4 comments about Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas.

1. This is the first biography of "The Founder of Texas" since Eugene Barker's magisterial work published in 1925. A wait of nearly 75 years for a modern follow-up is tolerable when the results are as good as this.
   
   Austin was a complicated figure; much of his life played out in contradictions: born a Southerner, he was educated in the Northeast; an eloquent and persuasive spokesman in the public arena, he found it difficult expressing his emotions to those closest to him and never married; abhorring slavery, he fought for the right of slavery to exist in Texas; a cultivated man, he spent most of his life on the coarse and harsh frontier; he longed for peace and stability in his life, yet lived during extremely chaotic times; driven to "put his house in order," he claimed his only mission in life was "to redeem Texas from its wilderness state." His father inspired his son to dream big dreams and take on the challenges and responsibilities required to make them realities; when Moses Austin died before being able to colonize the 200,000 acres he acquired in Texas, he left it to Stephen to accomplish. And he did. Austin was not perfect and made mistakes (and enemies); possibly his biggest mistake was going to Washington to petition recognition for Texas at the time that the Alamo fell and, even more importantly, when Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto six weeks later. Recognizing the significance of that victory not only for Texas but for himself, he hastened to Texas from Washington as quickly as possible. He lost the presidency of the Republic to Houston. A sickly man most of his life, he died of fever in December 1836, only six months after his return.
   
   Gregg Cantrell's biography is a pleasure to read. Informative and compelling, it's a "Life" of Austin and not a "Life and Times." He captured my interest right from the beginning; not hesitant to indicate Austin's shortcomings, he also obviously respects the man. It's a solid, well written biography of an important figure in Texas (and American) history. Highly recommended.



2. Gregg Cantrell has tackled a sacred cow and come out unscathed. His new book, Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas is a meticulously researched and carefully written profile of a man we only thought we knew.

   Our knowledge of Stephen Fuller Austin, is gleaned largely from the work of Eugene C. Barker. His 1925 tome, Life of Stephen F. Austin, painted this renowned figure as "The Father of Texas"...and rightly so. However, the Austin we see in Barker's work is a flat two-dimensional character lacking much of the humanity needed to explain the heroism behind the hero.

   Though technically accurate, Barker provided little to help us understand the motivations behind Austin the man or of the dynamic forces that led to the making of a republic.

   In Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas. Gregg Cantrell brings to life the real Stephen F. Austin with all of his strengths and foibles. We learn in some depth how Austin was destined for greatness, a direct product of his father's influence. His father, Moses Austin, at one point was quite wealthy and wielded a powerful hand in creating his son in his own image. He wanted him to be a gentleman living in the world of high finance. Who Stephen F. Austin was and the way he thought all bear the mark of Moses Austin's influence.

   When the younger Austin grew into manhood, his father put him in charge of various business ventures within the Austin empire. Stephen's training paid off as he showed himself to be adroit at business. Unfortunately, an economic depression and several bad business dealings (mostly initiated by the elder Austin), left the family buried in overwhelming debt.

   By 1820, Moses Austin saw a possible way to get his head above financial water. He became the first Anglo to get permission to colonize Spanish Texas. Unfortunately, he died before realizing his goal. His deathbed request was that Stephen bring the colony to fruition. Under a sense of instilled familial loyalty very characteristic of the young Austin, he reluctantly abandoned his own course to obey his father's wishes.

   When Mexican independence became a reality, Stephen F. Austin skillfully navigated through the waters of the diplomatic intricacies to which he had been thrust. He began to see that building his colony was a way to repay the enormous debts the family had accumulated and to restore a measure of honor to his father's name. He would make his fortune through land. He threw himself wholeheartedly into the work of colonizing Texas and it soon became clear that it was not just another business venture but a mission. This mission would eventually be to create an independent Texas by any means.

   Austin earned the title "Father of Texas" by overseeing every aspect of the colony and the lives of those under his care. He became a fierce advocate for the rights of his colonists and worked tirelessly for many years (many times to his own detriment) to ensure the success of the colony.

   His was not an easy task. The central government in Mexico was in a constant state of turmoil. Cantrell shows us that one of Austin's biggest strengths was his ability to forge alliances with the powers at the heart of Mexico and the Tejano elite of Texas. Men like Don Erasmo Seguín and Lorenzo de Zavala had the deepest respect for Stephen F. Austin and shared his vision of Texas. He even earned the respect of those who opposed him.

   Throughout the book, Cantrell discusses Austin's struggle with his personal demons. All through his life, Austin was plagued with self-doubt and self-pity. He also experienced bouts of deep depression. His physical stature was not great and sometimes even frail due to chronic illness. What set Stephen F. Austin apart was that he pushed himself to the limits of human endurance and set his own interests aside many times for the good of others. Therein lies his heroism. He persisted when lesser men would have quit.

   Our tendency with heroes is to deify them and negate their humanity. Cantrell pulls no punches in revealing the full human nature of Stephen F. Austin. It was surprising to this reader to learn Austin's attitudes toward blacks and toward Catholics. Though in theory, Austin opposed the institution of slavery, he himself owned slaves. He fought diligently for his colonists to keep their slaves and not to free slaves already living in Texas. He feared that if blacks were freed, their number would increase. His vision was for a Texas populated predominately by whites.

   He looked upon Catholicism as gross 12th century ignorance, a yoke of oppression that retarded Mexico's progress into the 19th century. Austin seldom voiced these feelings except to a few close friends. It would not have faired well in his diplomatic relations.

   Stephen F. Austin was indeed human. He wasn't perfect. He made mistakes; but until his death at age 43, he never faltered in his devotion to Texas.

   Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas brings a clear understanding of the events that led to the Texas Revolution. If you have ever wondered why there was an Alamo, Goliad or San Jacinto, then you should read this book.

   The narrative is clear and well written and it held my attention from page one. I highly recommend this book.




3. Comments about the personal development of historical figures are sometimes ignored in favor a list of achievements. Cantrell includes details of how Moses Austin encouraged his son to be a big thinker. The Austin family's "can do" attitude is certainly reflected in in Stephen's life.



4. This biography is written so well, and the story so interesting, it could be a novel from James Michener. If you are interested in Texas history, Southwest history, Mexican history, or Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny, this book is a must read. I'll be VERY suprised if you don't like it.

4 comments about Scroll of Agony: The Warsaw Diary of Chaim A. Kaplan.

1. Having read many accounts of existence during the Holocaust, I recommend "Scroll of Agony" because it pulls the reader in on so many levels.
   The reader can learn about the system the Nazis used to try and fragment Jewish morale, culture, health and lives by attempting to suppress every aspect of Jewish life. What a powerful and understated diary!



2. Chaim Kaplan begins by blaming Poland's 1939 defeat on the "incompetence" of the prewar Polish government (never mind the fact that Nazi Germany was powerful enough to roll over most of Europe, and that it finally took several powerful, industrialized nations--combined--many years to subdue Nazi Germany). He also misrepresents the Poles as ones who were basically sympathetic with Hitler and who were only forced to change their minds when Hitler conquered Poland. In actuality, many prewar Polish politicians (e. g. Pilsudski) warned of the evils and dangers of Nazism. Then again, positive opinions of Hitler were common all over the prewar world. And just as some prewar Poles didn't mind Hitler so long as he was anti-Semitic but not overtly anti-Polish, so also some prewar Jews (especially German Jews) were ready to support the Nazi movement and its Polonophobia if it would only outgrow its anti-Semitism and behave more like the old-style German aggressive nationalism.
   
   Kaplan implicitly refutes those who say that there was no Polish Quisling only because the Germans never wanted one: "You will not find one single public-spirited citizen among them [the Poles] who is willing to be the conquerors' representative, to talk to his people and make them realize that they cannot change reality and must accept the yoke of German rule--like Hacha in Czechoslovakia and Quisling in Norway. We could also add Petain in France, that stupid old man who willingly said Kaddish for his country." (p. 206).
   
   In early 1940, Kaplan rejected the notion that the Nazis would be able to stir up the Poles to large-scale violence against Jews (p. 101, 114), but he realized that isolated attacks may occur because: "No nation lacks hooligan elements, and the conquerors have paved the way for them." (p. 114) and because: "Terrorists and troublemakers are not lacking among any people, and at all times and places they can be found in sufficient numbers." (p. 101). He characterizes the Easter 1940 events as follows: "The conquerors have begun a new political operation. Gangs of young toughs, Polish youth (you won't find one adult among them), armed with clubs, sticks, and all kinds of harmful weapons, make pogroms against the Jews." (p. 134).
   
   Kaplan comments: "The conqueror tramples upon both `inferior' races, but the Jews are on the lowest rung and the Poles on the next to lowest." (p. 81). At other times, he comes close to juxtaposing the victimhood of both peoples: "Nazi pride is unlimited. The Poles and the Jews are classed together as if they were both `natives' of African jungles. Both were supposedly created only to serve the conqueror." (p. 73). Kaplan includes the following amazing statements: "At heart, the conqueror hates the Poles more deeply than the Jews. Once the head of the Warsaw district, Dr. Fischer, said, `The Poles we hate instinctively; the Jews we hate in accordance with orders.'" (p. 204).
   
   Kaplan presents evidence that, in many ways, Poles were initially victimized by the Germans more than Jews. Consider the summer of 1940: "Today, Aryans were seized for work!...When pedestrians disappeared from the streets after the hunt began, they stopped the trolleys and took the male passengers off, whether they were Poles or Jews. After personal interrogation the Jews went home and the Poles were imprisoned. How good it is to be a Jew!" (p. 179). At other times, Poles wore the Jewish Schandeband to avoid forced labor (p. 150). Poles also sent their children to Jewish homes overnight to prevent the children from being seized by Germans for forced donations of blood for German soldiers (p. 152). In spring 1941, Poles hid in the Jewish ghetto during German mass executions of Poles (p. 254).
   
   About 140,000 Poles lost their properties, along with a comparable number of Jews, during the German creation of the Warsaw ghetto (p. 212; see also p. 266). (The occasional postwar Polish killings of Jews over properties, much exaggerated by Jan Thomas Gross in his recently-published FEAR, must be understood in the light of the atmosphere of complete disregard for property rights that had recently befallen both Jews and Poles.)
   
   Katsh, the editor, credits a Pole, Wladyslaw Wojcik, for preserving Kaplan's diary for posterity and for later discovering the second Ringelblum Archive (p. 14). Kaplan himself credits the Poles for smuggling food into the Warsaw Ghetto (p. 304, 316), and, in general, for not falling for Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda: "We thought that the `Jewish badge' would provide the local population with a source of mockery and ridicule--but we were wrong. There is no attitude of disrespect nor of making much of another's dishonor. Just the opposite. They show that they commiserate with us in our humiliation. They sit silent in the street cars, and in private conversation they even express words of condolence and encouragement. `Better times will come.'" (p. 82). Also: "Common suffering has drawn all hearts closer, and the barbaric persecutions of the Jews have even aroused feelings of sympathy towards them. " (p. 114). Later, Kaplan repeatedly credited Polish messengers for scouring the entire General Government to ascertain the fact that, up to that point, 40,000 "resettled" Lublin Jews were definitely no longer alive (p. 286, 291, 309).
   
   In his entry for July 22, 1942, Kaplan is candid about the fact that, even at that late date, Warsaw's Jewish officials continued to insist that Warsaw's Jews would never be deported (p. 319). And, in common with many Jewish chroniclers, Kaplan criticizes world Jewry for its indifference to the fate of Polish Jews (pp. 76-77). During the deportations of Jews to the death camps, Kaplan lambastes the Jewish ghetto police "...whose cruelty is no less than that of the Nazis..." (p. 324), and says that: "It is the Jewish police who are cruelest toward the condemned." (p. 326).
   
   Kaplan writes: "Nazism is not original. They took everything from Bolshevism, only that they expanded its rottenness." (p. 329).



3. This is the 4th Warsaw ghetto diary I've read and the 3rd I've reviewed. If I had to do it over again, I'd pick this one first. The author was a teacher and more than just a recorder of events. He was a gifted writer and master storyteller who was never deluded for a moment about what was going to happen and who never lost sight of the universal perspective. He writes in a wry, almost sarcastic style that makes his point effectively as he blasts the Nazis, Polish and Jewish collaborators, corruption in the ghetto, etc. He had me asking myself deep questions as I was reading. He constantly refers to the Nazis he encounters as stupid people. It shows how dangerous stupid people can be when given power. At one point, he says cruelty is a sickness that can affect whole communities and even entire nations. You see from his writings how contagious a sickness it is, and the more that violent, sadistic, atrocious behavior is permitted, the more it occurs. He vividly shows what can happen when people lose their sense of outrage. He knew what was going on at Sobibor and Treblinka and that the people being "resettled" were not coming back. He never trusted the Nazis, saying only evil can come from evil people. Who can argue with that when you are talking about people who lied up to the minute they closed the door of the gas chamber behind you? The last line in the book is "If I am taken, what will become of my diary?" He was not afraid of dying, but afraid that all his effort would be wasted. Well, it wasn't wasted. If only one more person reads this book on the basis of this review, I'll feel I have done my belated bit for a man who had real guts and unfortunately didn't live to see the ultimate survival of his people.



4. Kaplan's comtemporaneous recording of the destruction of the Jewish community in Warsaw, starting with the Nazi invasion of Poland is most gripping and compelling. It is most interesting because it was written without the "benefit" of other purported historical accounts or the need to explain why the Nazis acted as they did. Although Kapaln has a perspective and knows he is writing for history, his maniscript is mostly reportorial. When he is providing his opinion, rather than telling what actually happened that day, Kaplan let's the reader know.

   How refreshing to be able to read an historical work, without the "spin" that now accompanies most works about the Nazi occupation of conquered lands and the extermination of the Jews of Europe. This book is must reading for both serious scholars and those who are interested in the subject matter.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Good Soldier (Southern Classics Series).

1. I agree with Landess in the preface. This book is poorly researched. It doesn't show us the depth or breath of the man. It would not even be poor historial fiction and is horrid as a biography. It's one strong point is Tate's abilitity to show the Southern feeling on their state rights being violated; along with the comparison of Indian rights being viloent by the North.



2. By reading the book: Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of great piety, heroism, chivallry, and freedom. He fought for all these things in his time, yet in our time freedom and the fight to preserve it and the Homeland seem to be of the most importance. The fight for freedom has always been an American ideal, and Tate did an excellent job in depicting how one man committed his whole life to it during the War of Northern Aggression. I stongly reccomend this book to all who desire to reap the truth, and who hold dear the Homeland.



3. In reading the book Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of piety, heroism, chivallry, and a true champion of American values. That is to say, General Jackson was a fighter for freedom and the homeland: something which is highly regarded in today's day and age. Tate expressed this idea even when he wrote it 76 years ago. Therefore, I strongly reccomend this book to all who value the American ideal: the fight for freedom.



4. In reeading the book Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of piety, heroism, chivallry, and a true champion of American values. That is to say, General Jackson was a fighter for freedom and the homeland a value which is highly regarded in today's day and age. Tate expressed this idea even when he wrote it 76 years ago. Therefore, I strongly reccomend this book to all who value the American ideal: the fight for freedom.



5. Allen Tate wrote "Stonewall Jackson" in 1927 with the intent of restoring some historical reality to the fading memory of the War for Southern Independence. He accomplished his goal, but the book seems better in retrospect as a whole than it did while reading it page by page. Tate used what to me was an odd, choppy style of writing that slightly complicated the story he was telling. He clearly admired Jackson, and after reading his book my admiration and knowldge of Jackson have improved. Stonewall Jackson is one of America's great heroes for good reason. Even members of the Union Army cheered him when the opportunity presented itself near Fredericksburg. As Tate points out, Jackson was a man of principle on and off the battlefield. From his impoverished childhood to his ever-improving performance at West Point there was no way to foretell the height of fame Jackson would gain in the War for Southern Independence. His performance in the War with Mexico was limited to garrison duty for the most part. When in battle he distinguished himself, but other officers had shown more brightly for a longer period of time in more battles. Tate reveals the eccentricities of Jackson in subtle ways that leave you wondering what was going on in Jackson's head. He clearly baffled the forces sent against him in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, but many of his own soldiers were equally baffled. It took some time for his subordinates to develop a deep and abiding respect for General Jackson, but after he lead them to numerous victories against superior forces the bond was established that lasted until his untimely death. One of the great contradictions in Jackson's life was his steadfast Christian beliefs contrasted with his unrelenting will to destroy the enemy on the battlefield. For example, Tate mentions an exchange between Jackson and his chief surgeon when the surgeon inquired, "How shall we ever cope with the overwhelming numbers of the enemy?" After a long pause Jackson replied, "Kill them, sir! Kill every man." It was that strength of will that helped make Jackson the hero that he was and is. His loss at Chancellorsville to "friendly fire" was one more nail in the coffin of the Confederacy. It is, perhaps, inevitable that one should speculate about events at Gettysburg had General Lee had his "right arm" leading a Corps. This book gives the most plausible answer to what Jackson meant at the moment of his death when he said, "Let's cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees." Curiously, the answer is at the start of the book, not the end. Allen Tate wrote a good book about a great man that is well worth reading.

1 comments about Edward the Black Prince: Power in Medieval Europe (The Medieval World).

1. This book attempts to place the life of the Black Prince in context with the rapid changes in Continental politics.The book is a success and is very readable,interpretive,(and short).There is also a chapter on the Black Prince's wife which was very interesting.She may have had as much influence as her husband Edward,although she is scarcely mentioned in other works on the Black Prince."The hand that rocks the cradle"?.
   There's also a chapter on the different types of plague which reduced Europe's population by as much as a third during this period.It would seem that the plaque actually gave the laborer/artisans more political clout,so possibly the plague was if not a good thing then maybe not a totally bad one.
   Also included is the Black Prince involvement in Parlaimentary shennanigans.Often royalty would side with the Commons against the Lords,and this took courage because a wrong move could send one to the block.
   A great chapter on the evolution of new weapons and their uses which put an end to chivalry somewhat.The author defines chivalry as a "code of violence",when and to whom to apply it.The long bow made the armored stampede cavalry charge obsolete.Joe the Butcher develops his muscle strength to "draw to the ear",by chopping meats.He overcomes the noble night Jean de(put your French surnames here),who has never been defeated in tournament.Jeans exquisite manners are overcome by Joe's creature noises.the world's turned upside down.

3 comments about Here At The New Yorker.

1. The New Yorker magazine is an acquired taste. It does have plenty of advertisements but the founding and the development of this timeless magazine over the first 50 years since it's inception in February 1921 is an historical and amazing accomplishment. To know the New Yorker, you must learn to love the New Yorker. We look forward to those Letters from Paris, London, Rome, Warsaw, Cologne, Cracow, Naples, Milan whenever we can since many of us don't get to go there often enough. Contributors have become literary phenomenon's like J.D. Salinger, Charles Addams, Janet "Genet" Flanner, E.B. White, James Thurber, William Shawn, John Updike, Harold W. Ross, Robert Benchley, Truman Capote, Dorothy Parker, Brendan Gill, and many more to mention. Brenda Gill's book is a testament to his devotion and adoration of the New Yorker when magazines were major reading source of enlightenment, entertainment, and information all rolled into one.



2. It was interesting to read about the writers and editors who helped make The New Yorker a magazine of such distinction. I bought this book during that whole rage of last year when "Gone: The Last Days of The New Yorker" was all over the place. In the time since I read this book, I resubscribed to the magazine. Periodically, I read glimpses of the magazine's former glory in its pages. I don't think I could read "Gone," though. Even though I know The New Yorker is not as good as it once was, that doesn't mean I have to take a broom handle to it. That's why I found "Here at The New Yorker" great, pricisely because of its balance.



3. Having just read the new "About Town The New Yorker and the World it Made" I felt compelled to go back and reread Brendan Gill's memoirs of his days working for Harold Ross and William Shawn.

   Some critic called "Here at the New Yorker" "wonderful entertainment". That is wrong--this book does not entertain it probes. Granted there are some funny anecdotes and glances of writers like Scott Fitzgerald. But the book has a darker more serious side as well.

   I imagine that Brendan Gill has made many enemies with his book. He talked about Editor Harold Ross's racism and William Shawn's phobias. Of many he writers he either praises them or he says they did not produce much legible writing at all.

   But these dark character portraits are wonderfully written and penetrate deep. After reading Gill I think I can more carefully size up my peers. This one is a drunk never-do-well. That one works all day to keep away from his wife. Brendan Gill has the novelist's eye for detail.

2 comments about John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Freedom, 1937-1946.

1. The last part of Robert Skidelsky's magnificent biography of J.M. Keynes is a tale about the fall of the British Empire with Keynes as one of its most clairvoyant and active go-betweens trying to avoid the disaster. Great-Britain had won the war but it was bankrupt, crushed by its debt contracted to buy US weapons.
   This book shows clearly through its analysis of the Bretton-Woods negotiations and the discussions about the conversion of British debt, that the ultimate goal of the US Administration was to get Great-Britain on its knees and to take its place as world leader.
   The US preferred an alliance with te Soviet Union against Britain. Their most important negotiator H.D. White was a convinced Soviet spy.
   Keynes defended exhaustingly Britain's role in world matters by begging time for a reconversion of the British industry from a war to a civilian economy and for safeguarding its Commomwealth with its preferential tariff and pound sterling payment system.
   The humiliatig conditions for its debt conversion imposed by the US would cripple the British economy for years. The suicidal internecine European wars created a new world hegemon: the US.
   
   Before the war, Keynes defended his 'Treatise' policies, but saw them applied in Germany by a very clever economist, Hjalmar Schacht, who also saved the German economy internationally by creating a bilateral trade system.
   Prof. Skidelsky shows us also pregnantly the deterioration of Keynes's physical condition, aggravated by his exhausting travels, difficult (empty handed) negotiations and even hard opposition at home when he was in the US.
   
   One could perhaps slightly criticize the exhaustive excerpts of letters or the extremely detailed evolution of the negotiations in Bretton-Woods or about British debt relief. But, all in all, this is a fascinating read.



2. There was a time when John Maynard Keynes was not the most famous living economist. Then he was. Then, after he died, he seemed to be more useful than Karl Marx to anyone who was interested in how modern economies actually operate in the best times, when statistics actually reflect the level of some real activities. Two earlier biographies by Robert Skidelsky cover the years in which Keynes gained in stature and wrote his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), described by Joseph Schumpeter as "the dying voice of the bourgeois crying in the wilderness for the profits it dare not fight for." (FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM 1937-1946, p. 4). This final volume starts with the problems with his heart that, after ten years of making Keynes an invalid, deprived the world of his advice at a time when situations continued to change at a pace which needed someone to keep applying different aspects of the General Theory in time to keep most elements of society from feeling that they were being swindled. He never had enough power to make a miraculous demonstration of anything, but the spread of American wealth after World War Two made many professionals think that it was possible, if not already proved, that happy days could keep reappearing here again far more optimistically than Joseph Schumpeter's dour statement.

   Economics has become a science which is widely taught at a college level. Robert Skidelsky seems comfortable with writing about the political struggles involved, the nature of intellectual controversies in the field, and he is generous in his comments about Friedrich von Hayek, author of THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, and Milton Friedman, who emphasized other aspects of political economy. The years 1937-1946 had major problems of their own, and there is far more attention in FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM paid to the people that Keynes had contact with and responsibilities to. The Preface to the American Edition is dated 6 October, 2001. Already the author was prepared to apply a lesson of this book to our life and times:

   "To be reminded of the realities of alliance politics, even in the case of such close partners as Britain and the United States, is timely in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September, when the United States is working to construct a global coalition against terrorism. In 1940, it was British vulnerability which threw it into the arms of the United States. America did not fail its fellow-democracy; but also used the occasion to settle old scores, and secure pole position in the post-war international order." (p. xv).

   A major episode in this book recounts how an economic genius approaches the United States of America on behalf of a bankrupt country at the end of a big war to get debts pushed far enough into the future to be able to convince himself `If we don't make it by then, we're sunk anyway,' only to be asked why he didn't bring along the trade representatives. Countries which did not get involved in the current endless war might have leaders who read the British edition, which was published in 2000. Even at the beginning of this book, Keynes thought a government was foolish to commit itself to a war before the overwhelming mass of its people were convinced that the war was absolutely necessary, even after he felt that the Munich Agreement had been a pathetic trick.

   This book describes Keynes as being conservative, and the picture it paints of his legacy continues the tradition of maintaining a bias in favor of economic stability. The Truman-Eisenhower years had a durable mix. "Setting tax rates to achieve an employment target consistent with a low rate of inflation was properly Keynesian; . . . It was to keep inflation under control by methods which did not bring about the collapse of the secular boom." (p. 505).

   "However, U.S. fiscal restraint broke down in the 1960s. In 1962, the second-generation Keynesian economists who came in to office with President Kennedy were convinced that the long-predicted slump was at hand. A further stimulus to action was the quite unwarranted fear that the Soviet Union would win the Cold War economically and politically, without any need for a hot war. So the scene was set for the big Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and `Great Society' programmes." (p. 505).

   Economists might be familiar with the description of what followed, but the attempt to maintain a coherent theory is admirable when we get to: "Friedman's own attacks were launched from within Keynes's own macroeconomic citadel, but, by ruthlessly applying the maximizing logic to individual behavior, he gave two of the Keynesian `functions' -- the consumption function and the demand for money function -- properties of stability which they had lacked in their Keynesian form." (p. 506).

   The picture of the doctor responsible for treating Keynes's heart, James Plesch, is labeled "the doctor who brought JMK `back to life', and whom he called `the Ogre'." (facing page 166). This is a typically British nickname for a Jewish Hungarian who left Germany in 1933 and settled in England. (p. 40). The author and I suspect that he was more thorough than British doctors. "There is no reason to doubt Keynes's own view that it was Prontosil which had brought about his dramatic improvement. Unfortunately, it was subsequently discovered that Prontosil was effective against the green streptococci lodged in the throat but not against those already firmly established in the valves of his heart." (p. 43). He lived through World War Two. He was losing money in the stock market before the war, as some people must have realized that weird things were about to happen to the economy. Keynes died before some of the big changes that were afoot. The American dream in this book: "Henry Wallace, who had fallen asleep, woke up to ask why Britain could not trade Indian independence for a write-down of Indian debt." (p. 414).

5 comments about RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon.

1. I must first warn the reader that this book is 1000 page plus. Second, the 1000 plus pages are a great read. I won't write a very long review- 1) because I read this book over 2 years ago, and 2) I'll just go right to the main reasons why this book is great, 3) previous reviewers have good insight into the book for people who are considering reading this book and I've found their reviews well written.
   
   This book, unlike a few of the other presidential memoirs, begin with Nixon's birth to the end of his presidency. It spans his entire life before the Presidency, and his entire political career, not just his life in the White House. (Nixon begins the first chapter by saying "I was born in the house that my father built" or something to that effect). While Nixon wrote his first autobiography, Six Crisis, after losing his first bid for the White House to John F Kennedy- he repeats much of his explanations on the 6 crisis in this book as well.
   
   It is pretty fun following Nixon's career from Congress to the Vice Presidency to his bid for the White House, losing it, losing the California Gubnatorial (spelling?) race, his thoughts on the 1964 election and his life in the wilderness and then finally to the Presidency. I don't know if a ghost writer was used, but the book is very fluent and flows really well. It is not a tough read and reading it makes time pass well.
   
   Nixon doesnt spend too much time in great detail on unimportant aspects or policies, unlike some other presidential memoirs. His writing on the foreign policies that he took is great: the China trip is the highlight of this book. His discussions on the Vietnam War and the actions he took is extremely interesting. I am sure historians had great fun reading this book.
   
   Nixon goes on to describe very well why he started taping his own conversations on the phone and in the Oval Room. He begins by explaning how Lyndon Johnson showed him all the recording devices he kept.
   
   The book takes a downturn when Nixon begins to describe how he was completely innocent during and after the Watergate break-in. He goes onto extremely minute details to describe how he had absolutely no idea about the break-in and how he was in the dark for a long time after the fiasco. While Bill Clinton takes the blame full on to himself for the Monica Lewinsky scandal and admits guilt in his book, MY LIFE, Nixon uses various tactics and scenarios to indicate how he knew nothing. The descriptions go on and on, confusing the reader as to what the hell is happenning. But even when he goes on to begin describing the incident(s), it becomes obviously clear that he knew and was involved in the cover-up and the illegal actions that he took. He quickly skips over the part where the 23 minute (was it 23?I cant remember) is deleted and blames it on his secretary. Reading this book proved to me that Nixon was guilty.
   
   After I read the book, I was very fascinated by President Nixon. I watched Oliver Stone's movie 4 times in over 5 years. Nixon was definitely a complex character. He indeed was a man who could easily have been a great man. I do feel sorry for him; and am happy that by the time he passed away, he regained much of his stature - although as Nixon himself admitted, he will always be remembered for Watergate. As I mentioned above, after reading this book, I've become very interested in all things Nixon, like his movie, his other books, articles about him, his relationship to other Presidents, other world leaders and Henry Kissinger- and also on what they thought about him (Gerald Ford - "Sometimes I don't know why I pardoned the bastard"). For the political geek- this book is definitely a must read.



2. It was risky business for Nixon to write an autobiography for at least a couple of reasons. First, his many detractors would clearly be quick to jump on any discrepancies in the work. Second, as more and more classified information is released by the government, Nixon stood to become a well-documented liar, assuming that there were a few stretchers herein -- and Nixon would have known that such information would be forthcoming someday. Still, he had the brass to write it, and it's a darn fine book.
   
   This autobiography is somewhat unusual in that, not only did Nixon write the book, he also wrote IN to the book, even though he, himself, may not have realized this. In other words, we can tell a LOT about Nixon just by reading between the lines of this one. We can detect when he felt adversarial about someone (the media, for example), and we get a clear feel for some of his well-known (and often well-deserved) paranoia.
   
   Some will bluntly say that Nixon was a crook. Perhaps this is correct but he was an incredibly intelligent and complex man and many positive initiatives were achieved during his long tenure as U.S. President. Of course, he covers all these events in the book and we get a feeling of having the inside scoop for having read about them in this work. So, really, this volume is an excellent "history book" for the era that it covers (essentially, the period from Nixon's birth up through the Watergate affair).
   
   Probably the most profound facet of "R.N." that I picked up on was that Nixon was a huge patriot. He fostered incredibly strong beliefs in manifesting his visions for a great America -- of course, his facilitation of some of those ideas is what got him into trouble.
   
   Nixon remained necessarily vague in certain details of the Watergate scandal and a few cracks in his story have already emerged as a direct result of Privacy Act releases. No doubt, a few more will be forthcoming. But honestly, many of these "events" are simply a matter of perspective, Nixon's paradign versus that of his enemies. In these cases, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
   
   I most enjoyed reading about Nixon and his family as he grew up which is a large portion of the book. Nixon was a hard worker and, frankly, I admire his achievement of becoming President, since he was one of the few who made this life-leap, absent a silver spoon.
   
   I read MANY books (3 a week for years) and "R.N." is one of the top 20 books I've ever read and it's in the top 5 of my non-fiction list. Don't be put off by politics in this instance -- this tome of an autobiography is a real page-turner and well-done.



3. what this man did was wrong in terms of his involvement and his support of bullying in the whitehouse. This man was seen as one of the most liberal presidents and founded the Environmental Protection agengy as well as food stamps and strove to implement far reaching welfare reforms. He did many things we equivocate with democratic setbacks, and we have to wonder how much the nation suffered. He tried to protect himself under the presidency: Was he attacked? The FBI tried to sheild us from this man, and we have to wonder where the balance lies. Surely this man did great things perhaps as no president has done after him for social reform. Much to ponder. In later years, he confessed to wrongdoing and advised several presidents without want of attention or credit.I tend to like Mr. Nixon, but tend also to grieve his past actions against the war demonstrators in terms of actions he could not implement as he did not have the support of the FBI. The problem was the wire tapping of journalists, and the breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get info on one of the journalists who oppose Nixon. Yes,much to think about. Am I bothered by racial remarks he's made on tape when he tried to institute the largest welfare program since FDR saved us from the depression? Save for perhaps Kennedy..No. I think his actions counterbalance the remarks he's made. The wiretapping and the break in are his shame, more so the wiretapping as I'm not sure about the extent of the involvement he had in that. I enjoy Mr. Nixon's attempt to guide the nation via advice of succeeding presidents and look forward to reading thE progressive social policy that's in his seven books.



4. I read it twenty-five years ago and just read it again. Fast paced until he gets bogged down in justifying his actions in Watergate. Nixon was an excellent writer, but his self-justification requires you to read other bios of the 37th President. From Jerry Vorhis to Alger Hiss to John Dean, a great take on postwar American history by someone who was there.



5. Nixon became president the month I was born and had left the scene before I became politically aware. Nobody spoke of him during the 70's, or of Johnson for that matter - they belonged to a past era which nobody much wanted to revisit, and so I knew very little about either of them as a kid or teen.
   
   By resigning Nixon had admitted at least some guilt in the vast number of things he was accused of and his abdication was a political cataclysm. Through my childhood years he lived out his old age as a pariah off in San Clemente, California, the personification of the period of enormous turbulence during the height of the Vietnam war. He was the living embodiment of the dark heart and excess of the GOP, and everyone, especially in Democratic Massachusetts, considered him a cancer on the body politic and was happy he was gone.
   
   But his resignation was sincere and he was mostly contrite. In retirement he was a sad old giant in exile and after a while the Press which had hounded him out of office allowed him some dignity as an elder statesman and left him alone.
   
   He's nothing like the caricature I expected. I have to say - I really like him. He's very thoughtful, well spoken, modest, with good intentions towards the country and had a warm, respectful dialogue with the major statesmen and characters of the day.
   
   It's a beautifully written book. It was easy to see how he had become a leader. He had the air of solid, calm composure and reasonableness which I admire. As for doublespeak tendencies, the clues are missing for someone who didn't live through that time period.
   
   The contrast with Bush could not be more clear. Maybe the candor came from Nixon's retirement, but I can't imagine Bush being this straight and honest with his audience. POTUS 43 isn't smart or eloquent enough to write this kind of book, and he's too secretive to make that leap of trust with the little people to allow them into his mind.
   
   Of course Nixon was at least as bad as Bush - he was famous for having a blind-spot as big as a barn, which one can see in his writing. Despite the resignation, he wasn't entirely remorseful - he saw himself as the victim of many media conspiracies and other antagonists, both real and imagined. But Nixon has the breadth of worldview and honesty with himself, and by extension the reader, to allow us into his world.
   
   His dark tendencies had other origins. In an era when 30 soldiers were being killed in Vietnam every single day - over ten times the volume of Iraq - and the world convulsing in protest and chaos around them, Nixon's lieutenants and were just brutalized by their environment and lost their sense of direction and fought back with every realpolotik' weapon and dirty trick they could imagine.
   
   Nixon himself is much too close to the action to see how complicit he was - and as the leader he was de-facto fully culpable. But he did take responsibility resign over it - so if it is noble to forgive, then he deserves some rest.
   
   My folks on the other hand strongly disliked Nixon because they thought the GOP machine had sabotaged all the moderate Democratic primary candidates, leaving only Muskie and worse, McGovern, who were far too weak and radical. So he had effectively dismantled the American democratic process - even aside from the Watergate bugging and coverup. Nixon's Southern Strategy of making the GOP a safe place for whites upset by the Civil Rights movement, is still the dominant fault-line in American politics.
   
   Now, after the cancer has been lanced and we have survived him, Nixon's transgressions feel like water long past under the bridge. I'm only sad and sorry that he passed away. He was a wise, complex man and this book shows that his shadow is still very large.

5 comments about John Hancock: Merchant King and American Patriot.

1. His name is known to all, being a common part of the vernacular and synonymous with ones signature, yet, he remains largely unknown to history other than the placement of his signature upon our Declaration of Independence. The mysterious identity that is John Hancock is well presented here in JOHN HANCOCK: MERCHANT KING AND AMERICAN PATRIOT by Harlow Giles Unger. This is perhaps, singly, the most informative tome to date on Hancock's life and career, yet is not without criticism.
   
   Unger deftly replicates all the trappings of a good biography here, beginning with a good genealogy of the Hancock family and their path to prominence and prosperity, at least for parts of the family. The occurrences which set into motion, John Hancock's life being dramatically altered by being taken under the care of his childless and wealthy Uncle Thomas and Aunt Lydia, are well documented here. The book goes on to lend a credible chronicle of Hancock's life; his rise to wealth and prominence, his early involvement with the Sons of Liberty, his entrance and influence in the political spectrum, which covered the last three decades of his life and the many struggles, both politically and personally, of Hancock's life. Unger takes particular care to illustrate Hancock's benevolence to the less fortunate.
   
   Though I have a lot to say in favor of this book, there is also much to take exception with. For example, Unger, himself a correspondent for the London Times Herald and overtly unsympathetic to the Colonialists cause, states that Gen. Amherst's plan to send smallpox laden blankets to the Indians in 1863 was rejected, however, Amherst himself admitted in a private letter that infected blankets had indeed been a part of the British arsenal put into use against Pontiac and the Indians. Unger also continuously and viciously attacks revolutionary advocates such as James Otis, Patrick Henry and, in particular, Samuel Adams, who is the recipient of endless attacks of vitriolic banter throughout the book. Though the relationship between Hancock and Adams was strained, the authors' incessant loathing of Adams eventually detracts from the overall work.
   
   These shameless attacks diminish this otherwise valuable resource that accurately touches on an endless array of historically significant events, such as early disputes on the issue of slavery, Benjamin Church's betrayal of the patriot cause, and John Dickenson's invaluable dissertation on the Townsend Acts, just to name a few. Overall, I believe this a worthy read, accurate on most accounts, but would have been far better had Unger saddled his disdain for the patriot cause.
   
   John Hancock is certainly worthy of the praise of a grateful nation and a man we tend to know little about and often, overlook completely for his sacrifice and dedication to the liberty of the states. Perhaps in the near future, publishers will see fit to provide us with a more balanced biography on this great patriot, but until then, this book will have to suffice as the best source available.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com



2. Perhaps my expectations were set too high by the biography I read on Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I found Unger's book on John Hancock easy to read, interesting, but lacking of facts and objectivity. I got the impression that the author did not like any of the people involved in the American Revolution. Is this author a Tory? His descriptions of people and things were often shallow and repetitive. For example...Unger used the description of a livered carriage with four horses for Hancock throughout the book many, many times, but does not describe once what this really means. How many servants were working the carriage? Were they slaves? Were they in uniform? If so, what colors? How fancy? The book does not describe in much detail the relationships Hancock has with other founders other than Sam Adams whom he paints extremely negatively.
   
   Plus, Unger gets at least one important historical fact wrong. Here's what I got from Isaacson's book: John Hancock, declared at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together." To which, Ben Franklin replied, "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In Unger's book, he attributes the first quote to Franklin not Hancock and omits the second quote all together - which is the famous line!
   
   It just seems to me the author was sloppy in research and lazy in writing this book. If you can't find anything else about Hancock, then the information is interesting - I did find out that the Declaration was signed by one person - Hancock for the first month of its existence and that they created 13 originals - one for each state. It's a very quick read, but don't rely on this book as the final answer on what went on during the Revolution.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. My own ancestor Major Reuben Colburn, a patriot from Pittston, Maine was a close friend and business associate of Hancock. While his Maine dealings are only mentioned in passing by Mr. Unger, his research is impeccable and after all the story is, and has to be, told from Hancock's point of view. This is what he was doing during the formulation of our country in legal form. It was surprisingly anti-Adams but I believe this is normal in competition for fame, ideas and recognition both then and now.

   General Washington and Benedict Arnold employed Colburn to supply and lead a 1100-man army to capture Quebec City in 1775. The mission failed and Colburn was stuck with the bill. He died broke as did Hancock. John Hancock was beloved in New England and Unger portays this with great accuracy and flair. He was big in our family, staying at Colburn House when in Maine seeing to his landholdings. One of Colburn's few surviving letters is addressed to Hancock from Pittston in 1786.

   Hopefully my new book "Patriot On The Kennebec: Major Reuben Colburn and the March To Quebec 1775: His Life and Times," will join this one on a new mission to educate the public about our collective roots as Americans. Both men risked everything to start America, and to them we owe everything.




4. So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

   His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

   So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

   But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".




5. events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.

5 comments about Forty Ways to Look at JFK.

1. I was not familiar with the small details life of JFK, and this book presenting a lot that maybe didn't explain his public actions as much as gave me a new way to look at the man. It's not a conventional biography - read at least an encyclopedia article first. The author captures different angles of his life in each chapter, using a variety of techniques. I found it an engaging read and recommend it to anyone who wants to think about JFK and really a time and slice of elite America, perhaps. A lot of the book seeks to understand why JFK captures so much imagination and generated so much excitement. I think the author succeeds in this.



2. Forty Ways to look at JFK provides the reader with an easy to use format. In addition, the book can be kept for future reference. Ms. Rubin offers the reader the good and the bad as well as the funny.



3. The "40 ways" format allows you to skip around and read the chapters in any order as opposed to reading them chronologically. This book is more accessible to the average reader who would might struggle with a more conventional biography.



4. I read Ms. Rubin's Churchill book and loved the fresh way to examine an oft-examined leader. She does the same with Kennedy, and it's as entertaining and insightful as the first book. I'm a Churchill fanatic, so Kennedy as a person is less enthralling to me, but Ms. Rubin circles him as a subject nicely, looking at Kennedy from angles that let you get a firm grip in your mind of not only what he was like as a human, but what it was like to be around him. This is worth the read.



5. In my view, Gretchen Rubin is the single most insightful and thoughtful writers about important historical figures, and how people interact in society, who has come along in many years. Her understanding of how historically signficant people became that way is unmatched. In bringing her attention to JFK, Ms. Rubin faces the additional challenge of discussing JFK's relationship with people every bit as complex and interesting as he (specifically, his wife, his father and his brother). Her "40 ways" approach cuts directly to the important questions of history and character, argues clearly both sides of the question, and provides a prospective unavailable elsewhere.
   
   Ms. Rubin does not shrink from discussing the salacious details of JFK's life, and presents both adverse and favorable qualities in fair perspective. She allows the reader to form their own opinions, but gently presents her own at the end. (Frankly, her view surprised me.)
   
   Ms. Rubin's book once again presents a complex, contradictory life with extraordinary clarity. In total, the book is a fast, clear, sophisticated read that goes very quickly and leaves you with much to think about.

5 comments about SCTV: Behind the Scenes.

1. I felt this book was missing the overall essense of what SCTV was all about. Few anecdotes on how characters were created and developed. Not all of the SCTV cast participated, which was a letdown.
   
   Unfortunately, I stopped reading after 3/4 of the way through.



2. In the pantheon of televised comedy, "SCTV" (or "Second City Television") is often cited as a little-seen but much-praised example of the heights of creative brilliance. In "SCTV: Behind the Scenes", former cast member Dave Thomas sifts through his memory bank to recount the tale of the little Melonville station that could.
   
   Now for the disclaimer: I haven't seen all that much of SCTV. NBC did a fair job of running reruns of the show a few years back, but I saw very little of it. I was interested in purchasing the DVD box sets when they first came out simply on word-of-mouth, but the price tags scared me off. So this is my first real look at the show...in a book form.
   
   Back to the review: Dave Thomas recounts the highs and lows of performing cutting-edge sketch comedy at a time when "Saturday Night Live" was gradually becoming the very "showbiz variety" program it had set out to mock. Beginning in 1976, and coming to an end eight years (and several network changes) later, the show was much-heralded but little-seen stateside during its prime. Only in the aftermath of its final Cinemax season, when the various cast members began turning up in a variety of comedy productions, did the show earn a small but cultish audience.
   
   The book starts with Thomas revealing how the show was born from the talents of various stage performers like himself, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Joe Flaherty, Andrea Martin, and others. Thomas proceeds to document the various behind-the-scenes struggles that the cast went through with producers and directors, and networks. From its lowly birth to the expansion to the States and going from a half-hour to a full ninety minutes (the "Network 90" version that most people remember when they think of SCTV), Thomas lets the reader in on all the various ups-and-downs that he and the rest of the cast went through to maintain creative control. In a time when producers like Lorne Michaels or Fred Silverman dictated the content, SCTV was unique in having control and final say on the direction of the show.
   
   Unlike its more popular peer SNL, SCTV was not littered with drug problems that picked off cast members ala Belushi or Farley. But they did suffer a big loss years later; Thomas provides a loving memorial to departed John Candy, the only one of the original cast who is not alive for interviews (the other absent voices, Levy and Martin, are thankfully very much alive; their absence is missed, but not necessary).
   
   Again, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on SCTV, but after reading this book and keeping in mind the comedians who got their start, I feel a little more in awe of what they managed to achieve far from the madding crowd of American television crassness.
   
   Thomas's is not the only voice heard, as various personalities associated with the show (writers, producers, directors, and the cast) share their own tales. The oral history of anything is bound to be fraught with inaccuracies or omitted memories, but the book is coherent on many main points.
   
   From analyzing how he and Rick Moranis became distanced from their castmates thanks to their alter egos Doug and Bob McKenzie, all the way to what the cast are doing now (or "now" as in 1997, when the book was published), Dave Thomas shares memories and lets us in on the way SCTV worked. The result is a loving look back at what many of the cast members feel was their best work. I'll leave that to the more experienced SCTV fanatic to determine that, but for my money "SCTV: Behind The Scenes" is a worthy tribute.



3. SCTV is starting to get it's due with this book and the release of the DVd collections. Dave Thomas, a founding member of the troup, brings in just about everyone involved in the show to give their 2-cents worth. The book is very comprehensive taking the reader through many of the groups sketches from the original concept idea to the finished sketch. It really is a must read for fans of the show because of the input from cast members and producers, and director and even the hair and makeup talent. My only reason for the four stars and not five stars is the fact that very little attention was paid to the final Cinemax season , which was without Dave Thomas. I guess this is natural, but the final season is given a real short-change treatment and none of the better sketeches are covered in much detail. The book is loaded with pictures and and a per-show sketch budget. very good read.



4. This sat on my "wish list" for quite a while because it was unavailable. However, it recently was restocked here at Amazon, and I suspect that it was because of the upcoming release of the first set of DVDs of the show. Well, the wait was worth it, and the timing great! Can't wait to get the DVDs even more now after reading Dave's very interesting, very well produced book. The human stories, the business insights, as well as the hilarious recantings of many legendary skits come together perfectly here. I only wished there were more direct quotes from Eugene and Andrea. It seems Andrea was the most inaccessible, perhaps because of some bad blood between she and Dave (?).

   Any true fan of SCTV owes it to themselves to read this book. Very interesting. Very funny.




5. For years, I'd been waiting for some kind of compendium of SCTV trivia or a chronology of shows, and when this book came out, I had to buy it.

   It's missing commentary from a few of the principal cast members, but overall, well worth the investment. The insight into that one episode with Sir Ralph Richardson and Sir John Gielgud alone is worth it, and it's got a well-balanced view of the show from the producers, to the cast, to the production department, make-up artists, etc.

   It's a tragedy that this brilliant show hasn't been put on DVD just yet, but it will. SCTV was far more irreverent than SNL, and much cleverer than Monty-Python, not to mention more prolific. Until then, pick this up as an SCTV primer.