in Geological History by Derek Agar and Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context by George Mendenhall, both of which were quite good. Unfortunately The Last Knight does not stand up well to scrutiny.
   
   I'm not certain to whom I'd even recommend the volume; it is written almost at the level of the middle school student in style and approach, but the material jumps too much from topic to topic, despite the well organized chapter headings: Old Europe, The Great Families, Plantagenet England, Women, Warriors, Spain, The Church, Peasants, Politics, Chaucer, The End of the Middle Ages. They are well chosen topics, but the content is almost random. Each chapter seems to include a hodge-podge of what might easily have been quotes from lecture notes taken out of context but which seemed "too good to leave out." The result is a confusing mix of genealogy and gossipy generalizations.
   
   The author's parenthetical remarks make the book seem coy and dated and probably do more to reveal the author's issues (ie. Ivy league professors, anti-Semitism, etc.) than the period or individuals about whom he writes. Certainly the mention of "illicit sex," "promiscuous sex," and "homosexuality" while it might have been titillating, scandalous, rebellious or even progressive to the young college student in the morally transitional sixties, will seem banal and quaint to a young person today to whom the whole issue is a nonstarter. It reveals the remarkable degree to which Professor Cantor was out of touch with the young at the end of his life.
   
   Part of the problem may well be that the topic, while it is narrowed to the life of John of Gaunt, is really about the age of John of Gaunt. In the absence of any personal letters, the only facts about the man are general ones abstracted from legal and economic documents. To flesh out the book, the author relies upon what is known about other aristocrats of this period; and it's a long period. The author includes information from the reigns of kings as disparate as William of Normandy (1066) to Henry VII (about 1500). That takes in a lot of ground. One must presume that, except perhaps technologically, a lot of change occurred in social behaviors, just as they do now. In fact, even in technology things were changing at a break neck pace compared to the previous 500 years. One might point out that the intrigue, ambition, social interactions and tangled geneology of the time of John of Gaunt were what set up the country for the chaotic period of the War of the Roses which so inspired Shakespeare in his plays Henry IV and Richard III. In short, there is just too much to cover for a book of only 250 pages. More might have been done with a greater degree of focus and better editing.
   
   For those readers who desire a more complete introduction to the Middle Ages and despite the fact that it covers the period immediately preceding John of Gaunt, I would suggest England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225 (New Oxford History of England) by Robert Bartlett. Although it is a very heavy and serious work, and may lose those interested in only a casual read, it covers the period more thoroughly and its documentation is without parallel. It will certainly set up the reader to more critically evaluate other books on the period for quality and content.
   
   
   The book suggests haste and an attempt to produce "one last book."



4. I bought this book knowing that it was an attempt at "popular history," and therefore I would never try to hold it to academic historical writing standards. However, even as an easy-reading book for entertainment, this work is horrible.
   
   
   1. First of all, this book is extremely repetitive. I imagine the author was paid by the word, because it is not uncommon to see the same piece of information re-introduced to you numerous times in the span of a few pages (let alone the ideas that were revisited in distant parts of the book). For an example, read pages 122-124.
   
   2. Secondly, the writing is very disorganized, despite the topic-centered chapters the author attempted. Mainly when he is repeating himself, the author will slip in "facts" or ideas that may seem to relate to the time period in general, but have no context within the surrounding paragraphs.
   
   3. Lastly, many of Cantor's claims go beyond "speculation" to the realm of "completely unfounded." One appalling example is on page 81, where the author writes, "if John of Gaunt had written to his mistress Catherine Swynford, it may have been along these lines," followed by a made-up letter. This comes 5 lines after Cantor has written that "not one personal letter" has survived from Gaunt. Clearly, this letter then has no basis even in Gaunt's other writing, and it is wholly unnecessary for the sake of the book.
   
   
   This book has been painful and insulting to read. Overall, there was very little substance. I do enjoy popular history very much, when it is done well, but even as a piece of writing, this particular piece of writing fails miserably. I would be mortified to have my name associated with writing this bad; both the writing and the research were at the level of a young high-schooler, in my opinion. In fact, I'm rather afraid that by purchasing this book, I've encouraged the publishing world to turn out more of this.
   
   
   If you want a general overview of the medieval England, I'd try The Making of England to 1399 by Hollister, Stacey and Stacey. It covers everything from King Alfred to Richard II, and is very readable.
   The Making of England to 1399 (History of England, vol. 1)



5. This is a VERY fast read. As a lot of the other reviews have noted, Cantor leaves a lot out. Which is just fine. I don't think his intent was to write the definitive text of John of Gaunt and the era he lived in. That would have required several volumes and only serious academics would have been interested in it. Cantor is more interested in writing stuff that sells as opposed to writing the absolute best history on the market. A lot of good writers (Barbara Tuchman, Lord Norwich) do this and I don't have a problem with it. Historical studies will never reach a wider audience if books aren't written to engage the public. Call it popular history. While this book struggles at times to engage its audience, it's meant to be a very broad overview. The purpose was to show that Gaunt lived in at the end of an era and the beginning of a new era - it wasn't to explain in detail the socioeconomic, military-political realities of Western Europe during John of Gaunt's lifetime.

1 comments about Yale English Monarchs - Henry VII (The English Monarchs Series).

1. Professor Chrimes has splendidly captured the life and reign of a sovereign traditionally overlooked in English history. From his bittersweet youth through a climactic battlefield victory against Richard III to nearly a quarter century of stable rule, Henry Tudor's intelligence, cunning and administrative abilities are convincingly and thoughtfully portrayed.
   A domestic, tender side of the King is even shown as he comforts Queen Elizabeth after the death of their firstborn son, Prince Arthur.
   This is a worthy entry in the Yale Series and a must for any serious Tudor historian.

3 comments about On the Trail of William Wallace (On the Trail of).

1. I think this ia a great book for those who want to learn a quick history of William wallace, as well as a guid to memorials in Scotland. For those who are planning a trip to Scotland, and also are intrested in the story of William Wallace I recomend this book. I also recomend trying to find it at a local bookstor instead because I bought mine for $14.99 brand new.



2. I ordered this book from Amazon,the book started out a bit slow but I was soon to find myself not being able to put it down.I think anyone who reads it will find what a well put together book this is,a must read!



3. I picked this book up in a book store in Scotland. I am a big fan of Braveheart and the William Wallace Story. This part guide book part travel essay is a great way to read about and follow the history of Wallace. Fans of William Wallace should also check out a website this author is associated with. Its something like "mcbraveheart.com" Again, if you are planning to visit scotland and love Braveheart, get this little enjoyable book. You will be glad you did.

5 comments about Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World.

1. Being a Beatles fan,I am wary of how the "lads" are portrayed in books & media. I like a balanced POV of a band that was both a musical & cultural phenomenon and whose music(for the most part) still sounds as fresh and exciting as the day it was recorded. That being said,I think the author did a fairly balanced job of portraying them as talented,intelligent yet without mythologizing them. I especially liked how he showed the unique contributing factors of their native Liverpool & later,Hamburg's) influence on their music & look. They were originals,(the first rock band to work as a collective unit,for example)which we take for granted now and this book reminds of us this fact.(though the author's description of them as "androgynous" is a bit extreme,in my opinion(perhaps "boyish" is a better term)& their effect on the women's movement is an interesting concept,if a bit over-stated. That being said This book is a fast,highly involving read that does make you appreciate the band's contributions to popular music even more.



2. As a child of the 60s, the Beatles' music can be recalled in my mind more easily and indelibly than any other tunes. This both hinders my objectivity as a listener and heightens my pleasure at reading about them. This modest book, a sort of condensation of the detail that can be found within such newer studies as the weighty Bob Spitz biography (also reviewed by me) and Jonathan Gould's 2007 social history "Can't Buy Me Love," (which will be reviewed by me, and which does not mention Stark!), efficiently retells the familiar story. Where, as the author admits right away, it differs remains in the stress given the cultural factors.
   
   Not a professional scholar of the group, and not a hagiographer of the band, Stark writes with less passion than Spitz and less range than Gould. The book does move over the later years too rapidly, and while it lists many sources consulted, the references within the text are less easily cross-referenced. This does ease readibility but may frustrate those wishing for more exactitude. The music, likewise, appears but cursorily covered compared to the social impact. Songs remain understated. You will not find the day-by-day chronicle or the musical cut-by-cut analyses; Stark cautions us early on that other books have done this already. So, any reader needs to understand that this book offers instead an overview, if chronologically ordered, of the wider implications of the Beatles upon their decade. John and Paul gain the most notice; relatively little to Ringo and George has been given. There is very little attention paid to the songs. Artistic trends and packaging of the band and its records receive little direct interpretation. For instance, the discussion of "Revolver" ignores totally its cover art!
   
   But, for a relatively brisk read, Stark does add nuances that pleased me. For instance, reminding us of the power of the limited range of TV and radio, the single-sex enrollment of English schools that encouraged students to imitate in drama the (absent) opposite sex, nostalgia and romanticism as literary forces in Britain, the gender-bending tradition of British humor and fashion, Liverpool's ties to the American South but not the African American diaspora, the ambiance of the art school, or the influence of drugs of various types on the band. The Hamburg years and the fact the Beatles played a thousand gigs before coming to America make clearer their musical and psychological development before 1964.
   
   Also, rarely noticed points to those of us less than totally obsessed, such as that Ed Sullivan did not even learn of the band's fame prior to the show until he had been delayed on a plane due to the band's landing ahead of him causing congestion, make this a worthwhile version of another explanation for the band's prominence. He explains why they made it when Elvis, the Stones, or earlier musicians did not. He emphasizes the group dynamic that changed how audiences regarded collective endeavor in the arts. Most of all, Stark shows why in regard to the counterculture, gender roles, intellectual currents, and their quasi-religious allure, the four young men were able to lead the boomers into a revolution after all-- not the one Yoko might have expected, but one that changed hairstyles, demeanors, LPs, and the process of how artists relate to and are in turn changed by their fans.



3. This is yet another biography of the Beatles. This particular one tells the story of the Beatles while explaining the influences that shaped them, and also the ways that they helped to shape culture, especially the women's movement and the youth movement. The author does a particularly good job in discussing "the boys" childhoods, and how that influenced the men they became. It's true that John and Paul are mentioned much more than George and Ringo, but then again, they were the "leaders" of the group and thus of the most influence to society. Overall, I found the book to be quite interesting.



4. this book is good. It is not excellent, but it is good. It does touch on the background of the fab four and I would say that it is intrresting to read. I have tons and tons of books on the Beatles and I saw them on stage "live" twice back in 1966, the last year that they stopped touring on stage.
   
   I would recomomend this book to anyone who wanted to know their background .



5. I literally couldn't put this book down once I started it. That hardly ever happens to me.
   
   Having only been 4 when the Beatles exploded on the U.S. scene in '64, I have only vague memories of the early Beatles--I do remember skipping across the playground at Our Lady of Providence School, circa '66, and singing "She Loves You, yeah, yeah, yeah" with playmates. And I remember circulating the riddle du jour: "What did the boy octopus sing to the girl octopus? I wanna hold your hand, hand, hand, hand..."
   
   If you're already a fan who knows every bit of minutiae about the Fab Four, this book probably isn't for you. But this is THE book to read if you're a new fan or if you were too young for the Beatles Experience when it was happening or especially if you question WHY the Beatles became a virtual religious experience when no other bands did.
   
   My only complaint is that author Stark far too often overlooks my two fave Beatles -- George & Ringo. They receive precious little ink with regard to their own biographies. In that respect, the book should really be titled _Meet Paul & John_.
   
   Not having read any other Beatles books, I've been recently informed that this is typical of books about the Beatles. That's really too bad. Perhaps it's because (as I learned in this book) George had the most normal and loving childhood of the four and was the only Beatle with a fully intact family in which a parent neither fled nor died. Maybe that's why Stark gave us so little info. about George. Perhaps George was too boring because of this--too few sensational stories.
   (Do read the new, '06 biography of Harrison, _Here Comes the Sun_ if you long to know more about him.)
   
   As for Ringo, God love him, the little that is in the book helps one understand his incredible "everyman" appeal and also why he's always seemed the most empathic of the four. It's because he was an only child who spent most of his childhood sick, in bed, at the doctor, and/or in hospital. But his mum was quite steadfast and loving (dad wasn't around), and little "Richie" seems to have coped by developing quite the sense of humor as well as a sensitivity to the downtrodden "little guy" which he both figuratively and literally was in the Beatles. (Though he got the most fan mail, much of it from children.)
   
   Overall a great read. I just hope Stark writes another book that focuses on the two "economy class" Beatles (George Harrison's term, not mine.)

3 comments about Churchill at War 1940-45.

1. I don't think anyone with an interest in Winston Churchill can afford to pass this book by. It's a warts-n-all portrait (a very thorough and fair one), and certainly is a breath of fresh, unsentimental air when it comes to trying to pin down the character of Churchill and his conduct as a leader during WWII.
   
   I especially admired the author's almost conversational, easy writing style, which just flows across the pages, and, the way he reveals much about himself, as well as Winston Churchill (but without thrusting himself or his POV on the reader).
   
   I found this book fascinating and am looking for a copy of its sequel, which takes Churchill from 1945 to 1965.



2. This book is a reprinted excerpt of Lord Moran's diary who was Churchill's personal physician from May 1940 to his death. As his doctor Moran accompanied him to all major conferences. The diaries provide, therefore, fascinating glimpses into the lives of the people who have shaped the twentieth century. Although only the war years are covered here the interested reader might want to look up the complete diaries in libraries because they are no longer in print.
   Nevertheless, even the book under discussion shows that the Churchill who is so admired today also had his darker side and that by 1943 the Atlantic Alliance was no longer as firm as we are led to believe. At the time of the Teheran and Yalta conferences, which shaped the post-war world, Churchill had lost all influence over Roosevelt, who had gravitated instead to Stalin. Lord Moran also shows clearly that Roosevelt was no longer capable of understanding what he was up against and at Yalta it was apparent that the man was dying. He should never have run for re-election in 1944.
   The insights which Lord Moran brings to our understanding of the tragic twentieth century should be seriously considered because the fate of the world hangs on the physical and mental health of a handful of leading politicans.



3. Those who share my high regard for Martin Gilbert's and then Roy Jenkins' comprehensive biographies as well as John Keegan's brief but insightful biography of Winston Churchill (within the "Penguin Lives" series) will gratefully welcome Lord Moran's discussion of Churchill during World War Two. His access was direct and unlimited, serving as Churchill's personal physician until his death on January 24, 1965. According to Lord Moran, shortly after the war ended, G.M. Trevelyan strongly encouraged him to record his thoughts and feelings about Churchill as well as anecdotes which otherwise would have been lost. Thus began a process which continued until 1966, a year after Churchill's death, when Lord Moran published an 850-page memoir. Much of that volume has been reprinted in this new edition.

   Having read and then re-read the three previously cited biographies, I already knew a great deal about Churchill's life and career. Of greatest interest to me in this volume are the anecdotes, dozens and dozens of them, which reveal Churchill the man in ways and to an extent not previously indicated by other authors. Many of these anecdotes suggest that the Churchill was an especially "difficult" patient, one almost totally lacking in patience. Over time, he had several health problems which even his epic will power could not overcome: a number of heart attacks, three pneumonias, two strokes, one abdominal operation, a hernia, deafness, and a virulent skin disease as well as countless minor ailments. Refusing to reduce (much less eliminate) his daily consumption of cigars and alcohol certainly didn't help, nor did the quick cures of quacks whom Churchill insisted on retaining. Because of quite legitimate concerns about Churchill's health, therefore, Lord Moran accompanied him on numerous trips, recording his own opinions of dozens of contemporaries such as Roosevelt, Stalin, Atlee, Eden, and Truman. These comments leave no doubt that Lord Moran was a keen observer and a shrewd judge of other people.

   Alistair Cooke once said of Churchill that he "told a listless nation it was heroic, and it became so." Perhaps you are already familiar with Churchill the public figure. In this lively and informative volume, Lord Moran enables you to take Churchill's measure as (in Cooke's words) a "magnetic, monstrous, oddly lovable man."

2 comments about A Chainless Soul: A Life of Emily Bronte.

1. Many of Frank's arguments were convincing to me--especially those regarding Emily's peculiar eating habits. All of her conclusions were backed up with sources, etc. Although I didn't believe this spin on the life of the Brontes word for word, I do think it was worthly of more than 1 star, hence my review. Check it out--you may disagree, but isn't that part of the fun?



2. Although it seems unrealistic to expect complete objectivity from any biographer, Katherine Frank shows a level of bias toward her subject somewhat striking in the genre. Her descriptions of Emily Bronte are enthusiastic and warm, even when Emily's behavior (by her own description) warrants at least some kind of approbation, or at least evenhandedness. This unmitigated warmth is reserved for Emily alone, however; Charlotte, for example, is portrayed as living a constant struggle with conventionality which Emily gloriously escapes. Of particular interest is the expression of Emily and Charlotte's intense relationship. Charlotte consistently suffers in the comparisons with her sister -- at least by Frank's view. She doesn't seem interested in exploring Charlotte's suffering under Emily's emotional tyranny, even though she does describe it in detail. One gets the impression that Charlotte would do better in this biography if only she would care a little less about what others think. Their brother, Branwell, fares badly as well, and Frank's conclusion regarding one of Branwell's many pathetic attempts to be employed that he had been terminated due to a homosexual advance on his pupil seems strikingly unsubstantiated. Frank seems to come to this conclusion only because she can't think of any other. In the end, it's not that the reader can't see what Frank shows as part of Emily's character, it's that it's not the only thing to be seen.

1 comments about Archbishop Laud (Phoenix Press).

1. The mocking grace "To God much praise, and little laud to the Devil" reflected the opinion of many of William Laud's contemporaries - and also of several generations of Whig historians. To Macaulay and his ilk, Charles I's Archbishop of Canterbury was a stock villain, culpable for the royal policies that provoked the English Civil War.

   Hugh Trevor-Roper's biography (first published in 1940; Phoenix Press reprints the very slightly revised 1961 edition) cannot be called a rehabilitation, but it does correct, and has largely superseded, the Whig caricature. (The Britannica entry on Laud, for instance, reads like a precis.) Instead of a Wolsey-like grand prelate, Laud is shown to have been an honest, hardworking man, notable both for extensive charities and for fostering Greek, Arabic and Persian studies. His most conspicuous faults were personal rudeness, excessive severity as a judge (even by the severe standards of the time) and political maladroitness. Though he left behind many volumes of writings, he never grasped the importance of propaganda or public opinion. His immediate reaction to opposition was clumsy suppression, an instinct that led him to advocate the forcible imposition of episcopal governance on the Scottish church. From the failure of the "Bishops' War" followed the disintegration of Charles' personal rule, the Short and Long Parliaments, civil war and Laud's own murder by Act of Parliament in 1645.

   Trevor-Roper recounts Laud's career in, as one would expect, a lively and opinionated, yet thoroughly scholarly, fashion. He emphasizes high politics and ecclesiastical conflict but also directs attention to Laud's achievements as Chancellor of Oxford University, where his impact may have been more lasting than on either Church or State. There is little speculation about the Archbishop's private life, for which hardly any evidence survives. He never married, apparently kept no mistresses, lived unostentatiously and left behind almost no purely personal correspondence or anecdotes. Trevor-Roper surmises that he tended to have allies rather than friends, but the truth is unknowable.

   Excellent though it is in most respects, "Archbishop Laud" suffers from distortion in one key area. The biographer takes it as a fundamental truth that 17th Century men were as secular in outlook as his own 20th Century circle of acquaintances. Therefore, religious principles must have been mere masks for social and political content. Men adopted Puritan or Arminian or Roman Catholic theology because they liked the political doctrines associated with those labels.

   That premise is no doubt true of many figures of the day, but Trevor-Roper's own narrative exposes its dubiety in this particular case. The tenet that Laud advanced most persistently, in the teeth of massive opposition by both clergy and laity, was the importance of preserving continuity with the pre-Reformation Church. He was not sympathetic to Roman Catholicism but would not abandon traditional doctrines and rituals simply because they had been labeled "popish". In these views he followed Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Hooker, and it is largely because of his efforts that their species of "Anglo-Catholicism" lasted beyond the lifetimes of their personal disciples.

   None of the distinctive issues addressed by the Andrewes-Hooker school is important to Trevor-Roper. Hence, he concludes, none of them could really have been important to Laud. The "true" reason for, say, upholding the mystical character of the Eucharist was evidently to strike a blow at enclosures, emigration and the pretensions of Parliament. Rather an indirect blow, one might think.

   If one imagines that Laud's ostensible hierarchy of values was his real one, his life comes into clearer focus. Activities such as the promotion of scholarship and the recovery of the church's property rights were not disconnected enthusiasms but elements of a program for reinforcing the links between contemporary and ancient Christianity and safeguarding a refurbished church from the influence of modernist opinion. Likewise, his indifference to politically attractive pan-Protestant initiatives, a stance that puzzles Trevor-Roper, reflects his desire to hold the English church at a distance from Reformation theology.

   Although Trevor-Roper pronounces Laud a "failure", the Laudian tradition held a prominent, occasionally preeminent, place in the Church of England for three hundred years, and from that base it has gained an extended, if attenuated, influence. The descendants of Puritan zealots now study the Fathers of the Church, take the sacraments seriously, pay heed to the continuity of Christian experience, celebrate the ancient holy days and even admit religious images into their sanctuaries. From the perspective of 1645, that is an astonishing evolution. There is no way to know what might have been, but one cannot help suspecting that today's Protestant Christianity would be much more drab, anti-historical and unintellectual had William Laud never lived.