5 comments about Rhodes the Race for Africa.

1. Move over George Washington. You may be the father of the US, but the father of the New World Order developing before our eyes in the 21st century is Cecil Rhodes. Why? Because it was Rhodes who founded the secret society in 1891 and funded it with immense wealth from his South Africa gold and diamond mines. Rhodes stipulated that this secret society has but one object: "...the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire"! Additionally, Rhodes stated, "The society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the minds of men". And this, ladies and gentlemen is why we find us in the mess we are in today. Rhodes was so wealthy, he bought governments, bankers, media and universities. He made it happen as fully explained in the book, Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). "Rhodes: The Race for Africa" is a good read on the mind of Cecil Rhodes. Additionally, it collaborates the secret society language most scholars pick up on when reading about Rhodes. Now you all know what forces are in motion and what the results will be: North American Union, remapping the Middle East, the building of a massive millitary to fight both Russia and China...



2. Cecil Rhodes, claims Antony Thomas, in a torturous attempt at historical comparison, shares the same qualities as Heinrich Himmler because both were taught by Jesuit priests. Really, now. While few people would ascribe any saintly qualities to Rhodes, statements like this do a disservice to serious students of history. As a result, Thomas' book is a mundane recitation of facts punctuated with generalized observations that come from nowhere and seem designed only to astonish.
   
   The drama of Rhodes' life figured prominently in the story of the British Empire. Antony Thomas fails to capture this essence. The outsized historical character Cecil Rhodes deserves a less timid biographer (Robert Massie comes to mind) who understands the man and the majesty of times in which he lived.



3. Mr. Rhodes knew a thing or two about a thing or two...



4. Antony Thomas states up front that he is certainly no fan of Cecil Rhodes, and from that statement, the reader might expect to be treated to a real chop job. Instead, one gets a remarkably even-handed treatment of Rhodes. It would be easy simply to characterize Rhodes as evil, but to Thomas' credit, he does not take the easy way out. He is more than prepared to exam what can be best described as Rhodes' moral ambiguity.

   I would not call Rhodes amoral in the strictist sense. He knew well enough when he was doing wrong to want to conceal his activities. Nor would I call him a ruthless pragmatist. His devotion to his friends was quite real, and in the case of Neville Pickering's death, Rhodes' all-consuming grief ultimately kept him from purchasing land that he knew was rich in gold. His personal feelings kept him from making a second, utterly massive, fortune in gold. That is hardly the action of pragmatist.

   Trying to figure out what made Rhodes tick becomes trickier the more one examines his deeds. Even Thomas is vexed at times at how easily Rhodes moves from one alliance to another, and completely reverses his stands on issues such as native rights. By the time of his death, Rhodes was lionized throughout the British Empire as being in the vanguard of imperialists, but Thomas shows that for most of his career, he was strictly pursuing his own economic and political interests, and did not cloak himself in the gard of British Imperialism until it was absolutely necessary.

   Thomas does not only focus on Rhodes. He demonstrates that most of the men that Rhodes dealt with could be, at times, just as morally ambiguous as he. Rhodes knew well that every man has his price, and demonstrated it again and again. Men in positions of power were irreconcilably opposed to Rhodes & his plans, at least until Rhodes made the right offer. The Victorians would had one believe that they were paragons of virtue and rectitude, but reading of Rhodes' dealings with them makes such a claim hardly believable.

   At the end of his life, Rhodes began to appreciate that a man's legacy would not be measured in the wealth that he amassed or in the deals that he made. For Rhodes, that realization came too late. Most of his accomplishments are now hardly remembered, and the man himself is remembered now more with scorn and revulsion that awe and respect. Yet Rhodes was a remarkable man. Thomas makes the distinction between being a remarkable man and a great man, and in this finds the true tragedy of Rhodes' life: he had the talents to be a truly great man for all ages, but instead used these talents strictly to serve his own interests.

   The book is quite easy to read, and is well-organized. To Thomas' credit, he does not report all the stories about Rhodes as gospel, and if the historical record is unclear on certain matters, he will say so. He also examines the conclusions made by other scholars on certain subjects and deals with this quite competently. I was pleasantly suprised, since he is not a historian by profession. I do note with interest that some events (such as the famous story of Rhodes dumping loads of diamonds into a bucket, just after Barney Barnato has purchased them) are reported by Thomas in the book as being stories which may or may not be true and cannot be verified by the historical record, but are presented in the "Masterpiece Theatre" production as being true. It is a good indication that in the book at least, Thomas is trying his best to be a responsible scholar.




5. This book is a great read for many reasons. On the one hand, it is well written and well argued. Thomas states his judgement on Rhodes in the beginning, which is a negative one, but then weighs what can and cannot be said about the man based on available evidence. He does not make sweeping statements of any kind. He also measures what past biographers have said against the evidence.

   On the other hand, the story itself is fascinating. Thomas delivers a convincing portrait of Rhodes, one that punctures the heroic image of the "Colossus of Africa" while still revealing the clever and opportunistic nature of the man. We learn that Rhodes was a sickly child, whose frailty drove him to Africa when he was a teenager. Personal frailty lasted his whole life--and killed him in 1902. Rhodes was not much of a student, though he was driven to go to Oxford to acquire the right credentials. Rhodes had greater ambitions than amassing wealth alone, but we are led to wonder how committed an imperialist and an English chauvinist he was, given his opportunism. Thomas also presents an engaging description of the people around Rhodes. One of the more interesting is that of Barney Barnato, a British Jew who came to South Africa and amassed a larger fortune than Rhodes ever did and who appeared to be a better businessman than Rhodes as well.

   The larger story of South Africa is also integrated into the tale. The diamond and gold rushes are described with great detail, including the largely tragic conflicts with native Africans. There is also much detail about the conflicts between the English and Boers, and even the role of Great Power interests (mostly British).

   A general sense of adventure and opportunity about South Africa seems to exude from the story throughout. One of the most interesting examples in the book is the story of the relations between white prospectors--including Rhodes and his colleagues--and the native chief Lobengula, whole ruled in the north over the Matabeleland. The description of the massive and fearsome Lobengula, his treasures, his soldiers, his brutality and his ultimate defeat and suicide offer some of the most gripping narrative in the book.

   There are not that many weaknesses to the book. A minor one might be that the book could benefit from more maps. There are 2 maps of southern Africa in the beginning of the book, but a few more maps throughout the book detailing the places where key events occurred would have been helpful.

5 comments about The Doctor and the Detective: A Biography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

1. A very thorough, engaging biography about the fascinating creator of Sherlock Holmes. While the going becomes overly dense on occasion, most of the chapters move along purposefully enough to create a coherent whole. Filled with many interesting and entertaining anecdotes and information, and not a little unwelcome speculation. Recommended for Conan Doyle or Holmes fans, as well as those interested in the late Victorian/early 20th century period.



2. This book explains the derivation of the name "Sherlock Holmes" on pages 107-8. The name "John Watson" was used by John H. Surratt for his Canadian passport; this was used to flee the country after the Lincoln assassination. His mother Mary was hanged for her involvement with John Wilkes Booth. Was this just a coincidence?



3. This is a solid and very readable biography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. All of the elements are here: growing up poor in Edinburgh, with a disillusioned, distant and alcoholic father and a strong and loving mother; going to medical school and getting started in a medical practice; his growing success as a writer of short fiction and historical novels; his first marriage, to a woman who developed tuberculosis early on and who died in middle age; Conan Doyle's falling in love, while still married to his first wife, with Jean Leckie, the woman who became his second wife (the relationship wasn't sexual until Conan Doyle's first wife died and he had married Jean); his fascination with, and public enthusiasm for, spiritualism. Some of the information presented is well-known, such as the interest in spiritualism and Conan Doyle's growing tired very early on with writing the Sherlock Holmes stories. But I'm guessing that, unless you are a rabid Sherlockian who has read tons of material on the creation and his creator, you will find much of the information the author presents to be interesting and fresh. Mr. Booth shows the adventurous side of Conan Doyle- his early hitch on a whaling ship and another trip, as a medical officer, on board a merchant ship which travelled down the western coast of Africa. We learn about the difficulties involved for a young doctor in setting up a medical practice. You had to spend money to make money, as the practice had to look like it was flourishing even though it was just getting started. With his limited funds, Conan Doyle did a nice job of furnishing his consulation room. He had to hang up a curtain, however, so patients couldn't see into the rest of the house- which was pretty much devoid of any furniture or decoration. We learn that Conan Doyle was physically fit and an avid athlete- playing cricket, rugby, soccer, golf, etc. Mr. Booth tells us of Conan Doyle's meetings with other writers, such as Oscar Wilde, Robert Louis Stevenson, and P.G. Wodehouse. While not a fan of Wilde's unorthodox lifestyle, Conan Doyle admired the man's intellect and work, and was charmed by his personality. (Both men were wined and dined in August 1889 by the editor of "Lippincott's Monthly Magazine," and agreed to write something for the magazine. Conan Doyle came up with "The Sign Of Four" and Wilde's entry was "The Picture Of Dorian Gray.") Mr. Booth sprinkles abundant examples of Conan Doyle's humor and with throughout the book- regarding the heat along the African coast,Conan Doyle remarked "(It was) hot enough to render the weight of a napkin upon your knee at dinner time utterly unbearable."; and on hitting upon Reichenbach Falls as the place to kill off his famous creation, Conan Doyle wrote "(It was) a terrible place, and one that I thought would make a worthy tomb for poor Sherlock, even if I buried my banking account along with him." Mr. Booth is very good at describing Conan Doyle's contradictions and character flaws: he was stubborn and would never admit he was in error about anything; he believed the white race to be superior to other races; he wanted to liberalize divorce laws to make it easier for women to obtain divorces, but he was vehemently against women being allowed to vote; he was extremely curious and adventurous- he embraced the newfangled motorcars when they first appeared and made an ascent in a balloon- but was very conservative in his attitude towards women ( he felt their job was to maintain the home and that they needed to be "protected") and he was horrified by any kind of modern art. Conan Doyle was very generous with his time and money. Throughout his life he wrote many letters and articles in support of causes he thought were right and on behalf of people he felt had been wronged, plus he put his bankbook where his mouth was. Many people know that Conan Doyle grew tired of writing the Holmes stories and had to have a lot of cash waved in front of his nose to convince him to bring the character back. What I didn't know, and which Mr. Booth explains, is that Conan Doyle was a prolific writer of short stories (horror, fantasy and science fiction) and historical novels. He wanted to be remembered for his historical novels- he did a lot of research and worked hard to make those books realistic. He gradually had to face the fact that posterity was going to remember him for Sherlock Holmes. (The money helped. It gave him a comfortable living and enabled him to support spiritualism and all of the other causes.) With all of the above going for it, you might wonder why I'm giving the book 4 stars rather than 5. There are 2 reasons. Although the style is fine and certainly not boring, things seem a bit hurried. An awful lot of material is crammed into 350 pages. And although we get a very good picture of Conan Doyle, the book is a bit weak on his relationships. We don't get to see much interaction with his spouses, children, friends, and colleagues. Still, this is a very good book about a man who was charismatic, energetic, funny and very interesting.



4. This biography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle tells that he was far more than the creator of "Sherlock Holmes". He was trained as an MD, and started writing to supplement his income. His literary skills brought him great wealth and fame. He had enormous self-confidence, the courage of his convictions, and was never afraid of controversy. He vigorously campaigned on behalf of prisoners wrongly convicted. This book is well worth reading about this paradoxical and versatile man.

   His experiences in the Boer War showed him the British Army was antiquated and in need of immediate and drastic reform. The cavalry was outdated; artillery should be diversified and camouflaged; rifle drill was more important than parade drill. Officers should not wear distinctive uniforms, and should end their luxorious habits that made it hard for a poor man to accept a commission (p.237). He advocated a civilian military reserve of well-trained citizens, and nationwide rifle clubs. By 1906 there was a national federation of rifle clubs. The British won the Boer War thru a scorched earth policy, and placing Boer women and children in concentration camps. ACD defended the British in a pamphlet that was widely distributed. He was later made a knight bachelor and Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Surrey (p.241).

   ACD introduced Norwegian skiing to Switzerland in 1894 (p.172), memorialized in a plaque in Davos. When he visited America he just missed meeting Oliver Wendell Holmes, who he admired (p.200). He introduced golf to New England (p.201).

   In 1886 he got the idea of writing about a detective who would solve cases by his scientific methods, and not by the folly of the criminal. He was inspired by the works of Edgar Allen Poe and Emile Gaboriau, and the vast number of murders and crimes reported in the national press. Page 107 discusses the possible origins of the names of his heroes. "Sherlock" is Old Norse for "fair-haired". Page 190 discusses the possible models for Moriarity. "Vintage Victorian Murders" by Gerald Sparrow (p.40) tells of a Sayers, the barrister who ran the London underworld for twenty years; his profession gave him the world's most wonderful cover.

   ACD was raised as a Roman Catholic and educated in a Jesuit school. He later became an agnostic, then a believer in Spiritualism. G.K. Chesterton once remarked that a man who believes in nothing could wind up believing in everything.




5. I have been fascinated by this well written biography of A. Conan Doyle. The account of his difficult childhood and poverty reminds me of Charles Dickens life. However,he was helped to get a formal education and became a successful doctor. Doyle's father was an alcoholic who ended his days in an asylum. It seems that Doyle inherited some of his father's creative ability. Doyle was a man of wide interests-unfortunately we only know him for Sherlock Holmes. His historical novel, the White Company,was very popular. This is an impresssive account of an unusual man, who rose from a disadvantaged childhood to become one of England's most popular authors.

No comments about The Selected Letters of D.H. Lawrence.

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.

No comments about Letters of John Keats (Oxford Letters & Memoirs).

No comments about The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII's Most Faithful Servant.

5 comments about Fire in the Night: Wingate of Burma, Ethiopia, and Zion.

1. My mother thought Orde reminded her of Stonewall Jackson of American Civil war fame. There are many similarities between the two, but I think Trevor Royle's book title nails his character right on the head. Both Jackson and Wingate were average military scholars, but brilliant field commanders. They had no equal on the field in terms of battle tactics. Both were deeply religious, both eccentric, though in very different ways. Both were Gideons of the supreme, heavenly order. I am convinced if Stonewall were alive today, he would be an ardent zionist as Orde became when his command led him to palestine in pre-WWII years. Orde's first assignment was in the Sudan where he became fluent in Arabic. His Hebrew which he tried to learn was terrible according to Moshe Dayan. His few days in palestine, however, bore much fruit in that he taught the jews of palestine tactics which would help transform the IDF into the amazing fighting force today and which served them extremely well in the immediate days and years following.
   
   Orde's success in restoring the Ethiopian empire to Haile Selassie was definitely Stonewallian. How he routed the entire Italian fascist force residing in Ethiopia with a small force was little short of miraculous.
   
   I don't think Stonewall was as outspoken as Orde and was a bit surprised at how Orde got by with some of his very strong opinions which he was not afraid to voice. That for me was the biggest contrast between the two.
   
   Most important, I think, about Wingate was what he had accomplished in the jungles of the far east where he died in a tragic aviation accident during WWII.
   
   This book was thoroughly enjoyable, is well written, but I defer to the better judgement of one of my favorite Amazon friends and recommend Royle's book as being most accurate as to Orde's views of the jews and palestine. This book was a good prelude to me, a good introduction into the life and character of this most remarkable of British soldiers, Orde Wingate.



2. Like Lawrence of Arabia, Orde Wingate is a perennially fascinating figure of the later British Empire and era of World Wars I and II. Unlike Lawrence, Wingate was not a literary artist who immortalized his own career, so we rely on biographies to understand him. This work is thorough if not definitive, using a wide array of sources to describe his military/political adventures in Palestine, Ethiopia, and finally Burma where his long-range penetration strategy was most publicized and problematic, but at least partly successful. Such a forceful, idiosyncratic figure will always stimulate controversy, and the authors explore the disagreements well enough, though they cannot satisfy all readers. Why marginal? Wingate's and Lawrence's successes, and failures, occurred in peripheral theaters of both wars. Scholars debate whether such operations significantly influenced the outcome of campaigns in Africa, Southwest and Southeast Asia, or primarily served to expand or protect the Empire. But major (and costly) sea, air and especially land campaigns were essential to winning world wars; the character of 20th century total war effectively marginalized the efforts and the theaters where romantic individualists fought, though they remain dashing, compelling figures. "Fire in the Night" is exciting and deserves 4-5 stars taken on its own terms, but excess attention given to special ops ultimately obscures the nature of Allied triumphs. A. Mockler, "Haile Selassie's War" narrates the 1935-41 Ethiopian conflict. In "Defeat Into Victory" William Slim recounts the inspiring reconquest of Burma, with pointed critiques but general praise for his difficult subordinate. (The authors seem overly hard on Slim in this respect.) J. Nunneley, "Tales from the King's African Rifles" captures well the brutal, unglamorous experience of most Burma veterans.



3. Like many sources, this book praises wingate without enough
   careful examination of his flaws. The book focuses mostly
   on three chapters in Wingate's life. It starts with his
   service in palestine in 1936.
   
   Driven by religious fanaticism and his contempt for what
   he saw as uncivilized peoples (arabs or any non-europeans
   really), he attached himself to Zionism and zionist politicians.
   In the process he exceeded or ignored his orders, then after
   politically compromised himself in open alliance with zionist
   groups to a point where he could not possibly serve there.
   His great "vision" for the region was for a "sub-empire"
   with Zionists serving as a sort of spartan military elite
   to subdue and westernize those considered lesser humans. All
   as part of some sort of twisted fanatical vision of christianity.
   
   After having been booted out of Palestine, he eventually ended
   up in Ethiopia where he again ignored his orders. His goal
   this time was to force a royal government on Ethiopia regardless
   of what anyone else thought and in spite of serious reservations
   on the part of politicians and his superiors. His campaign
   was a wonderful "boys adventure" sort of a affair, but in the
   end it was army won the campaign. Wingate's great accomplishment
   was saddling Ethiopia with an unstable and territorially
   aggressive monarchy that eventually collapsed in a bloodbath
   in the 1970s.
   
   After, he went into open revolt against the entire leadership
   of the army in the area. He openly insulted them and held them
   in utter contempt. In his mind, though he had never held
   a position of high responsiblity in the army, he saw himself
   as being some sort of grand illustrious figure. And when
   his campaign of alination, insults and personal attacks failed
   to get him recognition, he attempted suicide. Contrary to the
   book, his megolmania and self-destructive behavior would indicate
   someone with serious problems rather than a great leader.
   
   He was rescued from career oblivion by a friend in India. He
   was sent into Burma in 1942 to see what could be done in the
   way of irregular warfare. For all his bluster, he did nothing.
   And beyond that, while other men were suffering and dying
   on the march back to India, Wingate arranged to be flown out.
   
   Back in India, he was given a brigade to test out his theories
   with. He whined about what he was given in terms of men. He
   only wanted british soldiers. He threw the men into jungle
   camps during the monsoon with the idea that by inflicting the
   maximum amount of suffering and disease, that british men
   who had his opinion been weakened by access to health care
   and doctors in britain would be made strong again. When the
   casualty rate reached over 50%, he moved the men into regular
   housing and they recovered. The book presents the self-serving
   fiction that the casulaty rate declined due to weeding out
   "bad men" when in reality it only improved because the monsoon
   ended and the worst of the camps was abandoned.
   
   Wingate's first mission into Burma served no real purpose. It
   was originally to be part of a broader plan, but when the
   broader plan was cancelled, wingate demanded that the operation
   go ahead anyway as a training exercise. He led the men into
   Burma, put a railway out of operation for a few weeks and
   then led his men deep into Burma where they accomplished nothing.
   Eventually, Wingate executed one of his brilliant strategies
   to solve the situation. He broke up his command and effectively
   gave the order every man for himself. The force or more
   properly what survived of the force returned in small parties
   to India.
   
   Once back, Wingate ignored his men in favor of launching a
   press and publicity campaign on his achivements. He wrote
   a self-serving account of operations and when his commanders
   raised objects to it, he arranged for a copy to be given
   directly to Churchill and the cabinet. Wingate decided to
   bypass the entire army and come under the patronage of
   politicians. The politicans heard about the brilliant victory,
   but they did not hear about the officer running naked in the
   jungle or of the man who believed bringing back flogging was
   necessary for real dicipline.
   
   When he returned to India in the fall of 1943, he fell ill
   because he had recklessly drank contaminated water in north
   africa on the way back. He had been given a blank cheque
   for any resources he wanted for operations in Burma.
   
   However, due to a combination of him being out of the country
   and ill, his operational role in developing the second chindit
   force wasn't very large. Eventually, an plan was thrown
   together for operations in 1944. Rather than being an evolution
   of his supposed theories, it mostly involved a new idea of
   fighting a special operations war with a division-sized formation
   operating from large bases in enemy controlled territory.
   
   Wingate died early on during the operation so its impossible to
   know what would have been the result if he had lived. However,
   the only other time his 1944 strategy was used was by the
   French in Vietnam where it led to total disaster.
   
   Wingate has a number of followers. Obviously, Israelis are
   greatful for the help he provided in forming what eventually
   became their army. There are also those who, like wingate,
   who see the british army as a failed institution and somehow
   see innovation in the form of a man who cut his own throat,
   ran around naked in camp, wanted to bring back flogging and
   credited broader access to good health care in civilian life
   as being responsible for weakening the british soldier.
   
   A good work on Wingate has to deal with the positive aspects
   and the negative ones. Too many draw a one-sided portrait
   (including this one) while sweeping the not so nice parts of
   the story under the rug.



4. Having been brought up on stories from my early years about the brave and often forgotten exploits of the Chindits I was very enthused to tuck into this book. Orde Wingate has been the hero of many, not so much because he was a military successful warrior, but because he was wildly unconventional at a time when staid ethics and methods of war were leading to defeats of the western allies on all fronts.

   A fierce Old Testament fear and learning of the bible bread in what would now be called a fundementalist christian family, he blended this with [...] eccentricities like, indifference to appearing nude before his collegues and newspapermen, a complete indifference to British Monarchy and the hierarchical class-bound society and way of thinking. An appreciator of new ideas and probably quite to the left of many of his superiors, he had no hestation in punishing and physically striking his recruits (no matter their colour), and could kill the enemy mercilessly, or order large groups knowingly to their death without a blink.

   Wingate pioneered unconventional warfare with his notion that large unit groups can function in the rear of the enemy for long periods of time if they were self-sufficient and well trained. He eschewed the entire idea of "special forces" as they are often called nowadays. In the end I do not think that he squared the circle large unit action and special forces --- he wanted both and got really neither. His tactics worked rather well against the Italians (but that was no surprise he realised), but they were problematic against the Japanese. The first operation, "Long Cloth" was an unmitigated disaster, with enough adventures from its many participants to fill an entire library (they still make some of the most heart thumping reads available). The entire operation broke down and became in some cases, every man for himself. Wingate himself giving the order.

   His second operation was more problematic. No doubt these operations had significant effect on the enemy and no doubt were very helpful in the taking of Myikyena and Mogang, but I really think that 14th Army would have rolled up the Japanese flank nicely anyway, as they did and win the Battle of Burma with overwhelming firepower and troops as well unmitigated air superiority.

   In the end the Japanese in Burma were beaten by traditional large unit engagements.

   That is not a defeat of the ideas of Orde Wingate, nor do they negate the incredible bravery of the men who served with him. What it does DO however is to put to rest the idea that Orde Wingate was a purveyor of "Truth" -- his ideas were worthy, but they were not the be-all end-all of jungle combat. His developments were prodigeous and his personal bravery never in doubt. But I think that, like Moses, he got involved too much in fanatical devotion to one idea and was willing to sacrifice a lot for an idea. In the case of Moses, his people --- in the case of Wingate, it was often his own troops.

   This books admirably chronicles the multifacted nature of Wingate. It is factual and comes across as neutral as possible, often citing critical sources and those men (also of incredible courage) that did not fall under his spell.

   The narrative is tight and WELL EDITED. Unlike your regular 1000 page biography Smith and Beirman are able to deal with the subject adequately in 400 pages with nothing substantive missing. Also there is just enough detail of almost all of his life. The final 150 pages deals with the Burma campaign the authors are very skillful in their use of detail. They include all of the crucial elements necessary of his many campaigns.

   I found the book to be a very admirable read. I think that it only deepened the questions I have about Wingate --- was he a daring experimenter or a madman? --- I think that one can add, bitterly-troubled person to the heap of other appelations surrounding this man.

   I still ask myself, if this man were my commander would I succumb and become a convert? Would I stand aloof and protest that something is terribly wrong? I do not know, and cannot judge because I was not born at the time these events transpired. I was not a part of this great crusade, the glory they gained or the horrors they endured.




5. This is actually three wonderful stories in one. Beginning with a short introduction of the `early years' the book quickly opens with Wingate in 1936 Palestine/Zion where is quickly discovers the passion that he will keep for the rest of his life, namely Zionism. Wingate, witnessing the anti-Semitic nature of the British officer corps, gravitates towards the Zionists due to his penchant for sticking out and backing underdog causes. This book tells the riveting story of Wingate's training and arming of the famous `night squads' which became the backbone of the Palmach who eventually led Israel to victory in the 1948 war.

   The second story is the story of Wingate in Africa. Exiled to Africa because of his deep connections to the Zionists Wingate once again latches onto a new cause, the 1941 liberation of Ethiopia, which had been the last free African state before the Italians invaded it.

   The third story is where Wingate once again shined, namely in Burma leading the Chindits who operated behind enemy lines fighting the Japanese. Once again Wingate's penchant for native causes and brilliant ability to adapt unorthodox fighting techniques helped prepare the way for British victory. Churchill called Wingate a genius and when you read this book you will wholeheartedly agree, this is truly the story of the man who was the `fire in the night' when the world was becoming dark with fascism.

   Seth J. Frantzman

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.

5 comments about Shakespeare: The Evidence: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Man and His Work.

1. This is a great book. It is easy to read and it is interesting. Mr. Wilson does not just write about Shakespear and give his theories, he provides reasoned arguments about those theories. Mr. Wilson also provides alternative arguments and alternative theories regarding Shakespear.

   My only complaint? I'd like to see a list of the main people that are discussed with some clue as to their context. I say this because you will be introduced to someone on page 10 and not read about him again until page 87. A quick reference page would be very helpful in keeping everyone straight.

   Otherwise, this is a great book.
   Enjoy.




2. Books on Shakespeare roughly seem to fall into two categories: Standard scholarly books that downplay the man and focus on the plays and ingenious, entertianing books by frequently learned amateurs of anti-stratfordian theories of authorship. Anti-stratfordians have an advantage with the popular reading public; whereas academics are content to deal with texts as if they have no referents, laypeople necessarily have to ask (as William Paley said in his "natural theology) what kind of man wrote these plays. Anti-stratfordians are all too willing to oblige.

   Furthermore the field is fairly well uncontested as practically all academics consider anti-stratfordian theories as beneath their contempt. This is a shame because generally they are entirely worthy of contempt. Ian Wilson is educated amateur, with the sort of background one associates with anti-stratfordians. He summarizes and interprets the available evidence and comes to some remarkable conclusions.

   Best of all, his is not an "anti-anti-stratfordian rant" he concentrates on considering the "stratford man" not knocking other candidates. But the position of there being an "authorship problem" is made untenable. Particularly when read in conjuction with Matus' SHAKESPEARE IN FACT which addresses subsequent assessments of shakespeare (culminating in romantic "bardolatry") as well as a dissection of the claims for Oxford. This even though there are plenty of "arguably"'s, "almost certian"'s, "likely"'s that stud the text which the loyal opposition will make much of.

   The one substantian objection is that Wilson argues for the likelihood of a position (for example the identity of the "dark lady") and then frequently treats it as establish fact. This is a chief vice of anti-strafordians A few more qualifiers would have enhanced the book's credibility.




3. This is a fascinating book, but I was dismayed by Wilson's anti-Elizabeth bias. He refers to her as a "hideous old woman" responsible for the death of "many worthy young people" like Mary Queen of Scots and the Earl of Essex. Worthy young people...those two? Mary Stuart was singularly lacking in common sense, and, after catching Mary red-handed plotting against her numerous times, Elizabeth had little choice politically but to execute her. As for Essex, he was a spoiled egomaniac who bit the hand that fed him. Wilson also does himself no service by referring to Robert Cecil as "the little secretary Cecil" or by repeating without caveat a discredited story about how Essex's ring was not given to Elizabeth.



4. Being a Shakespearean actor, I am very interested in consuming any information concerning the bard from critiques of the plays and sonnets to varied information about his life. Usually though its a chore to ponder through overblown scholarly disertaions on the works that totally ignore the dimension of the presentation and performance. Even more so with dull biographers who grapple with sparse facts on Shakespeare's life and who eventually draw a very incomplete view of the man. That all changed in reading this book! Ian Wilson paints the most complete portrait of the bard that I have ever read. Piecing together bits of direct and surrounding evidence, selections of the plays and political intriques of the time Wilson writes an exciting narrative that reads more like a screenplay then a dissertation. I found myself dieing to know what happend next as his life unfolded. Here Shakespeare appears as a true Human being and not the stuff of half baked legend and places emotion and motivation behind the writing of the plays. It describes in detail his dealings with the high members of the court of England, rising through the ranks of the theatrical world and gives a poignant glimpse into the man himself and dispels any allusion to the authorship question, especially from Edward De Vere. Given the success of "Shakespeare in Love", Hollywood should take this book and fashion a mini-series on his life. There is more than enough drama and mystery in these pages for three films. Definitely a great read for any scholar or Shakespearean actor that seek to relish the rich legacy that Will left to our culture.



5. This is very well written account of what we know of Shakespeare's Life. Wilson makes a very persuasive case for Shakespeare as the author of the plays and sonnets. At times his reasoning becomes a little convoluted, but almost all books on subjects like this have some twistings in their reasoning. After reading this I would stand behind Shakespeare on the authorship debate, partly because there is no reason to believe that he did not write the plays. Jeff Anderson

2 comments about The Hill of Devi.

1. Forster spent a couple of years working as a secretary for an indigenous royal within the British Raj, a situation quite different from that of most Britishers working out in the Empire at that time and resulting in an experience, outward and inward, quite different from the ferociously enforced norm. Of course the man was quite different from the ferociously enforced norm to start with. This is Forster's account of that experience, and, aside from his own story, it includes a lot of interesting details of the "India" of that time, some of which still hold true (e.g. an innate tendency toward political intrigue, and generally the overwhelming social structure), and some of which are now receding into history (e.g. enormous morning flights of fruit bats returning to their roosts in the jungle, and generally the overwhelming presence of nature).
   Anyone who whose enjoyment of "Passage" went beyond plot and characterization will find quite a bit of edification in the cultural information supplied here. Of course, not being a novel, it lacks the full narrative impulse that people enjoy in "Passage", if they enjoyed it.



2. To be frank,I never have the chance to read the book,yet I ever read lots of essays and thesis telling me that the book is really helpful to a student intending to have a in-depth search of Passage,so I wish to get the book for a long time.Although I tried all means, I haven't gotten the book.That's why I've come to the Amazon.