5 comments about Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford.

1. This obtuse speculation about the Infamous Lady Rocheford is the best sleeping pill I have ever encountered. If you have a restless night and want to quiet your mind with a soporific read, this is the book for you.
   
   Read the reviews that give it one star... they are right on. The fact is... there ARE no facts relating directly to the state of mind or life of Jane Boleyn. The repetitious meanderings in which she "may have been" here or there, and "might have seen" this or that, and "could have felt" one thing or another is frustrating to read. One's eyes start to droop within a half a page.
   
   Good uses for this book? Compost... propping up a sofa.... coaster.... and sleeping pill.
   
   What was this publisher thinking and how could a biographer sink so low?
   
   Pat Strong



2. Like others have said this is just a re-hash of Henry VIII and his wives. I would have enjoyed it if this was all it was about because it has so little of actual "Jane" in it that it's amazing to me that it's titled that way. There are just interruptions of: "Jane MAY have been there..." "Jane MIGHT have heard that..." "Jane MAY have thought..." I can't believe the publisher ever let this get through. What "true story" is she writing about if there isn't anything certain to tell? I skimmed and put it down. Truly disappointing.



3. I will admit that I know absolutely nothing about Jane Boleyn, the infamous wife of George Boleyn, other than what I've read about her in historical fiction books. This book pique my interest because I wanted to learn more about the woman who sent her husband and his sister to their deaths based on her testimony. Julia Fox worked to disabuse the reader of the old legends/myths that still prevail today.
   
   Jane Boleyn is a book written about a woman that Fox presumably did her research on. How much of this is historically accurate, I don't know. At this point, I don't care because this book was interesting and fascinating. Not only did Fox tell the story of Lady Rochford, she explained customs and ceremonies that went on in the Tudor times. Here is a woman of some means married to a man whose rising star was linked with his sister, who the king favored. This is a woman who danced with the king's own sister and his wives and attended to them during their years of being the king's wives. This is a woman who survived the great fall of the Boleyns and managed to escape the king's wrath till she overstepped her bounds with his fifth wife, Kitty Howard. Then she met her end, ironically like her husband's.
   
   This book disabuses of the popular notion that George Boleyn hated his wife and that she was a horror to those around her. She was a young noblewoman who was caught up in the schemes of more powerful men than her. Even her father, a respected peer of the realm couldn't save her. This is a woman who was in the midst of the court for many years and who kept her counsel wisely to herself. Fox just merely reconstructed her to show her argument that this is a woman who fought to survive those tumultous years in Henry's court and managed to slip up at the end only because of her inclination to help Kitty Howard. Fox presented the argument that Jane couldn't deny her queen and thus willing was sent to her death simply because she served her queen.
   
   It is a very interesting perspective on this woman and definitely enlightening. It is also a very fast-paced read and if there were a lot of grammatical errors, I didn't pay much attention to them. However, there is one thing that I did notice about this author's writing style, she tends to repeat herself several times in a chapter. That did get annoying after awhile, but not to rate it any less than a four star. It is very enlightening and entertaining reading. It gives a fresh perspective of what it is like to be an outsider of the royal marriages and still be privy to those secrets.
   
   5/27/08



4. I agree with several of the other reviewers. It was a rehash of Tudor history with Jane being inserted into it. I quit after the 3rd chapter. Very disappointed!



5. I enjoyed Ms. Fox's writing style. She does a good job of converting non-fictional material into a fictional-style telling of a story. However, the editing is HORRIBLE! By the time you get through wordy lines of text, poorly placed commas and interjected "by the way" thoughts, you've forgotten the intent of the sentence. Had the editor used more periods, the flow would have been easier to establish.

5 comments about Having Our Say: The Delany Sisters' First 100 Years.

1. I am so glad that I read this book. I found it uplifting and inspirational. How amazing that women like this lived, and I am so grateful they shared their story. It is not something I normally would have read, but I am grateful that I gave it my time. It was a very quick read.



2. "I'm not black, I'm brown!" So says Bessie Delany, at age 100. Despite her years of involvement in the Civil Rights movement, accepting its nomenclature wholesale isn't part of Bessie's personality. She's the feisty sister. Sadie, age 103, is the one who conquers by saying nothing - while going right ahead and doing exactly what she wants. Or by playing dumb, as she and Bessie both put it; but either way, it's always worked for Sadie. These two, the second black woman licensed as a dentist in New York and the first black woman to be appointed a New York City high school teacher, have lived together more years than not in their long lives; and as of this book's publication, they're still in their New York home and taking care of themselves just fine, thank you very much.
   
   What do they have to say? Plenty, mostly in alternating chapters. Their father was born a slave, and their mother's parents - a mulatto woman and a white man - couldn't marry because state law forbade it. That freed slave eventually became an Episcopal bishop, and all ten of his children became college-educated professionals. Sarah and Elizabeth Delany were old enough to be shocked and hurt when Jim Crow became the law of the South, and each had to find her own ways to survive and thrive in spite of both cultural and institutionalized prejudice. Relocating to Harlem, New York City opened new opportunities, but didn't take them away from that familiar struggle. Through it all, Sadie and Bessie lived by the creed their parents had taught them: You're here to do good. To which Sadie added her own maxim: Maybe I can change the world a little bit, by changing me.
   
   The challenges these two women faced are not familiar to me personally, in one sense, because I've never had to face racial prejudice. Yet in the way they met those challenges, with determination, realism ("As long as they need you, you've got that job"), and plenty of humor, any fellow human can surely find inspiration. A wonderful read!



3. The Delany Sisters are simply a spectacular duo of fighters. Their story is one almost every person would find amazing. The way they see this world, and how their past experiences with Jim Crow and being colored in the South before the Civil Rights Movement shaped their perception of humans forever. The book is filled with very warm humor and it is essential to understand part of the complex psyche of 'colored' people in the United States today, which, by the way, is a term prefered by the Sisters over black or even African American to refer to themselves and their people.



4. This book was recommended to me by my 95-year-old mother, and I must say it was an excellent recommendation.
   
   
   
   Author Amy Hill Hearth must have had numerous conversations with Sadie (age 102) and her "little sister" Bessie (100). The book is written with the words and the spirit of these two special ladies shining through each page. The Delany sisters were born to a father who was a former slave and who got an education and later became the first black bishop in the Episcopal Church. Their mother had white blood, but she chose to marry and socialize among the black race. As the sister explain, if you had one drop of black blood at that time, you were considered a Negro.
   
   
   
   The sisters describe their growing-up years and their gratitude for their parents' love, guidance, and the high standards of conduct which they held up to their children. They tell what is was like to be chased by the Ku Klux Klan, discriminated against by teachers and employers, and be the victims of the Jim Crow laws. They mention the illustrious black people, such as Adam Clayton Powell, and Cab Calloway, who were part of their social circle. They tell about their patriotism during WWI and WWII and in one of the most poignant comments in the book Bessie says, "We were good citizens, good Americans! We loved our country, even though it didn't love us back."
   
   
   
   This is a look back at American history by two women whose family was prominent in the black community, but mostly unknown in the white world.
   
   It is an eye-opener and is a wonderful story.



5. Let's just say I fell in love with the sisters so much that I adopted their last name. I am in awe of these remarkable woman, still. After living for more than a century they did not believe they had a story to tell. I am grateful that Amy Hill Hearth was able to convince them otherwise.
   Their accomplishments were remarkable not only what the two oldest sisters did but the entire Delany family. Their father Henry was borned into slavery, however, he did not use that as an excuse. All of the Delany children were trailblazers because there were no civil rights for people of color in the early 1900's. They did what they had to do, Bessie was honest and brutal as she felt it was her duty to tell people the truth. Sadie was considered the sweet one, however, she too was a go-getter.
   I recommend this book and the two other books that were co-authored by Amy Hill Hearth. Without Ms. Hearth these women and their stories would have never been told, I am thankful to her for bringing them into my life. I expected the sisters to live forever but Bessie died in 1995 shortly after turning 104 and Bessie at 109 in 1999. They are still alive in the hearts of many of us and in the pages of their books.

5 comments about Roughing It (Enriched Classic Series).

1. This book is not one that you will sit down and read over a weekend. It is a slow reader, however the chapters are relativly short. There is typical Mark Twain humor, which I love. I wish there was more of his wit in the book. Not my favorite book by him, but for the love of the author, I read on!



2. The Virginian (Signet Classics)
   The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
   
   When I was reseachering The Shopkeeper, I found two books especially valuable; The Virginian by Owen Wister, and and Roughing it by Mark Twain. Both were written by men who had actually experienced the Wild West first hand.
   
   Mark Twain is best known for The adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Nowadays, most people forget that he also wrote travel memoirs. Roughing It describes his adventures roaming the Old West, with special emphasis on California and Nevada.
   
   Twain, above all, was a humorist and he told tall tales - engagingly. I put this book in a class with Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. Both reveal the good-natured man behind the world-renown accomplishments. Neither may be completely factual, but both give us a peek behind the curtain and entertain us to this day.
   The Shut Mouth Society
   The Shopkeeper



3. This is the first Mark Twain book that I ever read. It is about his "Going West Young man" around the time of the Civil War. If you like travel books this is a classic. America and Americans, people and human nature and Mark Twain's take on the whole bit. If you have never read any of Mark Twain's non-fiction this is a great place to start. I don't really know if America has produced and funnier, more cleaver humorist than this man. If we have I have yet to find him. This book will never die - not as long as there are humans around with a sense of humor.



4. If you are into stories about the old west, Twain tells it like it was but with a great humorous twist. A great book, really enjoyed it. Wish I had found it years ago, but better late than never.



5. It appears as though Clemens was ahead of the times with this book. The relatively short chapters seem like they could entertain readers who know nothing other than Dan Brown. As anecdote spills in anecdote, readers can't help but keep reading this book. I was surprised by how many times I found myself laughing out loud either from witticisms or the situational irony throughout the book. Altogether, a great read, that has prompted me to buy Innocents Abroad.

5 comments about Blood Brothers.

1. Blood Brothers is a poignant biography of the experiences of Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Christian who lived through the violent and traumatic events surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the ensuing political conflict that plagues the region still today.
   
   I found myself teary-eyed at several points throughout this book. The most powerful parts were the detailed descriptions of how Chacour, his family, and his village of Biram, were led out of their homes by Israeli soldiers with promises that Biram would be defended against ravaging militants. When Chacour and his village returned they discovered that they had been deceived, and eventually, the village was bulldozed. Chacour tells the story of his own village, but notes that the same story unfolded in other Palestinian villages.
   
   Chacour tells of how Palestinians and Jews lived in peace with one another for centuries before the early 20th century. With the success of the Zionist movement and the horrible atrocities of WW2 and the holocaust, European Jews began emigrating en masse to Palestine. Ironically, while Western nations strongly supported Jewish immigration into Palestinian on the basis that they needed a homeland (Chacour fully accepts that they needed a place to live in peace and security as they were clearly unwelcome in Europe), Western states refused Jews entry into their own nations.
   
   Chacour emphasizes that between WW1 and WW2, the peaceful and violent tactics of Palestinians fail to gain them any sympathy in the international arena, whose leaders ignored Palestinian diplomacy while continually urging Palestinians to accept their Jewish brethren while European states had persecuted them and refused to make amends by opening Jewish immigration quotas.
   
   Utterly mind-boggling is the fact that he has been called an anti-semite by some reviews on Amazon. Anyone who reads this book will see that he exhibits a deep love and admiration for Jews, and expresses heartfelt sympathy for the persecution of Jews throughout European history and culminating in the holocaust. Chacour points out that these sad facts only make the Palestinian plight more ironic.
   
   At times, I felt Chacour depends too much on the kindness and good nature of human beings, and that this made his political opinions somewhat naive. By the end of the book, however, I concluded that this was not a fair conclusion. He understands very well that Palestinians were persecuted and that Israel has a right to exist, but he doesn't believe violence ever leads to peace. Whether this opinion is very naive or very wise is up to the reader to decide.
   
   Lastly, one should always be skeptical when reading personal accounts of political conflicts. One man can only see so much, and if one wants to really discover the facts of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, one has to read several books. This is not a book of facts, but it is not intended to be. Thousands of books on the history of this conflict have been written, and any earnest and disinterested endeavor to learn about what actually happened will not result in much confusion as to what occurred (is occurring). Note that there is no devoid of personal stories and ethnographies either, although I would very people have ever read these, even though they would do everyone some good. But this is a rich addition to the literature, in that it successfully de-dehumanizes the Palestinian people and avoids anything but the most basic historical political facts.



2. This book as assigned to my son for reading for an online class. I picked it up and starting reading it to help him and got glued to its pages. Easy and quick reading.



3. This is an incredible, heart-touching book that helps one understand the Israeli and Palestinian conflict much better than just what you see on the news. Incredible morals are woven through the book too.



4. Blood Brothers is the story of a very brave family during an incredibly controversial time. This conflict between Israel and Palestine is an ongoing struggle and causes a large amount of change and strife on both sides of the issue. As native Palestinians this family, the Chacour's, are part of this difficult journey with their village. This struggle beginning with them being tricked out of their house to losing some village members and the heartbreak of knowing life could never go back to "normal."
   
   This book revolves around a young boy who we see grow up throughout the book named, Elias Chacour. He is a Palestinian Christian, who lived in a small town Biram for most of his young life. This boy is full of life and a spirit that grows throughout the entire story.
   
   His father, a peaceful man with incredible amounts of wisdom, plays a large role in this Elias's life as well as rest of his family and the village. At one point Elias's father and two brothers were torn from their family and taken away by Israeli soldiers. After finding their way back this is all he did, "turning those sad eyes upon us, `if someone hurts you, you can curse him. But this would be useless. Instead, you have to ask the Lord to bless the man who makes himself your enemy. And do you know what will happen? The Lord will bless you with inner peace-and perhaps your enemy will turn from his wickedness. If not, the Lord will deal with him.'"
   
   The strength Elias's finds within himself and family to deal with these real issues that surround him is inspiring. This is a characteristic that we should all strive to have.



5. This book is moving, powerful, and inspirational. It is extremely well written, engaging, and thought provoking. It had me in tears more than once. I feel privileged to have read it. Elias Chacour has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize, and it would be gratifying to see him win it. Whether he ever reaps such earthly recognition, however, he has indeed proven himself blessed by his Lord as a worthy servant and peacemaker.

5 comments about Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, (Vintage).

1. I had read Robert Caro's book on Robert Moses, and I found Master of the Senate to be an equally well-written and insightful read about an even more complicated figure. Readers get a real sense of the dark character of Lyndon Johnson. The book also offers a revealing view of the inner workings of the U.S. Senate. His portraits of Richard Russell and Sam Rayburn are particularly poignant. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in 20th-century U.S. history, and for anyone who enjoys monumental biographies.



2. Anyone know? This is a masterful book series. The one on LBJ's presidency should be the best.



3. Despite what you think of LBJ, and I don't think much of him, Robert Caro's series on Johnson far surpasses any other books that have come before or after on Lyndon Johnson. In all three of Caro's volumes, he includes mini biographies of important people in Lyndon's life. In this volume, Senator Richard Russell, jr. of Georgia is given his due, and his importance as friend and adviser to LBJ. Also, the first 100 pages include a history of the US senate that could stand alone as a book unto itself. I can't wait for Caro's fourth volume, alas it probably won't be out for another five years.



4. Caro is a master writer. I found his book 'The Power Broker' about Robert Moses easily one of my top ten reads of all time, five star all the way. Johnson to me was not quite as interesting, but nevertheless this is a top notch book showing how Johnson came into the Senate and transformed it. No matter what one thinks of Johnson, if one is a student of American politics, this is a worthwhile book as it shows the influence of one man and what can be done. He was no saint, but he did manage to get things done. I am slowly working my way through it, it's been about 2 years, I keep picking it up and putting it down, but learn something every time.



5. I used to worry Robert Caro wouldn't live long enough to complete his epic biographical history on Lyndon Johnson. Now, 25 years after the first volume, I worry I won't live long enough to read it all.
   
   Published in 2002 and still as of now Caro's latest installment, "Master Of The Senate" weighs in at close to 1,100 pages. It details Johnson's time in the Senate, where he rose to become the Majority Leader. Caro spends 100 pages explaining how the Senate was designed and operated as something of a brake on populist excitability, a vessel for cooling passions. A sort of sluggishness evolved, Caro explains, until the guy with ambition from Texas arrived and changed everything by smashing tradition to bits.
   
   Caro's overriding distaste for Johnson, clear especially in "Means Of Ascent", remains in force here, but another strain emerges, too, of Johnson the difference maker, the guy who got things done. You almost might see him, flaws and all, as a kind of archetypal American in his cussed indomitability, brutish, charming, needfully effective.
   
   When LBJ's mother asks about Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat who twice ran for President in the 1950s, you can't help but chuckle at his reply: "He's a nice fellow, Mother, but he won't make it 'cause he's got too much lace on his drawers."
   
   Better than "Means To Ascent" but not the classic that "Path To Power" was, "Master Of The Senate" suffers from things that make Caro such a great writer, like his ability to draw up seemingly endless detail and find a coherent whole. He can't stop writing about a handful of topics. Each time he goes back to the well he draws up something different, but it's too often the same well.
   
   Caro believes Johnson was the difference maker in making civil rights happen, even though he championed a watered-down version, because he was the only man who could push civil rights through the Senate and its stubborn Southern wing. It's a debatable point, especially since the force of change was already there, Johnson or no.
   
   More problematic for me was the book's unrelenting focus in its second half on the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which ultimately accomplished little, and on Johnson's bid for the 1956 Democratic presidential nomination, which he didn't get and wouldn't have mattered if he had. So much time is spent here that Caro is left to sum up the three remaining years of Johnson's Senate career after the Civil Rights Act's passage in less than 30 pages.
   
   One great thing about "Master Of The Senate" is Caro's articulation of Johnson's ambition as both poison and antidote for the Senate, in how he worked his fellow senators, racist zealots like Richard Russell and liberal lions like Hubert Humphrey, to get what he wanted.
   
   Johnson may have been one of the toughest figures ever to take control of our tough nation. Tough enough, in fact, that I think he'd even like Caro's books about him, warts and all. If one man's life was ever a testament to the power of one's own will, it was Johnson's, and in Caro that will to power has an able chronicler.

5 comments about The Lord God Made Them All (All Creatures Great & Small).

1. I think we've all heard of ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL. The book was brilliantly written in every way, and I thought that was that. But then he wrote a sequel, and I marveled that it was at least as great as the original. Then he did it to me again with a third book. The titles come from a famous poem or hymn, by the way. He used the second verse, for the creatures, then the first, then the third, and now we're at the fourth.
   
   I'm going to say it again. I believe I'm enjoying this one most of all. All the humor, all the spot-on accurate observation of animals, of both the four-legged and the two-legged variety. And, I'm feeling this time, a maturity in the veterinarian, the author, and the person. He still has the ability to write a chapter so touching or sad that I stop and wipe my eyes, and then read a few more so I can laugh before I put the book away for the evening.
   
   So I've read four in a row by this guy, and they all get five stars. I ordered all of mine from Amazon, but you in "the west" can probably just swing by your local library. Do so.



2. I read his books as a teen and loved them. Bought the whole set for my grandsons, [teens]. They laughed until they cried. [so did I].



3. I was verey satisfied with the whole process of ordering
   on-line and I will continue buying books this way.



4. As an animal lover, if I were to be restricted to a single author on my bookshelves, it would be James Herriot, hands down. All four books by James Herriot, The English Country Veterinarian, comprise a collection of stories that remain unsurpassed in all animal literature.



5. In this fourth edition you will have everything you are use to in a James Herriot book. Eccentric pet owners, nutty business partners, fun loving animals, and the author who reveals his heartfelt love and admiration for the animals he cares so deeply for. Only the souless few won't be touched by these humorous stories of animal and human interactions. Mr. Herriot shows just how much better the world is because of the animals who inhabit our daily lives.

5 comments about Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.

1. Very good reading. It reiterates much of what I had learned in school many years ago, before society, as a whole, changed history books in order to become more "politically correct."



2. DiLorenzo offers nothing new: no new facts; no new argument. Rather he regurates poorly reasoned attacks on Lincoln that have been advanced by the Lost Causers for years and that have be soundly discredited by every serious scholar.



3. Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
   
   Good readying if you like history and want to know when and where the downfall of our country began.



4. This is a historical polemic in that it attacks other historians and the official Lincon standards. There is no other way to present an alternative to accepted scholarship than to try to debunk it. I work in DC and pass the Lincoln Memorial frequently. It is a temple. It is the stone deification of a man, not unlike the Roman deification of Augustus. They did the same to Jefferson. It is a human tendency. No one will say it - but they are temples seeking public worship. Very odd, not just today, but when built. The US has no state religion. That is the first amendment - but we do. One is the Lincoln religion. Lincoln's actual feelings about slavery, racial equality and the nature of total war have been glossed over in favor of the temple. All historians know it. Some of the contents of this book are rather shocking. Extensive footnotes. Your kids will probably get in trouble if they take this to public schools where the temple is strong. I recommend the book as one of many about Lincoln, but mostly because it will cause you to rethink Lincoln, read more about Lincoln and come to a decision on your own - which may disagree with the author. You may end up accepting the temple theory, but Lincoln should be reconsidered rather than just worshipped. This is one of those think-for-yourself books that gives you some concepts to reconsider. Personally, I don't think it goes far enough as I have studied Lincoln for years and am amazed at the amount of material the general public does not know. Why the civil rightds movement associates with the Lincoln temple and not with Harper's Ferry is beyond me. Also read up on John Brown, Harper's Ferry and Lincoln's plans for life after the presidency. But I give this book five stars for its daring, brevity, footnotes and polemical style that makes for lively reading. As for the temple, I would rather see a copy of the magna carta, the constitution and a large, running mirror where people saw themselves and their personal responsibility. Lincoln's statute reminds me of the descriptions of Jupiter Optimus in his temple in anceint Rome. One day, people will claim miracles...



5. Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my masters in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school! I enjoyed it so much I read the rest of his books the same week. 5 Stars

1 comments about The Red Prince: The Secret Lives of a Habsburg Archduke.

1. The Red Prince is subtitled The Secret Lives of a Habsburg Archduke, but this is a biography of far more than one individual. This able work by Timothy Snyder does much to illuminate the history of Ukraine and Central and Eastern Europe during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
   
   When Wilhelm von Habsburg was born in 1895 he was a minor member of a minor branch of the Habsburg Dynasty, which had been a dominating force in European politics for 500 years. Wilhelm's immediate family were not in the main line of succession and thus lived out of the public eye as much as was possible for people known as Imperial and Royal Archdukes and Archduchesses. Wilhelm's father seems to have originated a family streak of rebelliousness, when he apparently began to make plans to establish himself as King of Poland before that country had even regained its independence. Wilhelm, as his father's youngest son, had to go further afield to rebel, and he chose the province of Ukraine, a region divided between Russia and Austria-Hungary. Before and during World War I Wilhelm was an advocate for Ukrainian independence and for some surprisingly left wing politics, and during the tumultuous period after World War I at one point seemed poised to become the country's King. Conflict between Poland and the Soviet Union put an end to hopes for Ukrainian independence, and Wilhelm was relegated to the life of a playboy in Paris, enjoying love affairs with both sexes until a financial scandal forced him to return to Austria. Then during the 1930s and 1940s Wilhelm dabbled in right wing politics, switched to anti-Nazi activities during World War II, and then in the early years of the Cold War apparently worked with Western countries spying on the Soviet Union. This led to his arrest and imprisonment by the Soviets, and he died in prison in 1948.
   
   However colorful his life, Wilhelm von Hapsburg would not have merited a biography solely on his own account. He apparently left few letters or other written records, and there seem to be very few photographs as well. What makes The Red Prince so important is the good coverage Snyder provides of the complicated history of Ukraine. The region slipped back and forth between Austria-Hungary, Poland, and the Soviet Union until finally gaining independence in 1991. Snyder draws many excellent parallels between the nationalist politics pre- and post- World Wars I and II, the political turmoil that has plagued the former Soviet Union and its satellites since the end of the Cold War, and the kind of universal supra-nationalistic politics practiced by the Habsburgs and now by the European Union. The coverage of the Orange Revolution of 2004, when Ukraine took a decisive turn away from dictatorship towards democracy, is especially interesting.
   
   Although Wilhelm himself seems to have left few written records, so that readers will not feel they know much about him personally, Snyder was able to recreate the lives of his parents, siblings, nieces and nephews and other relations. He reveals them to have been interesting and intelligent people with independent views, a far cry from the habitual stereotype of the Habsburgs as insufferably inbred mediocrities. Snyder also gives some fascinating portraits of some of Wilhelm's associates like Trebitsch Lincoln, who deserves a biography of his own, though it would probably be considered too bizarre to be true.

5 comments about Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.

1. Yowzahs! If you want a DETAILED biography of Stalin's political life then pick this up. I fully recommend it to grad and doctoral students or anyone else writing a book.
   If you are a little curious and your last Russian history class was in high school, then you might want to look elsewhere.
   I was overwhelmed. When I got out of bed, wanting to draw my own character profiles and story arcs, I decided that this would NOT be a good bed time read.
   Thorough, scholarly and well-written this book made me feel stupid.



2. In the pantheon of the 20th century's most heinous individuals, Joseph Stalin would be prominently placed along with Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. Stalin was a truly repulsive individual who brought death and misery to millions. To think that he should deserve some accolades for industrialising the Soviet Union is historical blindness of the greatest degree. He was simply a repugnant monster.
   
   Simon Sebag Montefiore has told the tale of Stalin as a riveting piece of history. You may ask if there is anything new about Stalin to be told. Well, the short answer is that much has been learned in recent years. Montefiore was given unparalleled access to Russian records and has a keen eye for detail. Indeed, it is remarkable that such records even exist. Yet it seems that the Soviets were, if nothing else, diligent keeps of files. Montefiore has unearthed a veritable treasure trove.
   
   Stalin was a man of immense paranoia. In his life, he trusted no one except, ironically, Adolph Hitler. Right up to the last moment, he was convinced that Hitler would keep his word and leave the Soviet Union in peace. When Hitler's word was broken, Stalin nearly collapsed. Yet, everyone else was a danger, real or perceived. The bloodletting that this unleashed in the 1930s has few parallels in history. But for all this carnage, Stalin was able to live a life cut short only by natural death. He created fear in his people and his immediate colleagues. He used this fear as a weapon. He was utterly remorseless.
   
   Simon Sebag Montefiori's book is a master piece. It is a superlative piece of historical writing and biography. Not with standing the repugnance of the subject, this book is great reading. I thoroughly recommend it to all interested in understanding one of the great figures of the twentieth century.



3. This is a great book if you want to understand the horrors and paranoia among the elites in totalitarian regimes. The book discusses how Stalin manipulated his court and why his associates went along with his schemes. There are some fascinating tidbits, but one of the most unnerving is the fact that Stalin was actually a very well-read and intelligent man who read Western history and Russian literature (books he banned incidentally), but still believed in the Communist system and perpetuated mass murder. He also skillfully involved his associates in crimes, so none of them could take the moral high ground and they all had some stains on their character which could be used against them when Stalin decided to get rid of them.
   
   I thought there was enough of an overview on Stalin for reasonably educated people to delve right into this book, but you may want to review a brief online biography (or even Wikipedia) before tackling this book.



4. Josef Stalin was an artist. While some artists work in clay, oils or water color, Stalin worked in mass murder. It was his medium and he was a virtuoso. And just as Picasso's style shifted from his pink to his blue period, Stalin's abattoir art developed through his Trotskyite period, his old guard Bolshevik period, his military officer period, his Jewish period, his doctor's period, his Mingrelian period and so on, across several decades of obscene, senseless blood-letting.
   
   Simon Sebag Monteriore tells the story of this deranged madman in a way few if any have before. The suicide of Stalin's wife, Nadya, in the Kremlin in 1932 is the pivot upon which the whole narrative turns. Monteriore notes that prior to that traumatic event Stalin was primus inter pares in the Soviet leadership hierarchy and not the omnipotent, dreaded dictator of his later years when the Politburo "studied [him] like zoologists to read his moods, win his favor and survive." In the early thirties old colleagues like Sergo Ordzhonikidze and Alexei Rykov were casual with Stalin, addressing him as "Koba" and were quite comfortable challenging his proposals within senior leadership circles. Within a couple years of Nadya's death these and other patriarchs were dead and so too was any thought of informality with Stalin or speaking freely on any topic no matter how trivial.
   
   The author provides a rare and stunning glimpse inside Stalin's personal and political circle over a quarter century of his rule. The picture that emerges is somewhat analogous to HBO's Sopranos family - only without the mafia code of honor. In Stalinist Russia nobody was off-limits: the elderly, women, children, pregnant wives, extended family, casual friends and neighbors, others completely and undeniably innocent. All were subject to heinous beatings, prolonged torture, hard labor and execution - often in that order. Proximity to the "Vozd" himself was no guarantee of safety; indeed, it was one of the more parlous positions in the Soviet Union. For instance, five of Stalin's eight in-laws from his marriages to Ekaterina Svanidze and Nadya Alliluyeva were liquidated during his rule. Meanwhile, the passionately Marxist-Leninist wives of long-standing and blindly devoted acolytes, such as Moltov, Poskrebyshev, and Kalinin, were arrested and in some cases shot. His secret police chiefs - Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria, Abakumov - each outdid their predecessor in zealotry to the cause of uprooting "enemies" and in the cruelty of their methods before being arrested and shot themselves on the falsified charges of being one the very "enemies" they were supposedly hunting (Beria, of course, being the exception, having survived Stalin's rule only to be shot by Khrushchev). The whole story is so twisted and nonsensical that it is difficult to fully comprehend.
   
   What was most surprising about Monteriore's narrative, in my opinion, was how human, talented, and common Stalin could be. Here you find Stalin locking himself in a Kremlin bathroom as his angry wife pounds furiously on the door in a fit of spousal rage; slapping his beloved daughter Svetlana for her romantic relationship with a middle-aged married poet during the Second World War; reprimanding his hard-drinking debauchee son, Vasily, for irresponsibility and sullying the family name; serving as a Simon Cowell-like judge in a bizarre version of "Soviet Idol" put on to create a new national anthem in 1943; unleashing a deadly inquiry into corruption and incompetence after being served under ripe bananas in 1951; and throwing tomatoes at dinner guests during a summer holiday on the Black Sea and forcing his inner circle to drink until they vomited at the table.
   
   Not only was Stalin often a doting parent, smothering his daughter and grandchildren with affectionate kisses and hugs, but he also possessed a first-rate intellect, at least according to the author, who writes "it would be no exaggeration to say that Stalin was the best-read ruler of Russia from Catherine the Great to Vladimir Putin, even including Lenin..." That's high praise given the unusually highbrow literary consumption of the Russian people.
   
   This is one of the most enjoyable and eye-opening (not to mention unsettling) books that I have read in quite some time. No matter what opinion you hold of Stalin (and hopefully it's not a positive one), this book will likely forever alter that perception.



5. There is nothing here about policies or ideology, but the unbelievable monstrosity of Stalin and his magnates is described as never before. A terrifying and gripping story.

5 comments about Young Stalin.

1. Even with today's conveniences of travel, it would take an extraordinary person simply to get around all the transit points and destinations in Stalin's young life. And as to personal networking skills, he seemed both to command the underground while using little effort to find support casually walking on the street.
   
   The writing and historical story-telling by the author were outstanding. While having read and viewed quite a bit on this epoch in history, I never previously got the significance of Stalin throughout the entire revolutionary ordeal. Presently, with this book's influence, I pivot from from viewing him as a crude power grabber in the later phases as we are inclined to think based on past western accounts. There was a great deal more depth to the character and story, as this historian reveals.
   
   This is a monumental contribution to straightening out modern history. It clarifies a great deal.



2. It is well known that Trotsky for a long time fatally underestimated Stalin, whom he thought colourless and plodding. The flamboyant Trotsky was for years more famous than the laconic provincial from Georgia, but if he had familiarized himself with Stalin's early career, he would have realized, as Lenin did, that Stalin was ruthless and efficient. This book documents Stalin's early career in great detail. It shows the charisma, leadership qualities, toughness and ambition that he had displayed from his schooldays onwards; how he was hardened by the brutality of his drunken father and by the violent nature of Georgian society; what a genius he had for organizing strikes, the burning of oil refineries, murderous bank raids and piracy, protection rackets and kidnappings, while himself not taking a direct part. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's involvement in some of these crimes has never been conclusively proved; but he has little doubt that they all bore his stamp. Stalin frequently used disguises and aliases, and several times escaped from prison or from exile.
   
   The frequent inefficiencies of the Okhrana and the Tsarist police emerge strongly in this account; but it was not always inefficiency: Stalin had many informers inside the security forces, just as they had many informers inside all revolutionary parties - so much so that some have suspected Stalin himself of at times having been a Tsarist agent, which Sebag Montefiore does not believe. But Stalin did have many people murdered whom he suspected of being agents for the security forces, sometimes perhaps because real agents planted such suspicions in his mind. The worst traitor was Roman Malinovsky, a man whom Stalin trusted implicitly, but who was instrumental in getting him sent to the worst of his exiles in 1913 and then betrayed Stalin's attempts to escape from there also. Malinovsky's treachery was exposed in 1914. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's future suspicions of even his closest comrades was rooted in this experience.
   
   The book is a prequel of the author's The Court of the Red Tsar, and, as in that book, Sebag Montefiore pays little attention to ideology. He consistently calls Stalin's followers gangsters, and some of them indeed were no more than that: Stalin certainly made use of the criminal underworld. But he himself and many of his followers (women as well as men) were more than simply gangsters. Of course they believed - as do the followers of Bin Laden today - that the ends justify the most brutal and ruthless means; but the ends were ideological. Stalin fought for Bolshevism when among the Georgian (Marxist) Social Democrats, the Mensheviks were in a majority; he was prepared to challenge (successfully) even his hero Lenin when Lenin thought the Bolsheviks should take part in the elections after the 1905 Revolution. He was not interested in personal enrichment, and the bulk of the proceeds of the bank-raids he organized went to Lenin or to the Bolshevik cause in the Caucasus, keeping back only a little to celebrate each successful heist in a wild party.
   
   We see Stalin becoming the leading Bolshevik inside Russia while Lenin was abroad: he joined the Bolshevik Central Committee in 1912 with special responsibility for Bolshevik policy on nationalities; he edited Pravda (where he sometimes took a different line from Lenin's and indeed turned down forty-seven of articles Lenin sent in!) But then he was sent into exile, and the description of his four years (1913 to 1917) near the Arctic Circle is one of the most graphic parts of the book. In October 1916, with the war going badly, the exiles were conscripted. Before they had left Siberia, the Tsar had fallen, and the Kerensky's government ordered their release, March 1917, and Stalin returned to Petrograd.
   
   Claiming seniority, he resumed the editorship of Pravda and was the most dominant Bolshevik until Lenin arrived in Russia three weeks later; then he aligned himself with Lenin's determination to fight the Provisional Government. In July, afer a failed Bolshevik uprising, Kerensky's government struck at the Bolsheviks. Trotsky, Kamenev and other leaders were imprisoned; Lenin and Zinoviev went into hiding. Stalin, for some reason left at liberty, was once again briefly in charge. In September the imprisoned leaders were released when Kerensky needed their help against General Kornilov; and then began the struggle inside the Bolshevik Party between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin on the one hand who now wanted an immediate uprising, and `the Waverers', Kamenev and Zinoviev on the other who thought it too dangerous. But Lenin had his way, and the Bolsheviks seized power. Sebag Montefiore enjoys himself describing some of the farcical elements of the take-over: `the reality of October was more farce than glory. Tragically, the real Revolution, pitiless and bloody, started the moment this comedy ended.'
   
   



3. One of the unexpected consequences of the Soviet Union collapse is the exposure of a reality hidden away in dusty files and failing memories. Simon Senag Montefiore with "The Court of the Red Tsar" and now "Young Stalin", the Winner of the 2007 Costa Biography Award, reveals the messy realities behind the manipulated legends. Read books in the past, and the "truth" was the betrayal of great Trotsky and Lenin vision of Socialist Russia by the grey mediocrity of a bureaucratic opportunist. As ever was life so simple. In reality, his shadowy Party work was, only known to a few and suppressed after the Revolution to ensure his national role in the Party. Not known by him, Trotsky who wrote well, created in defeat the picture of Stalin we know. Stalin was in fact a dangerous but effective mixture of classically trained intellectual, poet, singer, effective organiser, street gangster and conspirator per excellence, who was cruel, ruthless, brave, cold, paranoid, witty, calculating. You could enjoy his company but be swimming with the fishes as he wept with your relatives in the morning.
   
   Simon Senag Montefiore uses unpublished, censored 20's and 30's memoires and interviews with surviving eyewitnesses to make clear where the man and the cut of the age clash to create Stalin and the USSR. Soso, short for Joseph, suffered an appalling childhood of a drunkard father and a domineering, suffocating mother. Yet his mother's various lovers protected him so he gained a middle class intellectual education. He was born and reared in a long vanished Georgian culture where Russians, Persians, semi pagan Mountain tribes, Jews fought, loved and traded. A popular annual festival was the town brawl when any active man from three fought each other to a standstill. It was also a world in which in Georgia, that had held the Ottoman Empire at bay for centuries, fall in to deeply resentful annexation by the Russian Empire a generation earlier. To grasp his early days think of Italians crossed with Spanish gypsies living to a code of honour and revenge that would make the Mafia a bunch of boy scouts.
   
   He rose up the Party by being the man who could rob and steal to bankroll Lenin's political ambitions as well as organise mass strikes. More importantly, he unlike Trotsky and Lenin was active in Russia with the regular members of the party. As we say now, he could talk the talk and walk the walk. Trotsky was clearly important in the 1917 revolution and in the later civil war but was vain and a snob, a great orator but mistrusted by many activists because of that. Stalin was not a showy speaker but knew how to play the simple plain worker to these crowds. This created adoring followers (many of which he killed in the 30's) who enabled him to take control of the party when being in the Government had more status.
   
   The book tackles the view that Stalin was a double agent traitor. He was clearly a double agent working on Party orders but examples given of his double-dealing fall flat. In reality, riddled with spies and traitor, the Party was monitored daily by the Tsar's Secret Police. So Stalin betrayed by a double agent Party cadre spent 4 years in bitter Siberian exile. The traitor when exposed in 1918 shook the party to the core as it was akin to discovering that J.F.K (for our American cousins) or Atlee had been a communist double agent. And, if he could be a traitor so could anyone so paving the way to the show trials of the 30's.
   
   I must confess I am a sucker for anything about the rise and fall of the Communist Party as a long term Marxist. My interest came from my involvement in the revolutionary Left in the 70s and 80's where the Trotsky-Stalin battles were still alive and kicking. Fear not American reader, I would clearly have been shot in the first days as one of those Quaker-Papist socialists who babble about the sanctity of human life. One of the few things that Trotsky and Stalin agreed on!. Hence, I have read in and around the ideas and history of this period for many years from the actions of the mule-headed Court, the oppressed peasantry and workers and the struggle of the intellectuals over the 19th century to make the political ideas of the West live in Russia. But the book is well researched and clearly written. It would appeal to anyone trying to understand the period or wanting an insight into a complex man you would be foolish to slight in any way. Yet you can see it was his iron will that made the USSR and caused it eventual failure.



4. Same author as "Court of the Red Czar", found amazing unpublished memoirs in Georgian archives. Insights into the real person and the forces that shaped him. Well written, entertaining and well sources. Also some great photos that I don't think have been published before. I have 7-8 stalin biographies and this is a great addition to the collection on one of history's most interesting specimens.



5. A fascinating portrait of Stalin as a young man. Up till now, it has been difficult to assess the life of the Soviet dictator before 1917. The hagiography of Soviet times absurdly exalted him; Trotsky, on the other hand, belittled his role in Russia's revolutionary movement. Western historians tended to agree with Trostky, despite his obvious grudges against the man who ultimately ordered him killed. During Soviet times, sources seemed inaccessible to western historians, but British historian Montefiore had been surprisingly successful in finding a lot of material about Stalin's early life, including unpublished (or unknown in the west) autobiographies of some of Stalin's partners in crime. Montefiore's key insight is that to understand Stalinist Russia you have to imagine a country led by a gangster. Stalin cut his teeth as the leader of the Bolshevik underground in the Caucasus, where his gang engaged in bank robberies, extortions and bombings (including one in Tbilissi in 1907 that left dozens of bystanders dead). Once in power, he behaved like a gangster, exterminating his opponents and becoming paranoid about possible informers (spies) in his organization (the Okhrana, Czarist Russia's secret police had been highly successful in infiltrating Russian revolutionaries).
   Trotsky held that Stalin was virtually unknown among Bolsheviks before 1917, but far from that, from 1905 on, he was their point man in the Caucasus (though, because he led a clandestine life, few knew him by his real name, addressing him instead through a variety of alias, like Soso and Koba). Lenin had a high opinion of Stalin, feeling his ruthlessness was just what the Bolsheviks needed.
   Stalin was certainly ruthless, but he was no brute, as Trotsky held. The seminary where he studied (and where he got excellent grades) was one of Georgia's premiere educational institutions. And he was a voracious reader for most of his life. Trotsky's spite was at being beaten in the power game by someone he considered to be less intelligent than himself, but Trotsky's view of Stalin as an ignorant and mediocre apparatchik is hard to held.
   Stalin was also very much a man of Georgia. Up to the time he was about 35, he spend almost his whole life in his native country, absorbing its Mediterranean clannish and violent culture.
   Many juicy stories are included in the book. Stalin spent most of World War I in internal exile in the remote Siberian north. He lived in a small settlement by the Yenisey river, surrounded by Samoyedic tribes with whom he liked to hunt in the area's pristine forests. There, he also fathered a boy with a 13 year old girl living in the area. When Czar Nicholas II abdicated in early 1917, Stalin was still in Siberia (Lenin and Trotsky were outside Russia). The life of exiles in Siberia during the Czar's regime, by the way, was surprisingly mild. Many were able to escape, including Stalin, several times.
   Though the book stops at 1917, it leaves little doubt as who would come on top on the power struggle after Lenin's death. Stalin was far better at cultivating people than the arrogant Trotsky, even if he would later turn on them and send them to the firing squad.