3 comments about For Kirk and Covenant: The Stalwart Courage of John Knox (Leaders in Action Series).

1. For Kirk and Covenant is an easy book to pick up and get a feel for John Knox--particularly his character. But I have not found the result of reading it to be that I feel that I really know and love the man himself. The book's short chapters (topically arranged) are engaging but paint a choppy picture of his life. Author Douglas Wilson's aim to display his godly character and leadership requires him to continually protect Knox from his critics--the result being an almost perfect picture of him in every chapter. I'll use For Kirk and Covenant as a supplementary reference, but I look forward to reading a more comprehensive chronological biography.



2. A great reformer written from an honest perspective, well aware of our own culure... another great one for young and old alike!



3. I have read 3 or 4 biographies of Knox in the past ten years. Stanford Reid's *Trumpter of God* is considered the standard. But Wilson's is by far the most engaging.
   
   I am not a Wilson fan at all. But this is a good read.
   
   Wilson has not attempted a comprehensive biography. Instead he hits the milestones and highlights what made Knox one of the most interesting figures in Western history. WIlson seems to have relied primarily on 2 or 3 sources and has little to no familiarity with the bulk of the scholarly literature on Knox, but this matters little for the scope of this work.
   
   Wilson makes contemporary, practical applications from Knox's that the reader will find very challenging.

5 comments about Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution.

1. this is a historical work on the american revolution that revolves principally around the figures of washington, jefferson, and john adams. it a book the casual reader can delight in, filled with lively prose and a narrative thrust missing so much in other historical works. a highly recommended read for anyone interested in the american revolution.



2. anyone new to the early history of the republic should consider reading this book. while it is quite brief, ferling does a decent job of telling the tale of the revolution through the eyes of the first three presidents. at times he is heavy handed with jefferson, but any student of the american revolution should know that jefferson's greatest contributions came after independence was secured. the reverence for the declaration of independence came long after it was written; its impact at the time is highly debatable. ferling spends a great deal of time trying to pull adams from the depths of obscurity-his bias is evident-but does make a compelling argument that adams is worthy of the praise. it should be noted that this book ends, for all intents and purposes, and the end of the war, and is merely an assessment of the contributions that washington, adams, and jefferson made during the revolution, and is not an evaluation of their presidencies. nevertheless, it is worthy of your time.



3. This brief (300 pages) history of the American Revolution, as seen through the actions of Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, is a thoroughly enjoyable, pool side type of read. Granted, it is a superficial history of the Revolution, but provides an interesting perspective of the motivations, interactions, and rather different personalities of the three founding fathers. Mr. Ferling's work does seem to be at times rather colored in favor of Washington and Adams, which might be expected, as he has written biographies of our first and second presidents. He makes some rather interesting comments about Jefferson's personality; comments which come close to a psychoanalysis of our third president. Overall, if you are searching for a history of the revolution, this work is not for you. If you are ready for a relaxing narrative of the revolution, and the actions of these three individuals, you will not be disappointed.



4. As an avid reader of the American Revolution, I had heard great things about this book. Unfortunately, it was terribly disappointing. Ferling spends too much time raising Adams to god-like status, in an apparent attempt to continue his sole rehabilitation of Adams' place in our history (see Ferling's other writings). In short, it's a shame that an author that is a history professor spends so much time in the present analyzing what Washington or Jefferson should have done instead of telling us what they did keeping in mind the time period and atmosphere of the late 18th century. If you are looking for a critical analysis of our Founding Fathers, this book is for you. However, if you are looking for, heaven forbid, a book about history, skip this one.



5. This is the finest book I have read about the Revolution. Ferling is the best at making pure history great. He doesn't engage in phsycho stuff unless he has to. He is very sophisticated and somewhat difficult in the sense his vocabulary is amazing.

   He admires washington. He presents the great soilder with a few faults. He makes a god out of Adams and a Demon out of Jefferson.

   Great book!!!

3 comments about White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives.

1. A hard one to rate. The stories vary from well done to poorly crafted. Some are fictional, some truthful, and some fictional but pretend to be truthful. There oldest story is 3 centuries earlier than the most recent- and thus the stories represent a very varied style of writings. But the editor is up front with all of this, and most preemininetly, it is the editor who should be judged in this case.
   
   I do not find him wanting. He has brought together a very unique collection that needs greater public scrutiny. It is intriguing to see all the ways the myth of slavery by whites alone is exploded. While the evils of slavery under whites in America are great indeed, so is all slavery, in all times, and this is shown very clearly in this collection. It is horrible to hear the events in these stories, and to contemplate how much more horrible are the stories of those who never got a chance to speak, for they were in slavery throughout their lives. Of little better joy are those who apostocized to Islam simply to avoid the horrors of slavery, exposing another interreligious myth.
   
   It would be nice to have more detail on how reliable these stories are. Although there is a long introduction in the beginning, it doesn't fully give us the information we need to judge the authenticity of these narratives. For instance, it seems very likely that the story of Adams was at least in part manufactured, as the animals he describes do not exist or else do not act in the manner that he ascribes to them. But the editor only mentions that another author has shown with a great deal of evidence that Adams' story has veracity, and then we never hear what that evidence is. Also, it would be more helpful if Cotton Mathers sermon were updated. Frankly, the language has changed so much in 300 years, that a partial translation is in order. I found myself skimming over this first installment as I could not understand a lot of the language from the turn of the 18th century.
   
   Small detractions. I would heartedly recommend this work. The stories are enthralling, and it is helpful to understand the history that went into the end of the Islamic Slavery Era, as well as the events around the first American war, the War with Tripoli/Tunisia. Just be sure to remember that not all events in the stories can be considered verifiable, and there may be some exaggerations by the storytellers who saw the world in stark Western-Islamic terms, with the "evil Musselman" and the "good Christian".



2. While reading Baepler's book WHITE SLAVES, AFRICAN MASTERS I kept asking myself, Why didn't I know about this fascinating part of American and world history before? While I found the men's stories to be captivating, I was especially enthralled with the stories of women captives such as Eliza Bradley and Maria Martin. The stories kept me wanting to read more...wanting to know what would happen next. I think some of these captivity narratives would make a great movie or TV mini-series! I'm recommending the book to friends who are history buffs and others who just want a good read.



3. Baepler puts the label "African American" or "black" on Robert Adams. Yet, Adams is described as white in the narrative and in the drawing that accompanies it. By what standards does Baepler eliminate Adams' predominate European ancestry and proclaim him "black"? He is trying to create an "African American" where none existed.Passing for Who You Really Are

4 comments about A Bride Goes West (Women of the West).

1. If you enjoy biographies about ordinary people living extraordinary lives you will love this book. I really enjoyed this book.



2. Although Alderson presents her story in a light and entertaining fashion, she doesn't gloss over the hardships and tragedies that accompany a homesteader in the late 19th century.



3. This book was an amazing true account of life in Montana when it was still being settled. The author(s) paint a vivid picture of the "new" West at the time and how men and women lived. I was surprised to learn that it was not all hardship and toil, to the contrary, there was much fun and merriment had. There's an amazing cast of colorful characters that Nannie met as a new young bride on a ranch. I would recommend this book to anyone who loves American history, the Old West, or authobiographies.



4. This book traces a short period in the life of a woman who came to Montana from a fairly well-to-do life in Virginia. She was young and probably not prepared for what she encountered. But it is amazing how well she did in the middle of nowhere. I was impressed with her open mindedness and interest in all things. I thought it was very well written. It leaves a lasting impression.

1 comments about James Polk and The Expansionist Impulse (Library of American Biography Series) (3rd Edition) (Library of American Biography).

1. Between the end of Andrew Jackson's presidency in 1837 and the beginning of Abraham Lincoln's in 1861 there was a 24 year period of presidential mediocrity. Eight presidents served during this era, four of them for less than a single term, forming a roster of forgettable names: Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Only one man in this era of mediocrity stands out at all: James Polk.
   
   What makes Polk stand out from these others is that he actually accomplished something noteworthy. During his presidency, the U.S. warred with Mexico. This war was significant not only because it marked the first time the U.S. fought a war in foreign territory, but more importantly, it resulted in the U.S. acquiring a vast amount of land, including California and New Mexico (it also forced Mexico to recognize that Texas was now part of its northern neighbor). In addition, Polk was able to more peacefully obtain what would become Oregon and Washington from England.
   
   The acquisition of Mexican land was controversial during the war and even remains the source of argument today. Long before the controversies of weapons of mass destruction, there were the debatable origins of the Mexican War; Polk was determined to acquire land and set up things to force a conflict. Besides the somewhat dubious origins of the war, the result for the U.S. was also filled with negatives; the new territories would exacerbate North-South conflicts (particularly about slavery) and - though temporarily alleviated by the Compromise of 1850, would eventually lead to the Civil War.
   
   Sam Haynes has written an excellent if brief biography of Polk. In just over 200 pages, he reviews Polk's entire life, focusing on his one term as president. Haynes remains reasonably objective, with as much praise for Polk's better qualities as criticism for his deficiencies. If you are interested in Polk or this era of American History, this is a good introduction.

2 comments about All Things for Good: The Steadfast Fidelity of Stonewall Jackson (Leaders in Action Series).

1. First let me say that the "Leaders in Action" series is tremendous (check the rest of them out--Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, William Wilberforce and more). They are biographies which deal not only with facts, but also with the character and faith of historical figures. Every school age child should read these books and take these role models to heart.
   
   The great thing about this book is that it gives a solid summary of Stonewall Jackson's life and history as well as a thorough examination of his faith and values. If you can believe it, I was almost brought to tears by the account of his death. Especially for Civil War buffs--this is a must read.



2. This is an excellent look inside the life of Thomas Johnathan "Stonewall" Jackson.
   
   Reverend Wilkins does an excellent job of researching first-hand accounts of the important events that occurred during Jackson's life and how they refined him into the man that God made him.

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton: A Biography.

1. McDonald seems to have set out to write a book emphasizing Hamilton's political and financial/administrative contributions to the new republic and that is what he did. There is relatively little on Hamilton's personal life. For that one must look elsewhere (to Ron Chernow for example). The book is largely successful at what it is trying to do and is very good on the finance/administrative areas. One would expect no less from McDonald. As his other works on constitutional history show, he is an expert on the political philosophy and thought of the time as well as the period's economic theories.
   
   The prose is crisp, direct and clear for the most part but perhaps not the most sprightly ever committed to paper. McDonald can certainly be serious and charming simultaneously as he was in his memoir of his life as a historian (Recovering the Past), but his tone in his more formal work is quite brisk and even heavy at times.
   
   I would downgrade the book somewhat for two reasons: First, as mentioned, it scants the personal life in favor of the ideas and actions. With Hamilton, however, the personal life and conduct were utterly intertwined with his political and physical fates, especially as he grew older and (it seems) both increasingly intemperate and fearful that he had not been accorded sufficient esteem by contemporaries and might not have achieved the degree of 18th century style fame that would cement his reputation for posterity. The duel, for example, is one of the dumbest things that a smart man ever did and was to my mind in large part caused by events in his personal life.
   Second, the book is quite partisan and even hagiographic occasionally. Most biographers sympathsize with their subjects and give them more than the benefit of the doubt; but, judging from the book, Hamilton seems to be in McDonald's all-time personal pantheon of historical heroes and it shows. This may be because McDonald appears to share in some part the distrust of popular democracy that gave rise to Hamilton's fear of government by "the mob." Whatever the reason, Hamilton is seldom portrayed as wrong or even in error.
   
   Overall this is a worthy book by a fine scholar of the period and is especially good at making clear Hamilton's financial systems and political ideas in the context of the times.



2. This biography focuses heavilty on Hamilton's fiscal policies, particularly in his role as Secretary of the Treasury. It is well written and relies heavily on primary sources. The book sometimes becomes heavy reading when McDonald disucsses some of Hamilton's more complex financial dealings.



3. Forrest McDonald wrote this book out of a profound knowledge of the legal, financial, and economic environment of the world of late-colonial America that Alexander Hamilton came into, and of the early Republic, that he transformed. Hamilton was a brave soldier, an astute politician, an extremely talented administrator, a great lawyer and a man of extraordinary personal morality and honor. These characteristics were enough to vault him to the upper reaches of early American society. But his financial and economic program -- that rescued this new and foundering nation -- is the true basis of his greatness.
   
   Hamilton was a man of parts, not least of which was his technical mastery of the financial means to establish and maintain a sound currency and national credit. Apprenticed to a merchant at an early age, he quickly came to appreciate the mentally invigorating effects of the commercial life. He was naturally quick and, as in repudiation of his socially marginal origins, a rigorous adherent to morality and "gentlemanly" honor. His talents, hard work and charm bouyed him up, and he seized each new opportunity with both hands, for his ambition would not let him rest. McDonald tells the story of Hamilton's early years with vigor and interest, but it is clear that the thrust of this book is to elucidate his real accomplishment as Secretary of the Treasury. This was the funding and assumption of the debts that the just-formed United States had inherited, the taxes and tariffs to pay for these, and the financial mechanisms -- including the Bank and the sinking fund -- to create, as out of nothing (or less than nothing) a universal and sound currency, as well as a store of capital to fund businesses, which he felt must be the drivers of the economy.
   
   This book is fairly compact, but gives a good feel for Hamilton the man. If you want more in that line, then the current biography by Ron Chernow is where to look. But here you will learn what Hamilton did that no one else could have done, and that needed doing. Even his enemies -- Jefferson especially -- found, though they repudiated the man and his politics, that in the end they couldn't do without his works.



4. Though this biography is about 25 years old now, it's one on Hamilton that I will not part with. Forrest McDonald has written many books on early colonial American history, on the Constitution and on the presidency of Washington and Jefferson. He is now a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Alabama. This biography is more substantive than Brookhiser's and Brookhiser, I believe, actually consulted with Forrest McDonald when he wrote his book on Hamilton. Our government sometimes consults McDonald on Constitutional issues. As to political affiliations, McDonald describes himself as "an unreconstructed Hamiltonian Federalist". (The federalist party doesn't exist anymore; the present day republican and democratic parties are both offshoots from the previously named democratic-republican party).
   
   I've written this review so many times, mainly because I think that this Hamilton's life deserves a careful study, particularly with regard to his work on getting the Constitution ratified and his work in the treasury department. I highly recommend Frederick Scott Oliver's Alexander Hamilton:an Essay on Union which I've reviewed previously and Knott's Alexander Hamilton and the persistence of myth. Oliver's book is really dated, going back to 1928, and is written from a British viewpoint. He was a Scottish lawyer, read by Lord Tweedsmuir/John Buchan, who unfortunately only wrote several other books; his biography on Hamilton, in my opinion, is beautiful. This biography is good too. I love the quotes from Pope that McDonald heads every chapter with. (Hamilton's favorite authors were Pope and Plutarch). Chapter 8 is entitled Funding and Assumption which deals primarily with Hamilton's solution to the huge debts the colonies owed other nations following the Revolution. Stephen Knott's suggests in his book that Hamilton's solution of setting up a sinking fund would have been a good solution to another huge debt that our Treasury Department had to deal with soon after, (I believe), Bush Sr.'s four years, yet Congress gave this suggestion little notice. What makes McDonald's bio a standout, I think, is the depth of material he provides in explaining what he did as Treasurer. He's also biased toward Hamilton which I think actually is a good thing and paints not so rosy a picture about Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, or Burr.
   
   I think this biography will stand the test of time because of its solid research from Hamilton's birth to his death; McDonald's biography is the most comprehensive and complete. (I haven't read the newer biographies yet; I do believe this one will remain the standard). I was particularly impressed with his treatment of Hamilton's youth and parentage. I'd like to give this book 5 stars, yet American politics and writers to some extent alarm me. If I could, I would give this book 4.5 stars, the 0.5 subtracted for my cautious misgivings stated previously, and, compared to Oliver's biography, Oliver really understands the characters of Hamilton, Jefferson and others, most accurately portrays them, which is what a biography should be. To McDonald's credit, his and Oliver's agree on many points. Highly recommended for serious students of American history and of this most notable, yet rarely noted founding father.



5. The author of this book is so enamored of Hamilton that it completely blinds him to any faults Hamilton may have had. Furthermore, anyone who showed any opposition at all to anything Hamilton proposed is deemed either delusional or a traitor. His treatment of Jefferson and Adams is amazingly disrespectful. Even Washington comes accross as a feeble leader at times without the constant support and advice of his most trusted advisor Hamilton.

   As the book progresses, the bias gets worse and almost preachy.

   Shockingly, the famous duel with Aaron Burr gets only about 3 pages worth of description.....probably since it was not exactly a high point in his life.

   Avoid this book if you want a well-balanced biography.

5 comments about George Kennan: A Study of Character.

1. This remarkable book is both an act of filial piety and a reference point for future historians: Kennan must be taken seriously, must endure, and must be seen at least as one of the important ships in a small--and not growing-- flotilla of great American statesmen. Lukacs performs a service of recovery amidst the detritus of current American policies, in showing with great subtlety how men of wisdom once took a considered if not pure approach to diplomatic relations, and how the amorphous beast of public opinion, embodied in Congressional representatives more than ever subject to the vicissitudes of polls and "focus groups", influenced and continue to influence--and frustrate--statecraft.
   Kennan represented a rare strain in the American character, a man deeply immersed in European civilization, history, and languages, aware of America's profound European roots, who put the sum of his knowledge to use in addressing deep questions going to the heart of the American experience, teasing out the tensions inherent in the various strands of the American outlook. Remarkably, Kennan's greatest enduring influence came perhaps in the second fifty years of his life through his writings and lectures, a massive outpouring before which even a historian of Lukacs's extraordinary capabilities stands in awe.
   Kennan was remarkably consistent throughout his life in maintaining that America does not represent a Chosen Nation destined to lead mankind from darkness, that, in John Adams's words, "we are friends of liberty all over the world; but we do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy". If this saying has been too-oft quoted by opponents of the invasion of Iraq who, despite their unqualified support for JFK's abstract principles of intervention, which I have not heard repudiated by a single self-styled liberal, then we must understand it in the context of Kennan's views: he advocated firmness when called for, in responding to the North Korean incursion into South Korea, in providing detailed proposals to create demilitarized and denuclearized zones in Western Europe and to end the partition of Germany, not to say his firmness in standing up to "anti anticommunism" during the witch hunts of Senator McCarthy, while recognizing that communists and their sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the US government to a degree. In short, he did not hesitate to assert American interests nor shrink from recommending the judicious deployment of American military power. While his famous "X" article described a political strategy, he was also aware that the ability to apply force is a necessary, if not sufficient condition of any containment policy.
   As Lukacs makes clear, Kennan recognized the duality running through American politics, itself drawing at its source from the very New England qualities that Kennan professed to admire and of which he himself was partly a product. If his soul and intellect were haunted by an older, deeper Scots and European pessimism, he was also a product of the Middle West, and possessed very American traits, although a progressivist instinct may not have been among these despite his Wisconsin provenance. This grounding led him to be unafraid to criticize excessiveness or the "legalistic moralistic" character of much of American foreign policy. In the current atmosphere of conservative triumphalism where the history of the Cold War is interpreted through the lens of an American "victory", Kennan punctures these reprehensible pretentions by pointing out that, "The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous political upheaval, in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish" (all quotation are drawn from the Lukacs book).
   Amidst the theme and variations of post-war US policy toward the Soviet Union, apparently formed from reading Dr. Benjamin Spock on child-rearing, Kennan saw clearly and consistently that the Soviet Union was not a "fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for [the United States]", a pronouncement he made at the outset of WWII and which he repeated for many years after. Thus, détente, the "Evil Empire", and other variations of US policy had, despite the best efforts of neoconservative writers to lead us to believe otherwise, little impact on a Soviet Union that Kennan recognized early on had, by Stalin's time, fundamentally shifted course from Marxism-Leninism to despotism and lacked the resources or will to endure as a Communist state. Early evidence of this came in the post-war period as the USSR pulled back from Finland and Austria, and demonstrated its weakness through interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, among other actions.
   Kennan was equally sceptical of what is now called "global governance", including the formation of the United Nations; viewed the Yalta "Declaration of Liberated Europe" as "deplorable, [a] sham, and useless" (Lukacs's words) because Eastern Europe fell within Russia's sphere of influence; and was highly critical of the "American (and neo-Wilsonian) belief that a new international institution such as the United Nations was of paramount importance" (p. 65). He remained persuaded throughout his lifetime that "national and state interests were and would remain more powerful than any international organization dedicated to assure some kind of unchanging peace". Later, he opposed the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, referring to it as a disastrous mistake.
   At the same time, he saw a consistent thread running through the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Clinton, and continued in the current Bush presidency: a naive liberal interventionist mentality to secure questionable gains, usually at a high cost. It is useful to ponder Kennan's perspective when insisting too acutely on major differences in Democratic and Republican approaches to foreign policy, remembering that restraint, moderation, and measured analysis, all qualities that Kennan exemplified in his life as a practitioner and a historian, do not appear to be embedded in either party's approach to the world.
   As an undergraduate I read the first volume of Kennan's Memoirs in a summer course in diplomatic history, ably taught by Professor Clifford Egan at the University of Houston. Among hundreds of books read in college, the vividness of some of Kennan's prose continued to recur in my mind for years after, despite not having picked up the book since 1973. Lukacs insists throughout his study on Kennan's qualities as a writer as well as his brilliance as an historian and researcher, and Lukacs's own prose is the equal of Kennan's. His concentrated "character study" in fact points the way to further serious research for historians, though this research is not likely to be undertaken as waves of fads sweep through the profession, if not the practice of historical scholarship and writing, obviating the need to "do" history in favour of constructing frameworks and "theories" whose theoretical underpinnings are of the weakest sort.
   Kennan's life and work span the twentieth century, a remarkable life, yet leaving us with a legacy that must be accounted for and drawn upon if America is to achieve its promise. This is not likely to happen, of course, given the midgets who now propose to lead us. They possess the most detailed knowledge of the opinions of voters in each and every county across the country, now represented in a colouring book cartoon of America with red, purple, and blue, yet lack the slightest insight into foreign affairs, history, or the lives of other peoples far away, not to say any mastery of other languages or cultures. More distressingly, they are not unrepresentative of America at this moment in history, when many of the most civilized have put aside judgment in favour of passion, wisdom in favour of ideology. In so doing, our putative and potential leaders and their supporters have no claim upon our loyalties and deserve to be held to the high standard of accountability upon which Kennan insisted. As Kennan might have agreed, the foreign policy questions that are most vital and of most immediate moment are questions about America, not about our enemies and rivals.
   Even with Kennan's constant global travels, capacity for research (and his love of library culture, which he saw as one of America's distinctive contributions to civilization), and seemingly unlimited energy for writing, his lectures, speeches, and even a later role under Kennedy as ambassador to Yugoslavia, he maintained a small farm in Pennsylvania, and regularly sailed the Norwegian fjords around his family's summer home, indulging in his nostalgie du Nord, and his love of the Baltic area. Throughout his life he was accompanied and supported by his Norwegian wife, with whom he celebrated a 70th wedding anniversary before his own passing at the age of one hundred. Even in his 90s he continued to produce books, articles, and memoirs at an astounding rate, and received accolades and recognition that would not have been predicted upon his leaving government service in the 1950s. Yet neither Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, nor neoconservatives attempted to lay claim to him as one of their own, which speaks to the complexity of his intellect and the resistance of his thought to simplification.
   As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, "The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation". Kennan's work and the exemplary nature of his life both bear close study, but there is no evidence that American leadership is any more prepared now than previously to learn the lessons offered by this distinctive patriot who often acted as Cassandra during America's most self-congratulatory and misguided episodes. Perhaps there will arise among us another such man who will exercise more influence over wise leaders, but I'm not holding my breath.



2. Lukacs styles the book as a study of character but I must say I do not feel I really know much more about Kennan after reading the book. The book is really too short to be of value. I would have liked to see more reflection on matters like the Long Telegram or the X article, but in Luckas treatment it all just glides by. There are very few excerpts from Kennan's writing. Instead there are many grand, sweeping statements about 'magisterial' books and various digressions that seem more about Lukacs than Kennan. At the end of the day that is my main objection. It is almost impossible to get past the pomposity of the writing; you feel stuck in the presence of an insufferable windbag. At one point, Lukacs refers to "The Wise Men" by Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson as an "acceptable book". "Acceptable"? Doesn't that sound like your professor giving your essay a "B"? It is especially irritating when "The Wise Men" is so vastly superior to Lukacs' book in every way. A disapointment.



3. Lukacs' George Kennan is purpouted to be about the character of the man but rather serves as a very short biography of the man that ensured the defeat of the Soviet Union then any other American president. Many years after Keenan hammered out his containment philosophy, he remained convinced that the essential problem regarding Russia was not communism but instead was the paranoid nature of the Russian state. Look no farther then the so-called head of the Russian Republic now. Unlike, our current administration appointments, George Kennan was curious about the rest of the world and before he wrote anything down contemplated for every eventuality. That Lukacs knew Keenan is the ultimate flaw in the book, because there are several points where the author veers into untrammeled hagiography. But overall, a good introduction to Keenan and the tremendous impact he had on the world.



4. Lukacs views this as a study of a man's character, but it's really more of an overview of Kennan's life. It probably will have limited appeal to people who have read a lot of Kennan's work, particularly his books and collection. It is probably better for someone like me who is familiar with his famous work on "containment" and has read some of Kennan's more recent magazine pieces in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Kennan had a remarkable career that straddled academia and government and his mastery of Russian and German allowed him to get beyond the usual sources of information that fed Cold War debates. He was truly a man of the 20th century who was engaged in the world from the time shortly after WWI through the end of the Cold War.
   
   Lukacs provides the broad outlines of Kennan's life and what he felt to be Kennan's most important books. In that respect, he has written a biography that is likely to stimulate interest in Kennan's longer works, particular those from the middle Cold War era. Lukacs never really describes his relationship to Kennan, although it is clear that they were friends and collegial with respect to topics such as foreign affairs. It may be that this was written too close to Kennan's recent death to provide the distance necessary to fully consider another person's life.
   
   As a character study, the book falls somewhat short and misses obvious connections between experiences and points of view. There is a short description of Kennan's religious journey (from a Presbyterian upbringing to an vaguely described flirtation with Catholicisim and finally adoption of Episcopalianism) without recognizing the essential Calvinism in Kennan's lifelong world view. Kennan was clearly an enthusiast of bourgeois values, in the traditional sense and sympathetic to rather authoritarian, despotic government. He advocated a kind of government by "wise men" that certainly suggests a belief in "a predetermined elect". Ironically, he had the opportunity to see how policy by wise men could be undermined by broad political currents (the Truman years) or could bring about disastrous policies (the JFK years). Lukacs wonders how Kennan would have viewed this philosophy in light of our current government by "wise men" most of whom have come from the conservative "think tank" world, something that Kennan probably would have viewed as an a oxymoron. Kennan's view of the world comes off as lacking holism in important areas. While recognizing that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, even at a political/social level, Kennan seems to have minimized the dynamic nature of societies and the inevitable presence of internal and external forces which propel societies in new directions. Rather he is a humanist of the old school and conservative in the sense of being skeptical of "progress" and intervention. In many cases he proved prescient, as in Vietnam and the execution of the Cold War, but in others such as the rise of fascism, his cautious view of the world was inadequate.
   
   Kennan lived a remarkable life and was able to see a much of the world and play a part in US foreign policy at key points in our recent history. He was a true scholar and one unmoved by constraining or trendy paradigms. His status as an outsider and a public intellectual probably lessened his academic prestige, but his depth and insight make him someone worth revisiting and reading further. As a character study, this book has serious analytic shortcomings. As an affectionate brief biography, it works better and it should stimulate more interest in the life and work of this remarkable man.



5. I knew almost nothing about Kennan before I read this book, but Lukacs got me interested in learning more about Kennan and reading Kennan's books. This is by no means a balanced, objective, or scholarly work - Lukacs very obviously admires Kennan and makes no attempt to hide this. If you want a scholarly analysis of Kennan's life, work, or legacy, this book is not for you. But if you want to read a mostly well-written and interesting biography of a rather major American figure, I recommend it.

No comments about Buffalo Bill's America.

3 comments about Otto Rahn and the Quest for the Grail: The Amazing Life of the Real Indiana Jones.

1. Being very interested in the person of Otto Rahn, and more particularly his ideas and the milieu he was a part I looked forward to reading this book quite a lot. Being a part of the same extended milieu as Rahn, I was already rather well informed about a lot of the topics in the book, even so, it is usually quite interesting to read other peoples take on my circles. The book is divided into four parts, "Life", "After Life" and "Meaning"; including the last part which is a fictionalized account of what Mr. Graddon thinks may have happened to Rahn. Otto Rahn was born in the early 1900's, and allegedly died in the Tyrolean Mountains in 1939 by his own and nature's hand. Rahn is most famous for his two published books "Crusade against the Grail" and more importantly "Lucifer's Court", both recently reviewed by me here on Amazon.
   
   Rahn's famous theory was that Von Eschenbach's "Parsifal" was a thinly veiled "map" for how to obtain the Grail, being allegedly hidden in caves in Southern France, or at least having been located there for some time. Rahn searched all over Europe for this Grail, that was both some kind of stone that had fallen from Lucifer's Crown in the sky down to Earth and a metaphysical principle of supreme transcendence and love. Both Rahn's highly recommendable books detail his search and leave plenty of clues for the readers own spiritual quest.
   
   This being said, this particular biography starts out quite amusingly with a dedication to the Scholl siblings, for their "fight against tyranny". This sets the tone for the entire book, I think Graddon reaches his peak in amusing Semitical Correctness with a statement on page 325 about how "Rahn lived and worked among some of the most evil individuals who ever walked this earth [...]". I mean, does anyone actually write books like this anymore? I thought we had left this type of writing about the Third Reich back in the 80's. I completely fail to see how the actions of Himmler were any more "evil" than for example Stalin, Churchill or the extremely subversive FD Roosevelt, but oh well, to each his own. This goes on and on throughout the book, with words like "Satanic", "evil", "madness" and so on, and it is rather annoying to read. In addition to this, the author has big issues with his own language, writing "anonomous" three times, getting tons of names wrong, "Baldur von Schivach" comes to mind, and so on hundreds of times. It takes something away from his other claims when he doesn't ever bother to check the spelling of names or write properly in what I assume is his native language.
   
   That being so, the book is well written otherwise, and contains a lot of interesting information about SS Officer Otto Rahn. I don't buy his thesis that Rahn was somehow working against the Third Reich for a second; I don't see how anyone that has read "Lucifer's Court" and understood it could. The problem with this type of book that tries to cover all sides of a large number of issues is that in the end it includes huge pieces of nonsense in between the few straight facts. For example, he mentions Hitler a lot, and how Hitler was supposedly very interested in the issues that occupied the minds of for example Rosenberg, Himmler and Rahn, but sadly for Graddon and all his ilk, Hitler wanted nothing to do with neither religion nor metaphysics, Hitler was an out-and-out materialist. The book contains a lot of food for thought though, on both mysticism and further research, so I do recommend you get it, but I cannot emphasize high enough that you read this book in conjecture with for example Godwin's "Arktos", Evola's "Revolt against the Modern World" and Rahn's very own books. Put together, these books should lead you quite far in your own spiritual quest. 4 stars.



2. What can i say about Otto Rahn and the Quest for the Grail.
   
   This is the True story of the True Indiana Jones. An Amazing Journey through the Life of Otto Rahn who was a True Initiate of Secret Knowledge and had access to a web of Secret Societies having their origin in Fin De Siecle France. His involvement with the Nazis brought him attention and Money but his true Missions carried on regardless bringing him in contact with other Initiates like Marlene Dietrich. Mr Graddons book details these connections as no other Book has done before and one can branch off between the lines to many areas of research. This book is not a Novel to be read once but to be kept as a Reference for Nazi Occultism and Continental Esoterica of the last 2 Centuries.
   
   I saw about 3 books simultaneously intertwined and i can see new spin offs
   for further indepth research.
   
   Tbis is a MUST BUY.



3. There is alot of information in this book that you can't get anywhere else. I only wish there was more. It not only gives you some insight into a man the world seems to know little or nothing about, but it gives you some insight into how the Nazis believed they could enforce world domination. It doesn't seem that Otto Rahn was sympathetic to the Nazi cause. And maybe, after reading the book, I am thinking that he did find something in the Pyranees in France. Read the book and see for yourself. You won't be able to put it down.