5 comments about Life Is So Good.

1. I guess some of the most important things I feel I've learned from this book is: don't dwell, take pride in your work, and focus on the power of beauty. This man (as thousands and thousands of others) had to endure more mental abuse in his life so far, then a million men, but was able and lucky enough to swim to top of that putrid pond of a life he was given and see the good in it, as fleeting as that was. I was thinking of this book as a mirror and what message I saw in it, that would be "Have a Lion's Heart" .



2. This book enlightened me and really got to me, much more than I expected. I was delighted to read about the life of a 102-year old african american man from the south, as I am a 30-something white woman from MT. He has a lot to teach us, and a lot to remind us of and has a way of doing so that makes us thankful for what we have. George Dawson is a gem and I am pleased that someone took the time to put his story on paper. What a great book!



3. Even though this book was published six years ago, the message of "Life is so good" is timeless. It is a window into a world that we are all a part of, but some of us rarely see. Truly memorable! Dawson sees literacy as an incredible gift and he in turn gives the reader numerous ones in return.



4. Richard Glaubman's "Life Is So Good" is a real comeuppance for anyone whose outlook towards life runs along the lines of "I wish I had done X, but I'm too old to start now." Here's a man, George Dawson, who learned how to read at age 98. As a USA Today review aptly summarizes, "Dawson has become a literary hero, a testament to the power of perseverance." First-time author Glaubman expertly fleshes out Larry Bingham's award-winning 1998 Fort Worth Star-Telegram short story.
   
   Dawson's tales of life in the Jim Crow-era South, his unquenchable work ethic, and his travels throughout North America make for compelling reading. Here is a man who was never given a shot to read when he was younger - economic circumstances forced him into full-time manual labor at a very early age. Despite significant hardship, his optimism and sense of self-worth never waver. The title really sums it up well here. Glaubman's final words from Dawson are "Life is so good and it gets better every day."
   
   As other reviewers have noted, Chapter 1 of this book could stand alone as among the best short stories you'll ever read.



5. I like the memoir because George Dawson never gave up his dream to read and write. George was born in the late 1800's. His parents were not slaves, but his grandparents were once slaves. George was raised in Texas. His family was poor, and he never attended school. Georges started working at a very young age, drawing water from the well each morning for the house. George worked alongside his father in the fields. The work was hard, so was their life. They had to watch what they said and went in fear of the K.K.K. Twelve year old George went to work, and stayed with a white family to help out at home. His cousins came to live with his family because their parents died, so George was needed at home. George left home at twenty-one and worked in Tennessee building levees. It was two years before he returned back home.
   
   Life is So Good is a story about George Dawson's dreams of receiving mail, learning to read and write at the age of ninety-eight, and his work ethic. I can relate to George's hard work and his work ethic. I beleive in hard work and doing it right the first time.
   
   This book is sad and tells of struggles he had to go through. It is not easy reading at first because the chapters jumped around. But overall, it is a good book to read.

5 comments about Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.

1. This is a good book that attempts to introduce Muhammad in the most positive light possible: Armstrong believes that Westerners do not understand enough about Islam and its founder, and so produces this argument. It is long on reason and seeking to find common ground - essentially in monotheism - between the East and West. No doubt this is an important task, but her approach in my reading is to bend over backward to excuse Muhammad of virtually any negative legacy. As such, this slants the book too much towards good intentions.
   
   In socio-historical terms, Armstrong believes that Muhammad emerged in a culture in crisis, offering a new religious solution that first and foremost worked politically. The Arabs, she says, had developed a tribal culture, whereby relative peace was maintained by the threat of blood feud - if a tribal member was injured or murdered, revenge was exacted on whomever belonged to the offending tribe, beyond the individual responsibility of the person who carried out the act itself. This worked while tribes were separated in the desert, but began to break down with increasing urbanization in 7C: close proximity bred violence, which easily spiraled out of control into endless mob violence. Muhammad's solution was to create a version of monotheism, that united the Arabs to a single purpose, transcending the polytheistic patron gods of the various tribes in their battles. This is a very interesting existential perspective.
   
   Armstrong also describes the unique details of Islam, as Muhammad created it: the Kuran offered a poetic vision that mesmerized many Arabs in an untranslatable sense. The new religion also offered a new kind of submission to Allah, which carried with it an ethical code that she convincingly argues is close to the essence of Islam. I enjoyed her vision of the religion and gained empathy from it for the prayers I have observed personally.
   
   Muhammad's vision was of course not easy to impose on a primitive culture. This is where Muhammad's political genius comes in, a perspective I found fascinating and valuable: he knew when to compromise, but also understood how society was reorganizing itself and so could set political precedents that often caused grave doubts in his followers before revealing themselves as phenomenal strategic successes later on.
   
   Along the way, Armstrong does pose many of the difficult questions, but somehow finds a way to dismiss them by putting them into historical context, comparing them to existing practices in Christendom and elsewhere. This works well, for example, when she argues that Muhammad in fact worked to liberate women (in a relative way). However, it often fails to satisfy, at least in my own reading. He ordered massacres in Jihad (even of Jews in Medina), the text of the Kuran froze many medieval attitudes into an orthodoxy that is proving rigid today, etc. These are serious problems that cannot be argued away as facilely as Armstrong attempts. In my opinion, she did not wrestle enough with a lot of these questions.
   
   The book ends on an interesting note, arguing that the current crisis in Islam began in the 17C, over 1000 years after Muhammad created his politico-religious system. At that time, as science and then industry developed in Europe, Islamic states/empires began to falter, which raised the question of whether God annointed their religion as indisputably superior anymore. This is very thought-provoking and articulated a view I have wondered about for a long time.
   
   Recommended. Armstrong's heart is in the right place, even if it makes her argument a bit too politically correct for my taste. Nonetheless, a worthy introduction to Islam it is indeed, but only as a starting point.



2. It's been awhile since I read this book, but I must say that it is clear and concise, and informative. I think everyone should read this book, maybe George Bush should be sent a copy (does he read?)
   
   It's imperative to have understanding about the Story of Mohammed, after all, we know he existed, we have no proof that Christ did.
   
   It is simply amazing what Mohammed managed to do to create stability where there was the possibility for factions by the score to develop. Bad enough we must deal with two factions at this time, (and Karen explains where this originated) But we have Mohammed to thank for the fact there are 'only' two.
   It could be worse!
   
   I was glad to see, too, that Karen put the connection together in this book about the Ismael the first son of Abraham, (with the maid servant of Sarah) and Mohammed connection . I was sure there was a connection. It's in this book!
   
   Insight, and education, makes such a huge difference in our perspectives. Karen is a prolific writer who began this writing early in life for reasons explained in The Spiral Staircase. Another great book that helps us to understand the part the brain plays in spirituality. Go on to read, The Brain That Changes Itself. ( not an Armstrong book)



3. I have read several reviews about Karen Armstrong book many have liked it and others have called her naive . I guess it is how we view her writting skill. First point is that she is not a muslim to have any kind of biasing.I have found her impartial.she has presented query from western perspective as well as islamic perspective. She has presented her work in such a way that it brings out prejudism and threaten their own preassumtions regarding Mohammed and Islam. I have found her work very analytic not lacking any sophistication.
   This book can bring out prejudism and preconcieved ideas that people have developed over the ages living in western world viewing islam through that lense.
   It is how we view a glass half full or half empty. We are looking at same book and presenting different views as we see it.



4. I would have preferred more direct sources- more quotes, more historical moments- less interjecting of personal ideologies, especially her recovering Catholic philosophical interludes. She also made blunders that led me to question her reliability. For example, she inferred that the Qu'ran is written in chronological order! (The Qu'ran is ordered from longest to shortest chapters).
   
   Her book does not strike me as being historically accurate, but is an attempt to show Muhammad in a positive light- every attack Muhammad made on the Quraysh, Jews, and non-believers were pro-active defensive measures... reminiscent of George Bush's "pre-emptive strikes".
   
   I enjoyed a few passages when Armstrong's personal interludes were kept down to a minimum and the history of a fascinating man and time and place unfolded. But for the most part I felt like I had to read between the lines. I know when I'm hearing only one side of a story.
   
   Definitely not a historical book. Falls into the category of polemics.
   
   If you haven't read an other book on the subject try a different author first.



5. Karen Armstrong writes an incredibly accurate portrayal of the life of the Prophet accept without 75% of his life. Muhammad had a life where the entire last half was dripping with blood. Armstrong does a great job of referencing the great, peaceful philosophies of Muhammad while grazing over the slaughter of the Jews of Banu Qurayze for not converting. Islam has the belief of abrogation, which is that it is alright for the Qur'an to contradict itself because the later revelation overwrites the earlier one. The call for Jihad at the end of Muhammad's life is then the law that is to be followed. Muhammad was not a man of peace by any means. Extremely intelligent, and a phenominal leader, but far from peaceful. For a dry but immensely more accurate picture of Muhammad's life, read The Life of Muhammad. This is the oldest account of the life of the Prophet that is still in existance and many historians claim as the most accurate.

5 comments about Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness.

1. I can truthfully say that this is the first book I have ever read about A. Lincoln. I loved it! It had intimate deatils and insight looks into the depression of the former President himself. I would reccommend this book to anyone wanting to read something "different, appeal'n" on Lincoln. Great book.



2. Carl Becker said that every man is his own historian, and so it seems fitting that Lincoln be reinterpreted in the light of modern approaches to depression and mental illness. What is most admirable about this book is the author's respectful approach to Lincoln and the past; he insists on viewing Lincoln's behaviors in the context of the mores and culture of his time, which were far different from those prevailing today. The author persuasively argues that there was a romantic connotation to melancholy back then. This, combined with the cultural acceptance of greater emotion from single young men, explains some of Lincoln's publicly expressed emotional troubles as a young man
   
   On the other hand, the author insists on defining Lincoln as suffering two "breakdowns." It's not clear what relevance this modern term has, nor can the author distinguish between mental illness and the culturally acceptable level of melancholy and love-sickness a young man was permitted to manifest at the time.
   
   In short, given the lack of data (most notably the inability to interview the subject, Mr. Lincoln) and the different culture back then, why even try to import these modern day notions of depression to the 1830's-1860's?
   
   Still, the book does make three points exceptionally well, which makes this a very worthwhile effort.
   
   First, he destroys the idiotic notions that Lincoln was gay by virtue of close emotional relationships with men that were permitted and encouraged by the culture back then. Superficial modern day notions of sexual identity have no place in a different time with different (and perhaps healthier) approaches toward the permissibility of emotional intimacy between men.
   
   Second, he argues that Lincoln's struggles with melancholy were part of his larger struggles against adversity that toughened him up for the greatest trial faced by any American President since Washington. This is an old theme, but it is well constructed here. On paper, hugely successful men like Buchanan, Jefferson Davis, and General McClellan should have been the ones to lead successfully during this crisis. But in some ways their previous success was a curse. The depressive's realism and ability to solider on during adversity is perhaps far better preparation. A fascinating point and one that is completley lost in modern Presidential races.
   
   Third, the author argues that Lincoln's mental makeup allowed him to resist the compromises and stop gap measures that seduced men like Buchanan, Douglas, and Crittenden. Lincoln saw that the country had to recognize the evil of slavery and put it on the path to ultimate extinction. This was, of course, Lincoln's greatest insight, though I'm not convinced that his melancholia necessarily predisposed him to accept it. But there is some appeal in the contention that depressives can be curiously more disposed to realism in a world that is frequently evil and unfair.
   
   This is an insightful book, though the ability to analyze Lincoln's psyche given the absence of data and intervening culutural changes is, of course, a doomed venture.



3. Shenk's study of Lincoln and depression is fascinating, and Richard Davidson does an excellent narration. I found the audiobook entertaining and thought-provoking.
   
   Shenk provides a detailed biography of Lincoln interspersed with musings on psychology and related topics. He points out that modern culture has unfairly criticized depressives as negative people, with only a minority of scientists pointing out that depressed people may actually be more realistic than optimists. In light of the threats facing mid-19th century America, Lincoln was more in touch with what was likely to happen than his happier peers. Shenk also shows that Lincoln's long-standing depression contributed to some of his outstanding character traits, such as his desire to be of service to his country and an unwavering determination to complete necessary tasks, no matter how unpleasant. This made him strong enough to lead his country through an incredibly bloody war.
   
   Shenk finishes the book with a discussion on Lincoln's biographers and how historians inject their own prejudices into published research. The final CD concludes with an interesting interview with the author.



4. This is a beautifully written book about Lincoln--the complete man. Joshua Wolf Shank does a lovely job of describing how Lincoln learned from his bouts with depression and could only have persevered through his difficult, war-time presidency with the wisdom he gained from his melancholy. We often think of Lincoln solely as a pillar of strength; seeing him at his weakest paradoxically deepens his image of strength.



5. Over the years, Abraham Lincoln's story has been told so many times in a reverential, almost worshipful, way that he has come down to us as more of a larger-than-life demigod than as a living, breathing, human being. Putting all the tales together, one might easily conclude that Lincoln was simply a great leader; a brilliant orator; a humble humanitarian; and a man with few, if any, faults. But Abraham Lincoln was much more than that. He was once one of us: a man whose thoughts, feelings, fears, troubles and concerns were much like ours and, like us, he had to live his life day-to-day struggling with his own personal demons.
   
   This author takes us inside the living Lincoln and, based upon the recollections of those who knew him both intimately and casually, lets us see a side of Lincoln which is largely unknown today. To some extent, we get to see Lincoln as he saw himself and as he saw the world around him, much of it long before he came to national prominence. In a sense, we get to glimpse the real Abraham Lincoln up close and personal, warts and all.
   
   According to this author: Virtually all of Lincoln's friends, associates, and acquaintances perceived him as a man suffering from a deep sadness which most termed a "melancholy," but melancholy as the term was understood in the mid-19th century. According to the evidence, this melancholy often overwhelmed Lincoln, sometimes to the point that he locked himself away and at times considered suicide. This may, in part, be due to the fact that for most of his life Lincoln considered himself an abject failure and struggled mightily to overcome what we might now call depression.
   
   What appears to have kept him going was that he felt he had to do something worthwhile for mankind, although he had no idea what that something might be. Of course, as we all know, he eventually concluded that to save the Union slavery had to be eliminated one way or another. He hoped that this could be done peacefully over time, but his actions and words created an impression of him among Southerners which, upon his election as America's 16th President, precipitated America's Civil War.
   
   I truly enjoyed this book and learned a lot more about Lincoln, his life and times, and the sequence of events which brought about the Civil War. I must admit, however, that I found the book to be something of a difficult read, primarily because it cloaked Lincoln's mental illness in the language of the past rather than in modern day terminology and, as a result, would frequently would go off on lengthy explanations in relation to more modern theories. In my view, the book would be much more lay-reader friendly if the differences in language were explained up front and modern terminology then used throughout.
   
   In any event, although I don't think this book is for the casual reader, I feel it is a work which may very well help shape the way Lincoln is viewed in the future. So, if you are interested in Abraham Lincoln, I highly recommend it.

5 comments about Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson.

1. Bought the book thinking I would learn more about Monticello but discovered so much more about Jefferson. What an interesting man but also full of faults. I had only known about his presidency and his various inventions but this book had fascinating information about his personal life, his family and all the troubles they all encountered over the years.
   
   I enjoyed the book so much I emailed the author to tell him so and he responded. I waiting for the delivery of a second of his books. Can't wait because he writes the kind of book you can't put down. And you come away learning a great deal as well.



2. An interesting perspective on Thomas Jefferson at the end of his life and his belief in his entitlement.



3. 
   This book discusses the extended family, the estate and the retirment activities of our third president. It's well written, but it's a once over lightly.
   
   While we meet the family members (a family chart is very much needed), we don't understand them. I thought I somewhat knew daughter Martha, but in the end she punishes a slave in a very unseemly manner which didn't fit any impression I had had. While there are character differences between the sons-in-law, their big fight and its aftermath seem to be wedged in, rather than a culmination of differences between the two men. Crawford does a very good job in presenting the story of the Hemings family, but again there is no way to understand them.
   
   The estate and its furnishings are well described. There is a floor plan for the main building and photos and drawings of the grounds and of the other residences. There is little on the slave quarters. A map locating all the family residences would have been helpful. Unlike many writers who cover the finacial past Crawford gives benchmarks to help in understanding the scale of costs and deficits.
   
   What is told of Jefferson's activities is good, but since the retirement spans 18 years there has to be more than what is given. Jefferson's work is always an extension of his philosophy, and Crawford's best work is here. He gives the clearest description of Jefferson on slavery that I have read (inclusive of his holding Britian responsible for rooting it in the new world) and his religious beliefs and views.
   
   While the above review has a lot on the negative side, I recommend the book. It reads very well-- in fact--- it reads so well that I would have liked to have read more of it!



4. I am a history buff and have read so much about Jefferson, I almost winced when my husband brought home Twilight at Monticello--what else can there possibly be said? Well, a great deal. We have a bad habit in America of taking someone who has done us a great service and putting them so high up on a pedestal they appear to be gods. (Anyone remember the Victorian print of Washington ascending to Heaven?) This leaves the "god" no where to go but down. Twilight has achieved the 'impossible' which is to render Jefferson as a brilliant but troubled man who helped to form a type of government which was completely at odds with government as then known and risked his life doing it.
   
   Jefferson and the others had no guidelines, no map, only a concept of what liberty should be. And, they did it. It wasn't perfect; we all know that. Nevertheless, they took the steps to achieve something that, even though flawed, gave us the liberty as time went by to amend their original ideas when they were incorrect. It works; it takes time but it works. After the Revolution, he inevitably became a god.
   
   Later he was pulled down from God status, and correctly so, by historians stating that he was a slave holder, a father who had trouble with the "empty nest", had relatives you could dress up but you couldn't take out, and, we can all be joyful that Hamilton did the banking part since Jefferson seemed to have absolutely no concept of accounting.
   
   Twilight is where Crawford has done Jefferson, and us, a service. He shows an old man who is out of the spotlight, mourning his chldren, madly in love with his grandchildren, making amends with old friends he has argued with, seeing comrades for the last time, worrying about slavery but unable to let go of his own slaves, desperate to pay his debts but still spending and borrowing (Mastercard anyone?), and suffering from poor health while moving on toward the end of his life. Crawford has done away with the god problem and has given us a real person, warts and all, and in so doing shows us a founding father who still shines brightly.
   
   That is the beauty of Twilight.



5. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Crawford speak at VHS. I bought his book and had a delightful conversation with him on Jefferson on the misinterpretation in modern view. His book stands right beside J. Ellis' work and is worth a read to any Jefferson fan or even the Hamilton admirers who hate Jefferson with passion. The book slides deep into an overview of the later years. I suggest people first read an overview of Jefferson's life before taking on the view of Jefferson's last years.

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 Plutarch's Lives, Volume 2 (Modern Library Classics).

1. Twain's pejorative definition of `classic' need not apply. I define classic as that (text) which speaks to the heart over an extended duration - perhaps for several generations, as in `classic rock', or several millennia, as in Plutarch's "Lives". I probably never would have read Plutarch, were it not for a glorious discovery of Montaigne in mid-life. Having acquired enough distaste for the copious demands required to master classical languages after five years of Latin in secondary school, I made an arbitrary and direly misguided vow to eschew all Classics courses at the university level. And thus again is revealed the fateful difference between post-modern (post-1945), and the modern (c. 1500 - August 5, 1945) pedagogy, of which I unwittingly, if serendipitously, caught the tail end. The modern cannon required thorough immersion in the classics, and, for many years, Plutarch was required reading in the best schools, and should be even now. The author of the Shakespearian plays came to Plutarch by way of Montaigne (and likely read the Amyot translation, and only later the North, if at all), and the English schools came to Plutarch by way of Shakespeare. We might say that the revival of Plutarch was one of the most far reaching achievements of the Northern Renaissance.
   At one point in his celebrated chronicle of the self, Montaigne (as a shaper and bona fide member of that cannon, guardian of some of what is best in our cultural inheritance) amusedly reveals that, when his critics believe they are attacking his work, they are actually attacking Plutarch and/or Seneca, so profound is their presence in his writing, and, in his "Defense of Plutarch and Seneca", he declares that . . . "my book [is] built up purely from their spoils".
   
   And what a book it is! But Plutarch's magnum (see the 14 volumes of the Loeb Classical Library for his other works), is the greater. Montaigne is one of the great students of the self. Plutarch is the first (and may yet still be the definitive) historian of virtue. Montaigne, in scrutiny of his own nature, seeks to recognize the limitations and potentials of the self, and thereby sketch our general spiritual contours. Plutarch, in an unparalleled series of real life, historically and culturally pivotal, examples, shows us what they are.
   
   The book records in the most remarkably intimate style (Plutarch has few peers as a master of narrative and an uncanny ability to ferret out of detail the significance of individual actions as a unified whole), the major events in the lives of the most impacting figures of the ancient world. Therefore, like the best novels, the book forms a world in itself, a lost world, the world of our ancestors, through a landscape drawn of actions and consequences. The structure of the book is such that an account of the seminal moments in the life of a noble Greek and then of a noble Roman are brought forth in pairs, followed by a comparison. In some sections of the work these comparisons are absent. They appear at some point in antiquity to have either been lost to or removed from the text, which would seem to explain why, for instance, there is no comparison of Alexander and Caesar. But the comparisons are brilliant, and eminently instructive.
   
   Of course, from the details alone, we may draw our own inferences. Alexander, as a mere teen, leading his troops in hand-to-hand combat, won his first battle fighting uphill at night. Caesar, a heavy drinker, was wont to ride horseback at full tilt with his hands clenched behind his back. He had a life-long passion for Cato's sister and it is said that from their relationship, which continued through their respective marriages, Brutus was born. Et tu? Of course, one cannot fail to mention, even in this briefest review of the abundantly rich description in the nearly 1,300 pages which comprise the book, the death of Cato the Younger - one of the most exquisitely drawn figures in the book. Hunted down with the remnants of his troops into the wastelands of Carthage by the army of Octavius Ceasar in an effort to snuff out the last vestiges of republican resistance and opposition to Empire, realizing that the last realistic hope for freedom is lost, Cato attempts ritual suicide (a Stoic custom common to Roman nobility) by disembowelment. As Plutarch describes the scene, ". . . he did not immediately die of the wound; but struggling, fell off the bed, and throwing down a little mathematical table that stood by, made such a noise that the servants, hearing it, cried out. And immediately his son and all his friends came into the chamber, where, seeing him lie weltering in his own blood, great part of his bowels out of his body, but himself still alive and able to look at them, they all stood in horror. The physician went to him, and would have put in his bowels, which were not pierced, and sewed up the wound; but Cato, recovering himself, and understanding the intention, thrust away the physician, plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired." In Seneca's words: "For Cato could not outlive freedom, nor would freedom outlive Cato."
   
   However, the life most appropriate for the contemporary reader, I feel (and wish that every member of the shadowy corporate/military junta that seems to be ruling us these days would read and take to heart) is the life of Crassus. Crassus was the most successful businessman in the history of the Roman Empire. Plutarch relates that at one time he owned virtually one-third of the real estate in Rome. However, such mind-boggling success was not enough for him. His yen, and later, obsession, was to be revered as a great military leader, a world conqueror, expand the domain of the already burgeoning Empire, and the object of his fantasies was the area of the world at that time known as Mesopotamia and Persia, today as Iraq and Iran. We follow as he makes extensive preparations, investing his own fortune and a great deal of the nation's wealth into outfitting an army for the venture. And at first, the invasion of Mesopotamia seems to go well. But the centers of population are spread out over great stretches of desert, and the occupation never really succeeds, because a central authority cannot be solidly established. Crassus, however, remains undaunted, even though the troops are becoming mutinous as supplies begin to run thin. Led on by treacherous advisors, he enters Parthia (somewhere in the vicinity of modern day Syria). Plutarch describes the grueling denouement with his usual detachment, aplomb, and gifted eye for pertinent detail. Having lost the greatest fortune in the world, he proceeds to lose his troops, then his sons, and finally his life. These lessons are never too late for the learning, and my apologies to Twain, but a classic is a text which retains its urgency to be read, and read now.
   
   I read the Dryden/Clough translation. Dryden was never my favorite writer of his period, the late 17th century - hardly a match for Burton or Milton, in my opinion, but he was poet laureate, and this work I love - his English is fine, and resonates with classic dignity. Clough, the mid-nineteenth century British scholar who revised the translation, befriended Emerson when he traveled to England, and became a sort of mentor to the New England Transcendentalists in general. We can be grateful for such a wonderful rendering for one of the very greatest and edifying masterpieces.



2. A most concise volume of all the most important people of the Roman Empire.



3. Plutarch's parallel lives, parallels the life of a great Greek with a great Roman. Theseus and Romulus, Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Ceasar. There are forty- six such pairs which tell not only the story of the individuals but of their society . Plutarch brings to bear his tremendous learning from a wide variety of sources . Plutarch's first interest is in the character of the people he writes about, and the moral lessons he can draw from comparison of the lives. His work has had great influence and provided inspiration and material to Shakespeare, Montaigne, Browning and others. The reading of the work is not always easy, and there are strange and questionably credible tales and details but the work is humanly alive. The reading and studying of it was once considered a basic part of true humanistic education, and not the confine of a few scholars in the classic departments of universities. It once had broad reader appeal and anyone with a keen interest in biography, and the subject of how lives have been lived in worlds far from our own, would do well if not to read this work cover- to- cover than at very least have a good read in it.



4. I have now plowed through the second and final volume of this series, and though my energy began to flag, I still think this is one of the great classics of all time. Though not exactly chronological, the stories in this volume tend to occur later than in the first volume and are often longer, which is understandable given that Julius Caesar and Alex the Great are covered in this volume. THe stories are also more intricately interwoven - you get lives that overlap, such as those of Brutus and Caesar, with slightly different takes and details in each one. The upshot of all this is that the serious reader will need to keep this around as a reference, going over the text again when some question of detail comes up or to refresh one's point of view. Plutarch's take on things is very different from that of many authors: he is a pro-aristocrat conservative and admiring of martial prowess, yet pro-Republican. Once again, the reader really needs to know the historical context before undertaking this. It is not at all introductory.

   Warmly recommended. Though it takes real effort at times to continue, it is well worth the slog.




5. Although it's a very good translation, I prefer to read the books of Plutarchos in the original Greek texts because the version of Dryden is now somewhat obsolete. And if you don't understand the ancient Greek language well, I recommend you to read several volumes of Plutarch in THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY.

5 comments about Rogue Warrior.

1. This book is an exciting roller coaster ride throught the life of Marcinko. It was hard to put down.
   
   I'm amazed that Marcinko as able to reach the rank and levels of authority he did. He was truly a "rogue" warrior. Amazing man, but clearly one who operated outside the norms of the military.
   
   My only exposure to SEALs was during 3 weeks of Airborne training over 25 years ago. A team was in my class and in many ways they fit the image portrayed in this book. They were extremely close knit non-conformist who could do so many push-ups that the drill sergeants (black hats) had to take turns yelling at them because their voices would go out before they even broke a sweat.
   
   To paraphrase a familiar quote - these are the "rough men" who allow us to sleep soundly in our beds because they are ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm.



2. I really enjoyed this book Marcinko was one of the last of a dying breed in the military. I have spent most of my adult life in the armed forces and can definitely relate. Oddly enough his story ring true when now more then ever our military is so riddled with political correctness and politics you can't even do your job.



3. An old pants crapping hippy from the 60s will probably tell you about tripping on LSD for the first time, well Richard Marcinko tripped on Cobra venom in Cambodia. Yes he eats an entire Cobra piece by piece, eats the venom sacs and starts seeing bizarre checkerboard patterns in black n white.
   Wearing tire tread sandals on his feet dressed in black gym shorts Marcinko hunts down VC, shoots, dismembers, blows away and cusses out anyone in his path. Inbetween that he drinks a lot and screws a ton of women.
   
   This book rules, thats about all I can say. I read it in a day, passed it to some friends who also finished in one day. A classic, if you have any desire to check it out, check it out, its like used for 1 cent.



4. For those looking for info or accounts of escapades and adventures a la The Unit, look no further. Richard Marcinko lived the life, lead the life, and ultimately had to deal with that life. From it all he is able to capture an image and accurately convey this to us, and to it is a style all his own.
   
   Right from the first page you are drawn into Marcinko's life and you want to cheer for him. He is fighting for our country and protecting us. Of course there is the gruesome side of the necessity of killing, of the almost joy of killing that underlies Marcinko's writing, not only within himself but within his fellow Seals as well. Alas, to those not in the field this may be hard to understand, but putting yourself in their shoes with enemies all around you, the only course of action is to shoot to kill, and who better to have do this than those that live on that thrill? Gruesome? Yes. Necessary? Yes, in real life and in Marcinko's writing of his life.
   
   We follow him from when he was a Frogman to joining the Seals and going to Vietnam. His personality is very strong and this flared to life in Vietnam and ultimately started his move up the ranks. Then there is the creation of Seal Team Six, which to the laymen is only fathomable on the television, so to hear Marcinko describe what he and his men were up to was absolutely fascinating. Further on his deployment to test the nation's most "secure" facilities... This was a hoot and I loved reading about this. Granted, I don't want to see that our tax paid facilities are as vulnerable as they were, but I would rather have our experts discover these flaws than some other bad guy.
   
   All in all, a great read. We are able to see Marcinko's life with a flare of writing to accurately convey his personality. I would recommend this to anyone.
   
   5 stars.



5. A couple parts seemed like a stretch, but it was still a great book. I read the whole thing in two sittings, It was just too interesting to put down.

5 comments about The Letters of Abelard and Heloise (Penguin Classics).

1. didnt read yet-will review later..have read a fictionalized account of their love affair-looking forward to reading their actual letters



2. Arrived in very good condition as promised.



3. This book was definitely thought provoking, or at least the parts I had to read for class were. I'm not sure if I would recommend it as a fun read. However, it was interesting.



4. Letter 1 (Historia Calamitatum), Abelard to a friend. You think you have it bad? Let me tell you about the mess I've been through and you'll feel a lot better (p. 3). Things were going great until the other professors realized I was smarter than they were and hated me for it. And then I met Heloise, and things really went downhill from there. Her looks were okay, and I'm a handsome dude, so I thought she'd be easy (p. 10). Her uncle Fulbert was an idiot to leave me alone with her (pp. 10-11). I was her teacher and she was just a kid, but I couldn't keep my hands off her. I slapped her around a little to make it look like I was teaching her and not doing her (p. 11). We went at it like rabbits. I knocked her up, she had a kid, and Uncle Fulbert made us get hitched. It was supposed to be a secret, but Fulbert started to spill the beans, so I put Heloise in a convent. That really pissed off Fulbert, so he made a steer out of me (pp. 16-17). Then I made Heloise take the veil, and I became a monk. Now I'm stuck in a hellhole of a monastery in Brittany with a bunch of thugs.
   
   Letter 2, Heloise to Abelard. I just saw the letter you wrote to your friend. Too bad things have been tough, but how come I haven't gotten a letter from you in over 10 years? I think about you all the time, you big stud. It makes me crazy. I'd rather be called your whore than your wife (p. 51). All the girls were jealous of me; we still sing your songs (pp. 52-53). I'd really like to get a letter from you, especially since it was your idea that I become a nun (p. 53). You were a real jerk back then when you waited to make sure I became a nun before you became a monk (p. 54). The least you can do is write.
   
   Letter 3, Abelard to Heloise. How am I supposed to know you wanted to hear from me? I figured you've had better things to do in the last few years than read my letters. Be a good sister and don't worry about me. But if I kick the bucket, bury me at the convent (p. 61).
   
   Letter 4, Heloise to Abelard. Don't talk that way! It makes me crazy to think of you dead. It seems especially unfair that Uncle Fulbert waited until after we were married to get the knives out. I loved doing the nasty with you. All I do is remember us getting it on. I can't even sleep (pp. 68-69). I really can't stand it.
   
   Letter 5, Abelard to Heloise. Black women are not as good-looking as other women, but they have nice teeth and soft skin - it's better to keep them behind closed doors, you know (pp. 73-75). Do you remember when I used to smack you around when you weren't in the mood (p. 81)? Quit your complaining. Let's write only about religious stuff from now on.
   
   Letter 6, Heloise to Abelard. Are there any loopholes in the Benedictine Rule for nuns?...



5. I have been fascinated by the story of Heloise and Abelard ever since reading the book Stealing Heaven in 1979. Reading theses Letters was heartbreaking to me. This is my take on the whole thing: obviously Peter and Heloise had a deeply passionate sexual relationship. For Heloise, this grew also into an affair of the heart. For both of them it was an affair of the mind. What could be more enticing to a man than a woman of Heloise's intellect and passion? However, it was also the Middle Ages. Heloise was from a prominant family with an uncle high in the Church heirarchy. She loved Peter, as women do, with body, mind and soul. I believe he loved her deeply, but it is different with men. And as long as he was a whole man, I believe he acted honorably. But there is no way around it: her pregnancy was a disaster. What were they to do, what could they do? It is not as if he and she could live together married happily ever after. He faced ruin when she became pregnant: everything he was was put at great risk--his life's work was at stake, his standing in society, his reputation, his position at his University. They marry in secret, she hides away in a convent waiting to be rescued and carried off by her husband to a life of what? She doesn't care--she only wants to be with the man she loves. But what about him? How does he see this future? I feel sorry for the guy. But all this is moot, because her uncle has him castrated. At that point, he changes. No one seems to be acknowledging the effect this would have on him. The most importand underpinning of his feeling for Heloise, i.e., testosterone-induced lust, is suddenly gone. Then add in the humiliation, pain, etc., etc. There you have it. His only option was the Church. Her only option was the Church. But how very differently they embarked upon that life. To him it is a welcome refuge. He can continue to live his life of the mind in that setting. He is surrounded by other celibate men. He has no sexual feelings anymore. He is a different person. Whatever feeling he had for Heloise is cut from him. Indeed, he sees the whole thing as sinful, dirty, to be repented of. She, on the other hand, is in an entirely different situation. Religious life for her is not a refuge, but a prison. She has no access to her child. She has lost her love and lover, against her will. Not only are they separated, but the man she loves no longer loves her. It would have been better for her had he died. But to read his letters to her, wherein he totally rejects and condemns and regrets what she treasures most in her life and scolds her for not doing the same is heartbreaking. The letters make perfect sense to me. She was tormented by her love for him till old age cooled her ardor. She set her considerable mind at work on managing her religious order, but it was second-best, by far, till she was older. Since she adored him all her life, she engaged with him in the only manner he would allow: letters regarding religion and the religious life. I don't know how she bore it for all those years. No doubt about it: the uncle is the villian. Both Heloise and Peter suffered greatly: she had her heart torn from her, and he had his manhood torn from him.

No comments about The Wordy Shipmates.

5 comments about Drawing Scenery: Landscapes and Seascapes.

1. I'v been using this book for about 30 years. I needed to get a new one to use in my art classes. This is an excellent book for painting and drawing with all different media.



2. What can I say - I would love to have the talent of Jack Hamm. I really enjoy this type of art toward character. I'm sure there are many others who I would admire too, but for now I at least know about Jack Hamm... So I went ahead and collected as many books about his style as I could.



3. Yes Congratulations if you buy this book! It is by far the best book on landscape drawing EVER! Ten books by other authors does not cover the volume or quality of information here! I got a copy when I was twelve as a gift. I already drew quite a lot could copy drawings, photos ,do self portraits and such but this volume turned the lights on drawing the landscape (still my subject specialty!) In over twenty years since, I have never found any book on drawing ANYTHING that is more useful than this one folks! If you paint you should get this too! I have never seen a competent painter that could not draw also! So if you do or do not already paint work through this gem of a book ! Give it the time and effort it deserves , do what he says, then find your own subjects to draw as well (preferably from life in the field) and APPLY what you learn in here .It will pay big dividends for you and your artwork!I do not understand complaints about format or lack of color in the previous reviews.You can complain about this masterpiece of B&W drawing instruction??? Jack Hamm is one of the most talented artist-teachers ever!I wish to send him a great thank you ! for this book and his others too. He left us a great gift.It is smart to take advantage of it. What else can I say but if you find a better book on landscape drawing I'd sure like to know about it ! It dosen't yet exist to my knowledge! So get it and have fun !



4. Hamm's Drawing Scenery book was published in 1972, yet it is still full of useful advice to the artist today. As an author, he makes no assumptions about the reader's drawing skills, and gets right down to basics. This book is broad enough to be written for the general artist, whether you are an illustrator, commercial artist, or fine artists. While it has a slight comic book artist feel about it, the tips and advice are not limited to just comic book art. I've only taken one star off for its unusual layout - but then it was written BC (before computers).



5. Hamm's How To books are really good. They dissect the shapes of things and show clear ways to draw them.