No comments about Country Days.

2 comments about The Amazing Grace of Freedom: The Inspiring Faith of William Wilberforce.

1. This is an excellent book. It has beautiful pictures and is laid out in an 'easy to read' manner.



2. If you're interested in Wilberforce and want to learn more about his life-- but are not excited about the idea of ploughing through long (or possibly dull) biographies, this book is perfect. Accessible, colorful, and refreshing, it's a well-organized collection of 'articles' written about aspects of Wilberforce's life, friends, colleagues, relationships, influence, and legacy. The variety of authors who penned the book gives it balance, and gives you insight from the perspective of people in different walks of life (who have different reasons for being drawn to Wilberforce).
   
   This is definitely not a 'coffee table book' in the sense one is used to; it's basically just a great anthology that looks attractive like a coffee table book. You'll get some great inside info on the film Amazing Grace as well, but it's not at all the focal point of the book--no fluff involved. Also, the physical quality of the book makes it absolutely worth more than its low price--I was actually surprised that this was not a $24.99 book. Highly recommended.

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 Diana in Private: The Princess Nobody Knows.

1. I really don't know why some people consider this woman to be a saint. I really think she was probably a caring, giving person
   but lets face it , she was human. How many girls in their teens
   dream about marrying someone famous? Alot I'm sure. In her case
   her wish came true and I don't think she was ready for it. Nobody is really at fault here. Lady Campbell is simply writing
   about what what other people told her. Prince Charles was probably under pressure to marry and like alot of girls at 19
   she was probably INFATUATED not IN LOVE. It's very sad.



2. This book, while not always pleasant, gives yet another dimension to the story of Charles and Diana. Before her death, Diana was perceived as a saint, and Charles, the devil. This book presents them as what they actually were: HUMAN.

   Despite the book's title, this is NOT an "all Diana" book. There's quite a bit of text on Charles and the Royal Famliy.

   The photo section is a strange mixture of what seems to be photos left over from old shoots (odd angles, the back of Di's head, or her face in shadow) as if the author could only afford second-rate photos. It's a very strange selection of (photo) subjects also. I wasn't sure why the author felt it was important to publish pictures of women Charles dated in the 70s.

   I'll read everything about the royals I can get my hands on so even while I didn't totally agree with everything in this book, I did enjoy reading it. If you're a Di-aholic, you'll probably enjoy it too (especially for the price I just saw it listed for on Amazon!)




3. I read most royalty books I can get my hands on and I like this one. Why? It's not sensationalized, it's frank. The author is a peripheral part of the circles of people of whom she speaks. She is fairly even handed, without "poor princessing" as much as most other Diana books do... and she has marked compassion for the dubiously-perceived Prince of Wales. Maybe she doesn't get everything right -- who can say for sure? -- but I have the feeling she is much RIGHTER than wrong in this chronicle of Diana, and I think we readers owe it to Charles and to Diana herself to attempt to see them in a balanced perspective.

   This book was published in 1992 at the time of the Waleses de facto separation (they separated formally in December of that year) and five years previous to the former late princess's death in a car crash in Paris (August, 1997).




4. I bought this book in 1994 when it first came out. Have just re-read it and find that it is mostly gossip. The author's annoying way of identifying her sources puts me off. Few are named by their real names. It's like reading a tabloid.

   Diana comes across as a spoiled brat, but Charles leaves a lot to be desired also. At this point, do we really care? The Royal Family and their "toadies" in the UK seem so outdated. Their lives are very superficial and pointless according to this book.




5. Where was Lady Colin Campbell, under the bed? Why is it that this "book" only gained notoriety after Diana's death? It was written in 1992! Diana wasn't perfect, she didn't claim to be. She herself admitted to having committed very human sins. Was this right! Of course not, but does Lady Colin Campbell live in a glass house?

   Diana was not raised royal. The stiff upper lip, don't let anyone see you hurting, I'm a royal therefore I will be miserable in silence was missing. I don't see it as such a great loss. I feel incredibly sad for Charles. His royal upbringing not only made him feel lousy but it denied him the tools to nurture an attractive, frightened, YOUNG woman. Diana entered the royal family with the maturity of a 19 year old. Perhaps Lady Colin Campbell had already attained her incredible insight, wisdom and compassion at 19 but most humans still have some maturing to do. To feel alone and desperately need positive support is a human characteristic. When Charles married Diana he vowed to love, cherish and comfort. By far the elder of the pair Charles needed a few lessons on the meaning of the vows he was taking. Diana was not a saint in any sense of the word but she reached out to people and gave of herself despite her own unhappiness. Right or wrong many, many people love her for her humanitarian qualities. Lady Colin Campbell, what have you done for people recently?

5 comments about Judi Dench: With a Crack in Her Voice.

1. I read a review that had said this book doesn't go very far into Dame Judi Dench's private life, but rather sticks with her professional career, and this is very true. The book highlights Judi Dench's career from the very beginning by focusing on all that she has accomplished professionly. The book isn't totally void of private tidbits about Judi Dench, few have been generously exposed and are pleasant to read. My favorite parts of the book are told about how Judi Dench loves to play funny tricks on her costars, she will go far for a laugh. I have seen quite alot of her work and it is really neat to read about the behind the scenes antics and dramas that went on. Overall, great read and very enjoyable for anyone who is a Judi Dench fan, you will learn alot from reading this book.



2. This is a gently and beautifully written book and embues a real sense of how the great Lady has developed her craft and how it has developed her as a person. I found it particulary interesting in terms of Dame Judi's early life as she and I hail from the same city (York) and her Father was my Grandmother's family Doctor.
   What you get from this book is really what moulded Judi as an actor, by and large it steers away from her personal life and personal expose. I for one am glad of this as too often the style of the modern biographer is to seek out skeletons lerking in cupboards first and foremost, however tenious the evidence.
   This is more of a celebratory style of the working aspect of Judi's life, how it developed and what traits lie at her core, what it is that makes her one, if not "the" finest living British actress.
   It is a compliment of a book and collaborative overhaul of her career form it's inception. It manages not to be sychophantic and feels, moreover like a gentle but very interesting conversation with Judi. It delicate style almost certainly reflects Judi's personality to some degree, a private and retiring woman not given to self inflation nor aduration. It's a hark back to respectful style of biography and chronicals a remarkable career superbly. A very different genre of modern biography and worth it for this reason but moreover for it's outstanding and wonderful subject.



3. I'm an immense Judi Dench fan and waited for the publication of this paperback version of her biography. I wasn't disappointed. The author gives a complete picture of 'the Dame's' professional life--from her first stage parts up until her more widely known successes in the last couple of years.
   Reading the book made me want to know this smart, funny woman who has now added 'M' (Bond movies) to her coverage of classical stage roles, television pieces and other movie parts. I came away with a somewhat better understanding of the enormous talent it must take to get to the heart of various characters. And, I greatly enjoyed the descriptions of the practical jokes JD loves to organize. I loved the 'corpsing' (the Brits use the term to describe actors 'cracking each other up').
   Great reading for a 'Dame Judi' fan, or any fan of good acting, with an 'inside' view of the process.



4. This biography is a rarity. Its purpose is to share the tremendous career and achievements of Mrs. Judi Dench, and it happily is lacking what biography has often become. It is not several hundred pages of dubious gossip or borderline slander. It is not a litany of innuendo from those who claim some dubious relationship to the subject and then do their best to damage the individual's reputation. If you are looking for gossip-strewn trash, buy history as revised and fictionalized by Kitty Kelly. Mr. John Miller has written a wonderful book about a woman of substance and of great personal and professional merit. Unlike other biographers who survive based upon how low they will sink for tabloid attention, he did not write whatever someone would spew to relate a story that was not there.

   Dame Judi's career has spanned a period that has allowed her to work with many of the greatest names of the theatre of the 20th Century. Additionally the actresses, the Directors and Playwrights also read like a list of those most accomplished in their fields. Many fans first met her as "M" in the James Bond Film Series, or as "Mrs. Brown", in her portrayal of Queen Victoria, or Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare In Love". The latter two films won her nominations for The Academy Award and the trend continued this year in Chocolat.

   If you are interested in a story of a hard working actress, a woman who is a consummate professional, and respected by virtually all who have worked with her, this book is for you. However if you are like the journalist that opened a press conference by asking her a personal and intimate question, which caused her to rightfully dismiss the press conference format of dirt gathering from that day on, you will have to look elsewhere.

   This is a great book about a woman who has succeeded in all areas she chose, and has done so with style and without the sordid notoriety that passes for fame today. Hers' is not a career of 15 minutes or 15, 30, or 45 years, but more like another legend Sir John Gielgud, who when he hit his 90th birthday never thought to pause.

   Mr. Miller is to be commended for writing a worthwhile book and not a hardbound tabloid. If he seems less than objective due to the praise he has collected from her peers, it in fact only does "seem" that way. There are accomplished people today who can be admired and pointed to as role models. This book documents one. The other group tends to be long on press clippings and short on substance, but they also unfortunately sell books by the ton to book reading voyeurs.

   Mr. Miller has written a work for the other readers.




5. I became interested in Judy Dench when I first discovered the British comedies that appear on American Television. "As Time Goes By" is my favorite and of course stars Judi. When I heard about her most exceptional career I wanted to learn more about her and see more of her acting. I found this book, which does give an "arm's length" view of Judi, the person, which I understand is her choice, and more power to her. However, I was fascinated with the in-depth information on the British Theater and those who have performed there over the last 40 years as told in this biography. It certainly describes many of the wonderful theatrical productions, and all that goes into making these possible. While Judi Dench is the central character, the book shows what a career in theater is like and all the many aspects of theater that go into every presentation. I did enjoy the book, and felt I had learned far more than anticipated about the recent British Theater.

5 comments about The Beatles: A Diary.

1. "The Beatles : A Diary" is a comprehensive and enjoyable look at rock n' roll's greatest band, from the births of all of the Beatles through their 1970 break-up. Accompanied with nearly 300 photographs, this oversized tome is a must-have that exceeds any other book on the Beatles I have seen. Listing so many details of their career in diary form, this book includes record releases, recording sessions, and a list of all of their concerts. One thing that stands out for me is that the concerts are in their own font so that the gigs all stand out and are easy to find. I expect to get many more hours of enjoyment out of Barry Miles' wonderful book and wholeheartedly recommend it to any fan of the Beatles, or anyone just wanting to get to know these rock pioneers.



2. I found this book to be a great source of quotes concerning the Beatles, although much of the information was a little old but that's got to be there since it's a chronological account, and of course much would seem same old same old because i have read so incredibly much on some of my favorite people...i would definitely recommend this book for an aspiring fan or the die-hard like myself. Enjoy!



3. Miles joins the ranks of such copy-cat authors as Mark Hertsgaard with his "Diary". This book is far from being "an astonishingly detailed chronology of gigs, venues, quotes, and memorable facts about the world's most famous band". Miles has simply taken the contents of Mark Lewisohn's extensively researched "Chronicle" and added pictures.

   Aside from being a great-looking "coffee table" book, it is hardly worth the price. The book contains no great revelations, nor does it have any details that have not been covered ad nauseum in the any of the hundreds of books already written about the Beatles.

   If you can live without the big pictures, I strongly suggest locating a copy of any of Lewisohn's books.

   - Paul, NYC




4. This book covers most everything that happened to the Beatles and even has quotes. The book has many pictures of the Fab Four that I had never seen before. I enjoyed the way the book was set up. No matter if you are a hardcore Beatles Freak or a first time listener you can still enjoy the book.



5. This book was worth it's price because the author included a photo that I have never seen in any Beatle's related publication. The photo shows John Lennon and George Harrison leaving a home with what appears to be Elvis Presly standing at the doorway. The Beatles met Elvis at his home in Los angeles in 1965 and the author placed this photo alongside his description of this event. Unfortunately there is no caption alongside the photo. This was their only encounter and no photographs were taken of this historic meeting. The author did not elaborate on this photo and appears to have left it to the imagination of the reader. It would be great if the author cleared this matter up.

5 comments about The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography of Edmund Burke.

1. "The Great Melody" by Conor Cruise O'Brien is not your traditional biography; there is little here concerning Burke's personal and family life. Instead, the work concentrates on Burke's political career and thought and, specifically, how they relate to his Irish heritage. The result is a fascinating look into the mind and personality of a man who suffered from a conflict of emotions over his Irish heritage that included his father's conversion to Protestantism while his mother and wife remained Catholic. Burke himself was torn in different directions his entire life; loyalty to Britain and also his Irish ancestors and friends suffering under the Penal Laws, loyalty to the British constitution, but also a deep feeling for the need of justice for the oppressed people at home and abroad.

   O'Bien's book takes an in-depth look at Burke's career in parliament and as a member of the Whig party through an extensive analysis of his letters, speeches, political relationships, and writings, specifically, as they relate to his struggle on behalf of the American colonists, the struggle of the Irish Catholics, the people of India suffering at the hands of the rapacious East India Co., and the French Revolution.

   The work can be a little dry at times and tends to quote in an overly lengthy manner, but the immense erudition and scholarship and the insightful picture of Burke that emerges more than compensate for this. I do wish, however, that O'Brien had spent more time on "Reflections On The Revolution in France," but he feels that since it is so readily available to the reader there is no need. Finally we see an Edmund Burke as he really was and not the "old reactionary" that is so often depicted. We come to understand that Burke always believed that "the people are the true legislator," that Burke did not want to see Americans in Parliament who were slave holders, that he was a life-long opponent of increased powers for the Crown and the corruption such power entailed, that he was one of the few who consistently fought against injustice toward the American colonials, that he found all authoritaianism abhorrent, and that he opposed commercial monopolies and the abuse of power in all its forms. But, because he opposed the overturning of society and its reengineering on the basis of "metaphysical abstractions," he was often portrayed as a reactionary by later pundits. Lewis Namier and his followers are particularly taken to task by O'Brien for this tendency. In the end we see a Burke who always supported basic human rights, but remained constantly aware that real life circumstances must make social and political change possible if such change is not to lead to chaos and violence. Burke's fear of radicalism based upon abstract theory was real and the destructiveness of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Nazi bio-racial religion more than sufficiently proves his point. A reading of O'Brien's fine book can only lead the intelligent reader to a renewed respect for a great man, a decent and liberal minded man, and a man of immense vision.




2. There is much in O'Brien's book that is interesting, original and insightful. But it suffers from two fatal flaws, one stylistic/structural, one substantive: (1) It is a mess. It is part personal biography, part intellectual biography, part annotated anthology, all mixed together in a confusing and unsatisfactory hodge-podge that may have been deliberate, given Burke's (and therefore O'Brien's) aversion to systems and abstraction. It is as if the author set out with a firm intention to portray Burke a certain way, collected up all the relevant facts, but just couldn't pull it all together in the end. It reads like a work-in-progress, several drafts short of completion and in dire need of a good editor; (2) It seriously overstates its case, and is therefore simply not reliable as an account of Burke's thought. O'Brien's Burke is a pluralist liberal, one of the "good guys" not to be classed among the "reactionaries", as Isaiah Berlin has done. But as Berlin points out--with far too much courtly politeness--in his exchange with O'Brien (reproduced in the appendix), the author has simply turned a blind eye to those aspects of his subject that make him appear illiberal. Most liberals at the time supported the French Revolution, at least in its early phase, and with good reason: it destroyed a confused mass of privilege, injustice and corruption that served the interests of a largely hereditary elite, which Burke vigorously defended. Most liberals since have supported it too. Few (if any) liberals today would hesitate to condemn someone who defended tradition, hereditary privilege and deference to authority as Burke did. To say that Burke was a liberal just doesn't wash. Granted he had SOME liberal tendencies, but he had many other tendencies that liberals have always found repugnant. It is a crude and one-sided portrait. O'Brien subscribes to the old-fashioned Cold War liberalism of Jacob Talmon, who interpreted the struggle between liberal democracy and "totalitarianism" in the 20th Century as a replay of the struggle between liberalism constitutionalism and the Terror. O'Brien's agenda in this book is to accept this dubious and anachronistic framework and to place Burke firmly on the "correct" side in it, with a demonic Rousseau on the other. THE GREAT MELODY was probably out-of-date before O'Brien wrote a word of it, just as much of Burke was when it appeared in the eighteenth century.



3. Everyone knows Edmund Burke's most famous quote: "for evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing". As a former lecturer in political science, I was mainly familiar with Burke as the founder of Anglo-conservatism (infinitely more nuanced and modern than his equivalent in Franco-conservatism, the Count Joseph de Maistre). I had also read an early work, namely "An Enquiry into the nature of the Beautiful and the Sublime", which I thought a brilliant little jewel. But there's much more about Burke than that.

   O'Brien, the great man of Irish diplomacy, shows in this extraordinary book that Burke, whom recently history has shown as a fawning servant to the political leaders of his time (Rockingham and Pitt), was at the heart of the great fight between George III's royal absolutism and the emerging English democracy. Burke was on the right side of virtually all the fights he picked. He advocated equality before the law for the Irish subjects of the king, first tolerance and then freedom for the American colonies, the end of the colonialist abuses of the East India company, and a quarantine on the infectious ideas of the French Revolution. The later one is still a contentious affair. Zhou En Lai famously opined that it was still too early (in the 1970s) to judge the French Revolution. Burke would have had none of that. As early as 1790, in the "benign" initial phase of the revolution, he foresaw the Terror, the execution of the Royal Family, the Consulate and the Empire, and the French banner covering all of the Europe, in the name of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

   O'Brien shows the extraordinary situation of an Irish Protestant (always accused of crypto-Catholicism) having great informal influence on the politics of Great Britain, while holding menial offices or representing various "rotten boroughs" in Parliament (this is no aspersion on Burke's memory- that's how politics was done at the time, and anything that gave Burke a pulpit couldn't have been all bad). The "Great Melody" of the title provides the underlying themes around which O'Brien organizes the public part of Burke's life. Far from tiresome, this is a useful device that provides unity and coherence to Burke's thoughts and actions. O'Brien's attacks on mid-century historiography are perfectly adequate, given that much of what was written as that period was designed to regress Burke into irrelevancy, as a sycophant and a lackey. He never was that. He was a good and a great man, and O'Brien does him justice in his book. Perhaps the only fault that I could find in it is a tendency to assume the reader's prior knowledge of the arcanes of Irish history. But these are quibbles. If you can stomach a history of ideas, full of events and studded with memorable characters, this is the book for you.




4. An excellent biography, highly readable, a bold and ultimately persuasive thesis - that Burke was not only a major political thinker but that he shaped much of the late 18th century. From a fascinating introduction showing how modern scholars had successfully destroyed and obscured Burke's true legacy to its brilliant organizing principle (a line from Yeats), this is a great book. This book should be required reading for every senator, congressman, and presidential candidate - if only to improve the level of discourse by reading Burke's great speeches. Yeats' lines on Burke: "American colonies, Ireland, France, and India/ Harried, and Burke's great melody against it." O'Brien shows how much one great man can do against tyranny, and how little. The book falls short on two counts: one, inadequate bios of Rockingham, Fox, Portland, Pitt the Younger, and his relation to Sam Johnson and Joshua Reynolds. Two, Burke the man does not walk these pages as Johnson does Boswell's book. True, O'Brien has organized the book around Yeats' lines, but the domestic Burke, the friend of Johnson and Reynolds could have been amplified. These are minor faults. This biography is excellent in so many ways that it compares very favorably with Boswell's Johnson and indeed excels it on many fronts.



5. O'Brien does a masterful job of bringing to life a neglected and misunderstood politician and political theorist. Those whose knowledge of Burke is limited to "Reflections" are in for an awakening. By book's end the reader will feel much like I. Berlin (whose correspondence with CCOB is in the appendix) and recant previously held stereotypes of Burke as a reactionary. A thorough detailing of Burke's writings and speeches makes clear that he was far from the two dimensional figure derided in political theory seminars.

   O'Brien makes old political controversies regarding Ireland, India, America and revolutionary France fresh and engaging. An initial puzzle of this book is O'Brien's passionate refutations of the Namierite view of Burke. Yet, Burke continues to be a bogeyman to the academic left for good reason. Burke hated tyranny in any form and virtually alone among his contemporaries recognized that recasting society in the name of an idea promised the worst form of tyranny. Devotees of the French Revolution detest Burke whose credentials as a champion of the oppressed in Ireland, India and America were beyond reproof.

   O'Brien himself, however, was curiously un-Burkean during his political career as it related to the Cold War. Burke correctly recognized that the French Revolution was a proto-totalitarian movement. He saved his most withering scorn for his former allies who viewed the revolution as a net benefit for the French and the world. In contrast, O'Brien in his UN days urged that Ireland follow the "decent" countries such as Sweden and stay above the US-Soviet fray. One wishes that O'Brien, now in his eighties, would have come to grips with his past as a neutral in the struggle between freedom and the successors of the French Revolution.

5 comments about Lawrence: The Uncrowned King of Arabia.

1. Having read a few books about T.E.Lawrence and his own tome I found Michael Asher's book easily the most enjoyable of the lot. Any man who took the time to physically visit the routes Lawrence (claims) to have made, has something to say. A very worthwhile book.
   
   Damien in Dublin.
   
   Sands of Death: An Epic Tale of Massacre, Cannibalism, and Survival in the Sahara
   Two Against the Sahara: On Camelback from Nouakchott to the Nile



2. Whether or not you truly want to delve into the life of Lawrence of Arabia and this particular biography depends, I think, on whether you want to preserve the dynamic image of him as portrayed in the movie Lawrence of Arabia by David Lean or want to dig deeper into the eccentric world of the real T.E. Lawrence. I myself am no Lawrence scholar and have something akin to a passing interest in him as a sort of mythological figure like Wyatt Earp or Daniel Boone. This particular book was picked up randomly at a library book sale for a quarter to supplement my knowledge of T.E. Lawrence beyond the movie and to help me prepare to read his memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which I've heard is quite literary and even difficult without a bit of background on Lawrence and the Arab revolt.
   
   As a writer and a scholar, Asher is reasonably capable and has adequate credentials to tell his tale. What has been mentioned in other reviews and which I'll echo here is that he unfortunately wants to interrupt the flow of Lawrence's biography by interjecting his first-person accounts of his travels around the same areas Lawrence traveled. Although this story-telling technique doesn't ruin the book, it slows down the pace and adds little if anything the reader needs or wants to know. To me, it serves as an annoying distraction. It's typical also for Asher to want to pick apart the mind of T.E. Lawrence and give some debatable theories about the motives behind Lawrence's actions. Certainly, Asher appears to do his homework and his assumptions about Lawrence seem well supported, but what is hard to take is the unequivocal nature of Asher's assertions. He himself never doubts his assumptions.
   
   However, if the reader can accept that Asher's views are valid, then the reader should also be prepared to discover that Lawrence was more than a little eccentric, something bound to undermine the beautiful myth around the man. Aside from the details given about Lawrence's truly weird need for self-debasement in the form of flagellation as well as his decision to spend his adult life after Arabia as an enlisted man in the military, what bothered me most about Lawrence as discussed by Asher was his tendency to play with facts, an inclination apparently noted by other biographers. Given the reality that reality is often subjective, I do like to know the facts as accurately as they can be reported. Apparently, Lawrence seems to have appreciated the value of propaganda and chose to exploit it to achieve his ends, which are not terribly clear. Therefore, it's hard to know the whole truth about what happened during the Arab revolt, and Asher finds numerous holes in Lawrence's story. I'm happy to report that Asher does make clear that Lawrence accomplished much of what he claims to have accomplished, so Lawrence was indeed a dynamic fellow and the right person at the right time to do what he did, but he also makes clear that there are bizarre, masochistic motives that drive Lawrence. Therefore, if you want to truly know the man behind the myth, read on. If you want to preserve a myth, watch the movie, and then read an encyclopedia for broad details about Lawrence's life and the Arab revolt.



3. I am by no means a Lawrence scholar. I picked the book up at a discount because at the time I was preparing for a deployment to Iraq and was reading everything I could on the recent history of the Middle East. I found the book well written and fascinating. Historicaly accurate? Who knows? But it was a great introduction to a Western icon closely tied with the rise of the Saudi kingdom and the current map of the Middle East. After reading this I read Lawrence's own "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and who knows what the absolute truth was regarding Lawrence and his exploits. All I know is that this book made for a good reading. I appreciated Asher's insights into Arabic culture and customs. Certainly as we struggle to win the "hearts and minds" of the people in Iraq, any scholarship that helps us to understand how a Westerner can succesfully interact with the Arab peaple is a welcome read.



4. This is a large and invovled biography of T E Lawrence, written by an author who starts out as an admirer, and remains so to the end, though to a much lesser degree.

   Though there is a lot of information about the battles in the desert, i found this book most interesting when the author explores Lawrence's psyche and personality, and attempts (not always successfully or believably) at the truth behind the myth. He tests a lot of the claims about the great man, and mainly finds them wanting. This book is especially strong when it admits that it comes to no definate conclusion - rather, the author presents the facts as he sees them and lets the reader decide.

   This book is probably one of the better Lawrence biographies out there at the moment (though i would not say nearly the best) as it delves into the contradictions of the man and the myuth, and isn't afraid to 'pull punches' and not make excuses for the more troubling aspects of Lawrence's personality.

   I finished this book wondering why such a genius felt compelled to fabricate so much about his life, but also seeing him as more ' three-dimensional' than the common myth.




5. This book fails in many ways. The reason it gets 2 stars instead of one is that it's hard to discuss Lawrence without some fascinating things coming through.

   First, Asher makes himelf part of the biography. He discusses his own personal travels in a manner that add absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding. The final paragraph of the book begins with "I." Further, the frequency and manner in which he interjects himself in the book is highly annoying.

   Second, there are numerous factual problems with the book. At one point Asher refers to Turks shooting their rifles at Bedu who are over two miles away. Even a trained sniper with modern equipment wouldn't take that shot. Further, his description of Lt. Junor's plane crash is at odds with other accounts. Asher says the plane erupted in flames even though there are published photos of the crashed plane that show otherwise. Lastly on this point, Asher doesn't use Tunbridge's writings on Lawrence's days in the RAF as reference material. It's a surprising omission.

   Third, as other reviewers noted, Asher writes extensively about Lawrence's psyche. This would be sensible if Asher was either trained in psychology or referenced studies by those who are; unfortunately, neither is the case. Instead there are a few bibliographical references to works on psychology, but none specific to Lawrence. Asher's vehement discussion of Lawrence's mother makes the reader wonder whether the author or the subject had the greater maternal relationship issues.

   Fourth, is Asher's style, or more accurately, styles. At times he uses the contemporary jargon of British soldiers, whereas at other points he writes in a very stilted manner adding unnecessary Latin phrases to the text. His best writing is when he's providing background or contextual material such as the discussion of British military actions elsewhere in WWI.

   Lawrence was one of the most fascinating personalities of the 20th century. He deserves a much better biography.

No comments about On the Trail of Bonnie Prince Charlie (On the Trail of).

2 comments about Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan Myth.

1. Minotaur by Joseph MacGillivray
   
   This book presents itself as a readable biography of one the great Archaeologists, Sir Arthur Evans, instead of a thoughtful biography the book is really a prolonged attack on Evans (and 19th century archaeology) by an author of dubious credentials and makes for extremely painful reading.
   
   The book is tolerable journalism when its sticks to the factual events, but it is so filled with hostility towards Evans, that the reader is quickly bogged down in a long winded and poorly researched series of ad hominen attacks and innuendo of wrong doing that the thrill of Crete and Minos is completely buried.
   
   The central claim of this bad book is that Evans created Minoan archaeology and did not discover anything. The attacks are unrelenting. The author claims variously : Evans is unscientific and concerned only with objects, stole antquities, horded valuable linear B scripts, was a repressed homosexual, took too much credit for his finds and harmed nearly all of his colleagues, was shrewd and calculating to excess in his business dealings, was a racist because his disliked Turks and personally favored European and Greek religion and culture, was a spoiled wealthly aristocrat of no ability but gifted merely by birth and social standing- who also ate very well, etc etc etc
   
   That the author has issues with Evans is an understatement and parrying all of his attacks (most of which are the authors own unsubstantiated suspicions or irelevant details) is a waste of time.
   
   Evans- the gentlemen and scholar who devoted his 90 years of life to classics, beauty in art and history, who spent his fortune to dig Knossos and who developed new theories of myth and civilization: in short a person whose name will be recalled as long as history-minded Western man is revered- is not present in this book. This book is the product of a modern academic archaeology resentful of its romantic past, that prefers digging with toothbrushes, hates coin collectors, believes antiquities dealers are evil and wishes that British, Germans and French had left everything in the ground for them to sniff about with white gloves and a microscope.
   
   
   That the author is an academic feather-weight is evident in the opening pages, where he attempts to work out his own crude thesis: Evans was not an archaeologist but a myth maker motivated by sexual demons. His analysis is so bad, reading his turns of phrase are like chewing on sand: "Archaeologists are the progenitors as well as the midwives at the birthing process we call excavation." Ugly writing quickly leads to bad analysis such as this delphic prose: " ...we must start with Evans himself, the product of his genes and his life experiences." These experiences include the alleged homosexuality of Evans which the author tries to awkwardly weave into his book perhaps hoping to increase sales, but he cannot find much and we are left with a few sentences of inane writing worthy only of a freshman trying to impress a bored teaching assistant. He writes that he suspects Evans was driven to pursue his career because of the "repressed 'beastliness' of his homosexuality..." His efforts degenerate further a few hundred pages later with innuendo about a young man Evans adopted and his association with Baden Powell and the Boy Scout movement.
   
   The author has no wit and his style wears the reader down. He makes no effort in the biography to educate the reader about the civilization of Crete and takes the excitement of the past away completely. I know of no other book on archaeology that deadens its subject matter to such a degree. The author is all over the place with his own insipid thoughts and at times contradicts his own thin analysis.
   
   For example the author continually harps on the fact that Evan's sister titled her biography of him, "Time and Chance". The author writes "Nothing could be further from what I believe about how Evans discovered Knossos..."(p.6) In his effort to bring Evans down from his perch the author continually paints Evans as simply a digger with money. At the end of his book, the author returns to this theme: "Arthur Evans did not stumble upon Knossos by some happy circumstance. He set his mind on acquiring the rights to a well-documented site.... he secured the expertise he lacked in the person of a site foreman, architects, and conservators..." (p.308) Ok this attack may work in hindsight, but on page 175 the author himself writes: "they all faced the risk that within a few hours they might have removed only a thin layer of eroded soil and exposed a solid rock outcropping scattered with worthless pot shards... Evans might learn that he had chased off the other suitors only to find the bride barren of promise and her dowry worthless. These are the risks excavators take." Which is it? Did Evans simply walk in and dig up what everyone knew was there or did chance play a role and did he finally locate the fabled city of Knossos after three and a half millenium? Clearly this writer is a moron.
   
   A good graduate student should set things right and demolish MacGillivray's shoddy research on Evans, a student of history with a sense of the classical- not one inspired while waiting to use public tennis courts in Manhattan as MacGillivray says he was. Surely some inspiration can still be found in the stones of ruined cities, a brilliant gemstone or winds of the Mediterranean.
   
   The author, in writing this extended effort to libel the dead, succeeds only in diminishing our native appreciation of history, and our myths. That is the end point of modernity.



2. Sandy MacGillivray's in depth analysis of the life and times of pioneer Cretan archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans was a pure joy to read. The author's own experiences as a professional in the field on Crete add great weight to his arguments as he finds himself coping the Evans' legacy on a daily basis. I really got the sense that the author knew Evans, both the man and the scholar, through close attention to and extensive research on the amply available primary sources. This is a wonderfully scholarly, yet very readable and highly interesting book to both the professional archaeologist and interested armchair amateur.