5 comments about Jane Austen: A Life.

1. Noticing that one review was very caustic of this book, I would like to say that I thought it was very well written - especially considering that there is very little documentation to go on. I found the author's explanation of child-rearing, at that time, very interesting. I did not feel that she was trying to put it into perspective to "today's standards", as one reviewer wrote.
   
   What was really fascinating, to me, was the difference in what her family lifestyle was like - compared to what her books portrayed. I realize books and plots are just that - but the lives and atmosphere was definitely not as "dark" as a lot of her own was. Just fascinating.
   
   I think she would have been an interesting person to have met because I came away with the impression that she wasn't really the "private" person her brothers and other family made her out to be. Sounds like she had quite a wit - biting at that.
   
   Anyway, thanks to the author for writing this and doing a great job with little documentation.



2. A book with a panaroma view and lots of details about not only Jane herself, but also her direct family (sometimes even including her neighbours and her parents' cousins). Found it extremely useful in learning about Jane's experience as a woman living in the Georgian England. A page-turner indeed! Strongly recommend it!



3. 1997's "Jane Austen: A Life" is Claire Tomalin's highly readable, even dramatic account of the life of the popular romance novelist. Jane Austen left little for her future biographers beyond her published novels and some surviving letters and manuscripts. Tomalin addresses Jane in the context of her large and interesting family and their Hampshire friends and relatives. The result doesn't necessarily add a great deal to our limited store of knowledge about Jane Austen; it does provide some interesting insights into her context, and should bury forever any concerns about the source of Austen's acute understanding of human nature or the material for her novels.
   
   The good news about "Jane Austen: A Life" is that Claire Tomalin is a gifted writer and her book will be a page-turner for many fans. Tomalin has done her extensive research. In addition, Tomalin is not shy about speculating when it comes to the signficant gaps in our knowledge of Austen's life. Her speculation is generally reasonable and plausible, and almost always fascinating to read. It is less clear how much of the book is reasonable inference from the limited record and how much edges toward historical fiction.
   
   Tomalin includes her own literary criticism on Jane Austen's various works. This criticism is frankly hit or miss. Her comments on "Lady Susan" highlight its unusual leading character. Her analysis of the novel fragment "The Watson" explains why Jane Austen never finished it. However, she unfairly slights one of the main characters in "Sense and Sensibility", misreads the fate of Mr. Wickham and Lydia in "Pride and Prejudice", and perhaps misses the point of "Mansfield Park." Readers familiar with Jane Austen's novels can draw their own conclusions.
   
   Jane Austen is as vivid as Claire Tomalin can make her in this biography, a clever, acutely observant woman who must on occasion have been a little intimidating in person. She is very much a family person, at the beck and call of brothers, cousins, nieces and nephews all her life. We come to appreciation for how difficult Austen's life was after her father died. Her failure to marry lfet her, her spinster sister Cassandra, and her widowed mother in genteel poverty, dependent on support from her brothers and with few choices about where and how they would live. Unfortunately, Jane's writing did not begin to produce real income before her early death in 1817.
   
   "Jane Austen: A Life" is highly recommended as an interesting, even dramatic biography. The book includes an excellent selection of portraits of Jane Austen's family members. It is perhaps ironic that the one verified portrait of Jane Austen in life was said by her family to be inadequate, just as the person behind the novels continues to be elusive to biographers and fans alike.



4. Claire Tomalin in Jane Austen: A Life really delivers a wonderful story, not just a boring listing of events from the author's life. I've used this book for research before, and finally decided to buy it for my own collection and read it just for fun. I recommend this to anyone that has been curious about the author's life or any serious Janite.



5. Claire Tomalin is one of the foremost biographers in the world today, in an exclusive group that includes Peter Ackroyd, David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and a few others. Having read and thoroughly enjoyed her recent books on Samuel Pepys and Thomas Hardy, I purchased this book to look at one of Tomalin's older works. I also knew next to nothing about Jane Austen. I was not disappointed on either count. The book is outstanding, and I am currently in love with Jane Austen.
   Jane Austen was a brilliant, witty, unsentimental woman who led a remarkably unremarkable life. One expects great writers to live dramatic lives, but this just isn't true in Austen's case. She had written her first three novels by age 24, but wouldn't publish them or write another for ten years. She would never get rich off of her writings.
   Though she certainly drew on characters and scenes in her own life, much of Miss Austen's novels come from her vivid imagination. For instance, Jane Austen didn't socialize with the rich upper crust, but many of her books are about them.
   It seems Jane was a bit of a tomboy as a youth, and her high intelligence and biting wit often intimidated potential suitors. She was apparently in love only once, and this didn't work out. So she became, like her sister Cassandra with whom she was very close, a spinster. At least she was able, in her thirties, to support herself through her writings.
   Jane Austen died young, at age 41. Thus her life, her career, and Claire Tomalin's biography end prematurely. But as Jane Austen herself wrote, "If a book is well-written, I always find it too short."
   This book ended too soon. It is a beautifully written biography, highly recommended.

5 comments about Andy Warhol: Giant Size.

1. Bought as a gift for a 21st birthday. Will be a memory that he can keep for a long time with a personal message on the inside front cover.
   
   Great gift idea! Would highly recommend



2. This is a real great (and large ;-) ) book with beatiful reproductions of Andy Warhol. My children love to go through it. It was also for sale on the Warhol exhibition in the "Stedelijk Museum" in Amsterdam last year.



3. My daughter is 24 years old and she is an aspiring artist. Andy Warhol is her very favorite. I got her this book for Christmas and it is her most favorite thing. She says that the detail that it has is facinating and compelling. One word of advice though...it is one HEAVY book so make sure that you are in a comfortable place to support it while you are reading.



4. Definitely worth the money!
   
   I've recently got into andy warhol and this is the second book i have by him. The book has stunning portraits/photographs/art thats what i love about andy warhol everything is unique and different.I wasn't sure what to expect with this book however i'm glad that I purchased it.
   
   You also might want to check out "Men - Andy Warhol"



5. Fantastic pictorial book...worth every penny. If you are a fan of Warhol, this is the book to own. Great prints of Andy's work from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - including rare prints. You won't be disappointed - it is all here. The dimensions are impressive at 17" x 13" x 2 1/2", and it makes for a beautiful coffee table book that you will be proud to display. The pictures are sharp, both in color and b&w, and many are full-page, including pics of Andy and Edie. Outstanding!

5 comments about Mary Queen of Scots.

1. Overall, this is a well-written and well-researched biography, although not objective enough about its subject. I appreciated the beautiful writing and the thorough scholarship of this book, although in the end I could not share the author's unqualified admiration for Mary Queen of Scots.
   
   Ms. Fraser presents enough evidence to convince me that Mary probably was not involved beforehand in her second husband Darnley's murder, and that the infamous Casket Letters were probably forgeries or interpolations of other letters. She was certainly not prepared by her French upbringing to deal with the problems she found in Scotland, and was very ill-served by the brutal Scottish lords there, including her own half-brother.
   
   However, Mary apparently did willingly marry her husband's murderer, which cost her the love of her subjects; willingly fled to England even though she knew she was seen as a rival to Queen Elizabeth's throne; and later on became involved in conspiracies in England to overthrow Elizabeth, which virtually forced Elizabeth to have her executed. Even Ms. Fraser cannot explain away these naive and reckless actions, although she tries. Her bias towards her subject is rather obvious. I also shared other readers' frustration with the many untranslated French and Latin phrases, which slows down the reading for those of us not fluent in those languages.



2. amazing book makes you feel as if you want to be in that world most touching and amazingly well written with no bias and no dodgy facts very good choice of language



3. Before this book, I'd only just gotten started on my Mary Stuart research, having only read two "semi-biographies"(Mary and Elizabeth by Jane Dunn & Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Darnley) of her. I was hesitant about buying the book because I read the reviews of it on here and it sounded ugly. But I'm very glad I did buy it, because now I am much, much better informed on the subject of Mary than before.
   
   I'm an Antonia Fraser fan, and this book is written in her usual poetic and heart-warming style. She is, I'd have to say, among my favorite historical biographers. She is clearly very passionate about her subject and I was able to sympathize with Mary throughout. Likewise, she is very good about referencing unlike her counterpart Alison Weir.
   
   I'd have to disagree with the reviewers who said this book made Mary out to be saintly. She is portrayed, in my opinion, as sweet and strong, but by no means perfect. There were times in the bio when I thought she was extremely foolish, and often times I was out and out annoyed by her. I agreed with Fraser's conclusion that Mary probably did not try kill her second husband, Henry Darnley and that it was a political set-up. I also agree with her about the Casket Letters. I'm on the fence about Bothwell. I think many of his actions are not at odds with a rapist and abductor. Likewise, I don't see how or why he would proceed to murder Darnley and just hope that Mary would marry him, which could mean prompt execution or life imprisonment. But I didn't mark this against Fraser, because I'm still trying to figure out what I feel on the subject, and also because she convincingly argued her side.
   
   
   I do take issue with a few slender things in the book. For one, I love Fraser's style, but I did find her constant use of footnotes distracting*. And I definitely agree with the reviewers who said it was biased against Elizabeth. Some of the commentary, such as sharp jabs at Elizabeth's beauty and lifestyle, were entirely editorial and completely uncalled for. Fraser degraded Elizabeth so hard at times that I felt her case for Mary might have been a little too weak. I've read several books on Elizabeth and none so far have made petty, out of place remarks about Mary and rightly so. Both were interesting, incredible women and one need not be knocked down at the expense of the other. This bio would have gotten five stars had there been a little more objectivity.
   
   
   
   
   
   *Most of them I felt could have been worked conveniently into the narrative.



4. Antonia Fraser's book, Mary Queen of Scots, is very readable and entertaining. However, the author's "hero-worship" of Mary and low opinion of English Queen Elizabeth I rings out loud and clear. Fraser makes history come alive; just be aware that this is her version of history.



5. Antonia Fraser's first biography still stands as one of her best. This is a sympathetic look at Mary who at a young age was used as a political pawn, raised not to be "Queen of the Scots" but to be Queen of France. After the Dauphin died, she eventually returned to Scotland as a stranger to the culture and religion of her native land. Though a strong women, she was easily led astray by her passions and her advisors. Her cousin Elizabeth I, offered Mary shelter after she was forced to abdicate her Scottish thrown. Instead of shelter, Elizabeth held her prisoner moving her from place to place to isolate her as much as possible. This is the first great read from Fraser.

5 comments about Fugitive Days: A Memoir.

1. I'm intrigued by what a person that commits terrorism might be thinking, particularly if they are still not completely repentant about it. I think that by understanding their thinking, we can better understand how to stop acts of terror. It doesn't help to just close our eyes and pretend that bad things can't happen through just wishing things were different. It's helpful to have people like Ayers write about their experiences, even if we don't agree with them. I also feel that if you aren't comfortable supporting him, you could check this out at the library.



2. It isn't like Bill Ayers is reformed. He still believes in what he did--his age is holding him back from creating more mayhem. He didn't set bombings only on buildings like the book aserts... he made pipe bombs coated with nails (anti-personnel bombs) set in public places to go off during times the building would be occupied. His terror cell killed several police officers in these bombing and a Brinks guard during a robbery. This coward hid in saftey while his girl friend and 2 other cell members were blown up and killed assembling one of his "nail bombs" destined for a Fort Dix dance! He was not convicted of his crimes because the Gov't caught him through illegal wire taps and the case was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct. On leaving the court room he said, "I am guilty and free--isn't America great!?" He also hasn't changed... on 9/11/2001 he was interviewed and asked about the bombing and said, "I don't regret setting bombs." On his blog, when asked if he is sorry he states, "I'm sorry--I think." Don't spend your money... he leaves out many details of his crimes stating, "...some details cannot be told." (He can still be sued by the familes of his victims). Please don't buy...



3. Bill Ayers is frustratingly vague on the specifics, hazy on the details of his life, his motives, and what compelled him to transform himself from an ordinary college student into a radical activist and leader of the Weather Underground, a group that took their protests to violent extremes.
   
   Ayers expresses little regret for his actions, including his part in the bombing of the Pentagon. What few Americans may realize is that the early 1970's, the country was terrorized from within, by daily bomb threats and actual devices that were planted in public places. Ayers dismisses these fears, explaining that the bombs hidden by his group were always revealed in advance by telephone calls placed to the media and also to local police. This doesn't make his crimes any less violent, dangerous and disturbing.
   
   Don't waste a dime buying this book. Check it out from the library or steal it, to paraphrase both Abbie Hoffman and an earlier reviewer of this book.



4. In writing about his life, Ayers attempts to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"! He wants his audience to "see" his self-centered, pathetic, useless, violent, criminal life as some sort of heroic journey. Ayers fails.
   
   However, Ayers may succeed in convincing many people that they should NOT vote for Obama to be president. After Ayers got almost $50 million in funds from the Annenberg foundation for a project to try and improve the schools in Chicago, Obama was chosen around 1995 to head the committee that administered the use of the Annenberg funds. Five years later the funds were almost gone and the schools that got the Annenberg funds weren't doing any better than the schools that didn't get the funds. Note: (1) Obama clearly knew and worked with Ayers for several years, even though Obama claims Ayers is just a guy in the neighborhood. (2)As chairman of the committee spending the $50 million, Obama demonstrated that he was incompetent as an agent of successful positive change. The more people learn about Ayers and his relationship with Obama, the less they will consider voting for Obama.
   
   While reading his book, I kept trying to understand why Ayers became a domestic terrorist. I suspect being a middle child of five children he needed to find some way to be noticed, so he became a rebel and did poorly in school while his two older siblings were scholastic stars. His parents finally sent him to a private school, but he continued his "rebel" role. The anti-war movement was a perfect group for Ayers to find drugs, free sex, feelings of power, and a cause to rebel against. Ayers never mentioned considering any non-violent means of protesting, he went straight to using bombs. He also never mentioned considering protesting against any of the most evil and destructive governments in the world, such as Communist China and Communist Russia.
   
   Ayers wrote that the Weatherman always phoned and warned people before they set off bombs. Ayers neglected to mention that his girlfriend's Weathermen cell was responsible for at least two incidents where they INTENDED to harm people with their bombs and did NOT give any phone warning. For example:
   
   His girlfriend's Weathermen group accidentally blew themselves up while making a bomb filled with nails, a bomb that they intended to set off at a non-commissioned officer dance for about 240. Since they added nails to the bomb, it is clear they intended to do as much harm as possible. If they had been successful, they would have killed and wounded many officers and their wives. Luckily they only killed themselves.
   
   The book begins when Ayers starts his fugitive life after he learns that his girlfriend has been blown up. However the book has very little information about Ayer's "fugitive days". Because his focus is not of his "fugitive days", I suspect that Ayer's fugitive days were really easy years of living under his parent's financial support until his father's money paid for lawyers who figured out how to keep Ayers from ever paying for the deaths and destruction for which he, as a leader of the Weathermen, should be held accountable. Then once Ayers didn't have to worry about getting arrested, his father probably paid for him to get a college degree and then used his influence to get Ayers a job.
   
   Only in the America can an unrepentant domestic terrorist like Ayers become a professor and probably try to produce more domestic terrorists. Only in America! I hope Ayers understands just how lucky he is to live in the USA, but I'm afraid he is either too dumb or too brain washed to understand that regardless of the mistakes the USA may have made, the USA is still better than most of the rest of the world. Ayers should check out the book, "Death by Government" to learn about the real evil and cost of communism. Communists were responsible for about 62 millions deaths in Communist China and 35 million deaths in Communist Russia. Yes, it is really too bad Ayers didn't live in either Communist China or Communist Russia when he acting like a terrorist. Either Russia or China would have gotten rid of him quickly.



5. Recently in this space I reviewed the documentary Weather Underground so that it also makes sense to review the present book by Bill Ayers, one of the `talking heads' in that film and a central leader of both the old Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground that split off from that movement in 1969 to go its own way. Readers should see the documentary as it gives a fairly good presentation of the events around the formation of the Underground, what they tried to accomplish and what happened to them after the demise of the anti-war movement in the early 1970's.
   
   To get a better understanding of what drove thousands of young American students into opposition to the American government at that time the documentary Rebels With A Cause (also reviewed in this space) is worth looking at as well. Between those two sources you will get a better understanding of what drove Professor Ayers and many others, including myself, over the edge. Professor Ayers makes many of those same points in the book. Thus, I only want to make a couple of political comments about the question of the underground here. They were also used in my review of the Weather Underground documentary and apply to Professor Ayers thoughts as well. I would also make it very clear here that unlike many other leftists, who ran for cover, in the 1970's I called for the political defense of the Weather Underground despite my political differences under the old leftist principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. Moreover, and be shocked if you will, the courageous, if misguided, actions of the Weather Underground require no apology today. I stand with the Professor on that count. Here are the comments.
   
   "In a time when I, among others, are questioning where the extra-parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War is going and why it has not made more of an impact on American society it was rather refreshing to view this documentary about the seemingly forgotten Weather Underground that as things got grimmer dramatically epitomized one aspect of opposition to the Vietnam War. If opposition to the Iraq war is the political fight of my old age Vietnam was the fight of my youth and in this film brought back very strong memories of why I fought tooth and nail against it. And the people portrayed in this film, the core of the Weather Underground, while not politically kindred spirits then or now, were certainly on the same page as I was- a no holds- barred fight against the American Empire. We lost that round, and there were reasons for that, but that kind of attitude is what it takes to bring down the monster. But a revolutionary strategy is needed. That is where we parted company.
   
   
   One of the paradoxical things about the documentary is that the Weather Underground survivors interviewed had only a vague notion about what went wrong. This was clearly detailed in the remarks of Mark Rudd, a central leader, when he stated that the Weathermen were trying to create a communist cadre. He also stated, however, that after going underground he realized that he was out of the loop as far as being politically effective. And that is the point. There is no virtue in underground activity if it is not necessary, romantic as that may be. To the extent that any of us read history in those days it was certainly not about the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. If we had we would have found that the above-mentioned fight in 1969 (the SDS splits) was also fought out by that movement. Mass action vs. individual acts, heroic or otherwise, of terror. The Weather strategy of acting as the American component of the world-wide revolutionary movement to bring the Empire to its knees certainly had (and still does) have a very appealing quality. However, a moral gesture did not (and will not) bring this beast down. While the Weather Underground was made up a small group of very appealing subjective revolutionaries its political/moral strategy led to a dead end. The lesson to be learned; you most definitely do need weather people to know which way the winds blow. Start with Karl Marx."

5 comments about King, Kaiser, Tsar: Three Royal Cousins Who Led the World to War.

1. "King, Kaiser, Tsar" gives a fascinating, up-close and personal look at George V of Great Britain, Wilhelm II of Germany and Nicholas II of Russia and the key roles they played in the 30-odd years that led up to World War I. Especially enthralling are the differences between the responsibilities and personalities of a constitutional monarch, an autocrat in an empire with a parliament but little real democracy, and an absolute monarch totally unsuited for his role.
   Catrine Clay quotes voluminously from family letters and other sources concerning King George and Tsar Nicholas, showing how the complex intertwining of relationships among the children and grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert made statesmanship and diplomacy a family affair as well as a national one in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
   Where Clay's otherwise fine book falls short is in her biased and very negative treatment of Kaiser Wilhelm. Her English roots are painfully apparent every time she talks of him, with many negative comments, few positive, and almost none of the humanizing quotes from family letters she gives from the lives of the other two monarchs. Clay's noting of Wilhelm's birth trauma and the lifelong problems his withered arm and other disabilities caused him does not make up for her one-sided treatment of his life, taken as a whole.
   Nevertheless, the book as a whole is well worth a read for those who want to learn what European life was like in the days when monarchs still counted for something.



2. Other reviews have pretty much covered the content and general scope of the book -- a very interesting, fairly detailed (as much as the broad subject matter and limited page count will allow) biography of 3 rulers and the way they were influenced by their world, and influenced the world around them. While very critical of Wilhelm, she is also fairly sympathetic, portraying him as a man who was often 'left out', due to factors largely beyond his control.
   
   While overall it was very well written, the structure of the text led to a few minor issues.
   
   a) Because it covers three people, the content isn't always chronological, leading to some confusion, and occassional repetition of facts and incidents.
   
   b)Some of the repetition got rather annoying. (The author reminds us about 20 times that George was a constitutional monarch [and therefore required to follow the demands of parliament], while Nicky and Willie were absolute monarchs.
   
   c) More pictures would have been nice, as well as a more detailed family-tree. (Many people mentioned in the text are not included in the tree. The extremely complex interrationship between the various royal families would have made a more detailed chart very helpful.)



3. This book has a great premise to it. To inform us of the three cousins and leaders of the major players in the first great war. One that has read about the subject though will find that this book takes on too many tasks and leaves things unsaid. Although it does tell the early history of each king well, when they get older and the story needs to be told in some detail, many events are left out.
   
   First of, as is with many books on this era, this is an anti German book. Laying the blame of the entire war, its continuation and practices on the German side. It lays all the blame on the Kaiser when it was know that they generals were the ones who ran the country towards the end of the war. Plus it fails to prove that one of the major reason of the war was the declining British trade to that of Germany. One thing this books does explain well though is one of the reasons why both Russia and Britain were allies was because the wives of each of the kings hated Germany since it had invaded thier country back in the 1860's. They influenced the kings and made the Kaiser feel even more uneasy than he already was because of his handicap, since he always felt as an outsider to his cousins.
   
   This book does a fair job in both detailing the Tsar and Kaiser but does not say much about England's king. Again this book details a lot on the Kaiser and his follies and hadicaps, both physical and mental. If you are looking for a starter book on the war with an enphasis on the Kings this is a good book for you. But if you are looking into more backround on the war this is not it as this books does not touch much on the war and when it does it does not do a good job at it, even the assasination of the Tsar and why it happened is not clearly explained. So if you want an out the subject book on the Great War this is a good book but not great if you already know a lot about the War.



4. Their era of kingship is long gone but their legacy remains. British historian Catrine Clay has told their fascinating story in this new triple biography of the rulers and the world they lost in the guns of August, 1914. It was in that fateful autumn that the long 19th century of peace in Europe ended with the horrific beginning of the Great War which would claim 10 million lives and over 20 million casualties. Clay's purpose is not to retell that story oft told but to look at the remarkable lives of three ordinary men who led their nations in this dark and dangerous time. The chief players in this drama are:
   1. Queen Victoria-She was the formidable grandmother of all three of the cousins profiled in the book. Victoria ruled the greatest military power on earth whose navy ruled the waves. Despite the Afghan, Zulu and Boer wars Britain was surpreme in its rulership over a vast empire and a democratic society in which the monarch had no real power.
   2. George V-George was the second son of Edward VII (who ruled from 1901-1910 forging the Entente Cordial treaty with France and Russia pledging them to come to the aid of their allies in time of war). The oldest son Edward died in 1892 so George became king in 1910 following the death of Edward VII. George was a momma's boy and was tied to the apron strings of his beautiul mother Alexandra the Danish born queen. She suffered from deafness and putting up with her husband's constant philandering (most notable of Edward's mistresses as Alice Keppel). Alexandra hated Germany following the ravishment of her native Denmark by the Germans in the 1862 war. George is sometimes known as the sailor king due to his long service in the Royal Navy. He was a faithful husband to his wife May Teck and was a good father. He loved his stamp collection and was a good friend to his cousin Nicky the Russian Tsar. George was the only one of the three rulers who emerged unscathed and popular at the end of World War I. He would die in 1936 beloved of his nation. During World War I he left the fighting to professional soldiers encouraging the troops by frequent visits to them.
   3. Kaiser Wilhelm II-He was born to Vicky (the favorite daughter of Queen Victoria) and his father Frederick. Wilhelm was born with a deformed left arm and a severe hearing problem. He had difficulty with the arm throughout his life compensating for it by becoming a militarist. Wilhelm grew to despise the views of his mother the liberally minded Vicky and his father whom he deemed weak. Wilhelm married Dona who supported him and was not very bright. In 1888 old Kaiser Wilhelm I died to be replaced by Frederick who also died that year succumbing to throat cancer. 1888 became known as the year of the three emperors for that is when Wilhelm II got his chance to rule Germany with a strong hand. He favored the extreme right wing views of Chancellor Bulow and his good friend Prince Eulenburgh and his circle of homosexual cronies, Wilhelm fired Bismarck and desired to make Germany a military powerhouse as he built up the navy and strengthened the army. Wilhelm believed that he was surrounded by enemies knowing of the alliance of France, England and Russia. He was emotionaly unstable suffering mood swings and fits of anger. He was virulently anti-semitic and favored the Junker class. Wilhelm would see his dreams turn into nightmares when Germany was crushed in World War I. The defeated Kaiser would die in Holland as an exile in 1941.
   3. Tsar Nicholas II is a tragic figure. His father Alexander III died in 1894 making Nicholas the Tsar. His mother was Minnie the Danish sister of Britain's Queen Alexandra. This formidable woman hated Germany and taught this lesson to Nicholas. He was a small man with an ordinary brain. He was dominated by his German born wife Alexandra who was a favorite of Queen Victoria. Their son Alexi had hemophilia and the couple relied on faith healers like Rasputin to give them hope that the heir to the throne would triumph over the disease inherited through the mother's blood. Many Russians wrongly thought Alexandra was a German spy!Rasputin would be murdered and so would the Tsar, Alexandria and their 4 daughters and Alexis in July, 1917. The Bolsheviks under Lenin ruled supreme as Tsarist Russia and the Romanov dynasty became a casualty of war.
   Clay tells us the story of these men dealing with a new modern age they were unable to deal with. Both Nicholas and Wilhelm believed in absolute monarchy which was doomed. George was guided by his advisors who believed strongly in the British constitutional monarchy the only one of the three systems that worked then and now.
   The book is well illustrated including a family tree evincing just how close were the blood ties uniting the royalty of Europe prior to the holocaust of World War I. The book is recommended as a fine historical account.



5. I think the subtitle of this book, "Three Royal Cousins Who Led The World To War" is a bit misleading. We're dealing with three monarchs who happen to be cousins: the King of England, the German Kaiser, and the Russian Tsar. Of these three, the English King was a constitutional monarch, and really had no say on questions of war and peace. The other two, however, were autocrats and controlled the fates of their respective peoples. The book is an excellent family history of how the various royal courts of Europe were related, and everything related back to Queen Victoria. The author places the bulk of the blame for the war directly on the shoulders of the Kaiser and his paranoia. She concludes that, if his English relations had treated him a bit more inclusively, the war might not have happened. I myself do not subscribe to that belief, but it is plausible. The Tsar was a victim of his own timidity and his wife's overbearing control of him. Of the three monarchs, I have the most sympathy for Nicholas, who really didn't deserve to be deserted by his English cousin when he was in need of a place of exile, nor did he and his entire family deserve to be executed. This is a very interesting, and ultimately sad, book, and I recommend it highly.

5 comments about Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War.

1. This book was way too politically bias for me to enjoy, and the author went on at length more or less attacking James for being a southern democrat. He should get over it, most people who are familiar with James know that he was Rebel and fought for the south during the war. The author details the Pinkerton detectives and the politicans who were against James more then he does the central character which is James himself. If it was written by a less politically oppionated person it cooooooooould have been decent, but it still kept diverging from the central theme of James and the James gang often enough and at such length that at times I wanted to hurl it against the wall. I only keep the copy I own because of the sepia photo on the cover.
   Read the assisination of Jesse James by the coward Robert ford, it or most any other book on the famed outlaw is surely far better then this account.



2. This is one of the most in depth and well researched biographies that I have ever read. Stiles did extensive investigation into primary sources when performing the research for the book.
   
   There is a great deal of perception of Jesse James as a larger than life myth. Much of what he did was very much grounded in the history of his time and focuses on the Civil War as a driving force behind his actions and behavior.
   
   James's father was a Baptist minister who left the family to go to California during the gold rush in 1849. While there, he contracted an illness and died when Jesse was still a young boy. This left his mother to raise Jesse and his siblings on her own until eventually remarrying.
   
   The James family owned a good sized farm with quite a few slaves and so had a vested interest in maintaining the slavery structure. They were very much a part of the Confederate mindset and supported that side during the Civil War.
   
   Jesse joined his brother as a teenager during the Civil War by banding together with a bunch of "bushwhackers" who were basically guerrillas (or terrorists depending on how you look at it) on the Confederate side. They would walk up to Union sympathizers who were often neighbors and point blank kill them in cold blood simply for being supporters. This instilled fear in the local populace and a general sense of uncertainty and terror.
   
   People from the Union side did similar types of things to Confederates namely Jayhawkers from Kansas. Missouri during the civil war and the days afterwards had a feel like that of Iraq today. People of differing ideological backgrounds resorted to violence and force to push their political agendas and philosophies.
   
   Following the war James stayed with the bushwhackers until they gradually dissipated. At first they targeted banks to rob with Union ties for political reasons. Eventually, however, the targets became less political and more for pure monetary gain.
   
   One of the primary reasons for Jesse James's notoriety and fame was his frequent correspondence with newspapers. He was a voracious reader and constantly maintained his innocence in letters to editors. Newspaper man John Edwards became a champion for James and glorified him and his gang in articles. He cast them as heros and icons for the Confederate political agenda and used them in print to help advance political purposes. In that day, newspapers were very openly partisan and did not try to maintain an appearance of neutrality as news agencies do today.
   
   As James et al gained more and more fame and notoriety, public outcry became much more pronounced against them while encouraging local and state officials to crack down and bring them to justice. After stealing from express companies similar to Wells Fargo who operated primarily via railroad, private business interest arose in tracking them down and preventing future robberies.
   
   His gang branched out into other states as well such as Iowa, Tennessee, Minnesota, Kentucky, and West Virginia obtaining national attention.
   
   The Pinkertons a private investigative agency were hired to find them but most of their efforts were fruitless considering the James/Younger gang's support from local friends and their knowledge of the backwoods.
   
   On several occasions, Jesse was injured in gun fights some requiring lengthy recovery times. All told though he personally probably killed at least 20 men so came out on plus side from his battles.
   
   The gang eventually met their match while trying to rob a bank in Minnesota where the people fought back and injured or killed many members of the gang. Jesse and his brother barely escaped back to Missouri once word got out and posses were gathered to track them down.
   
   Jesse never could settle down to a life of honest work which resulted in his downfall. He was constantly suspicious of those around him but gathered a new gang to continue his exploits. A couple of brothers in his new gang plotted to kill him and eventually succeeded, collecting a hefty reward in the process.
   
   Stiles book reads like a combination of a pure history and real life historical novel. The first 200 pages are primarily devoted to the historical background of the Civil War and environment James grew up in. The last 200 pages are focused more on Jesse's emergence as a bank/train/stagecoach robber, leader of a gang, and Confederate symbol. As mentioned on the book cover, Stiles debunks the myth that James was a form of Robin Hood and was instead mostly interested in his own fame and fortune.
   
   At times the book moves slowly and is exhaustive in its coverage of the material but if the reader stays with it, he or she will have a very complete picture of Jesse James and the history of Missouri during the Civil War and the decades afterwards.



3. This book explains how the Civil War gave birth to outlaws like Jesse James. It is very well researched, detailed and interesting. A must for historians.



4. 
   This is a fascinating work on Jesse James. It is not so much a standard biography as a "political history" of James. And that makes this an interesting read. The question animating this book is (page4): "Why should one set of criminals be so much more memorable than another?" The answer (page 6): " [Jesse James] was a major force in the attempt to create a Confederate identity for Missouri, a political and cultural offensive waged by the defeated rebels to undo the triumph of the Radical Republicans in the Civil War." Hence, his Confederate background resonated strongly with the politics of Missouri.
   
   The book itself follows a chronological organization, beginning with Jesse's father, a preacher. It also describes his mother, a most formidable person, who remained an important part of his life over the years--and a strong advocate for her sons. The Civil War was critical for the family. Frank James rode with some of the Confederate irregulars, such as William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson. Jesse was too young at the outset of the Civil War to be involved, but he rode with his brother, later on, with the partisans. When the war ended, the rage continued for the James brothers (especially Jesse).
   
   The book contends (and it is a reasonable case as made by the author, although I'm not sure that all readers will be convinced) that James' outlaw exploits after the war were a continuation of that conflict by other means. He was, in the eyes of the author, something of a guerilla; he is also termed a "terrorist," in the sense of using violence to try to advance a political cause (this case may not be convincing to readers; I have my doubts that the case is very strong to adopt this language).
   
   There follows an outline of his many robberies, the violence associated with them, the various members of his gang over time (including the Younger brothers), the ups and downs of their brigandage, and the political context in which their actions occurred. The political discussion appears to be done pretty well, placing the James' gang's depredations in a larger perspective.
   
   Then, they detail nicely the disastrous Northfield, Minnesota raid (disastrous from the James' gang's perspective--not from those who wanted to hunt them down). Frank and Jesse escaped, Jesse (and later Frank) to rob another day. Then, Jesse's demise. The book ends with a quick summary of the fates of key players from this volume, and provides some satisfaction in bringing things to a close.
   
   The political aspect to James, as argued by T. J. Stiles, the author, is very interesting and makes this an intriguing work. I am not sure that all elements of this work successfully (e.g., the use of the term terrorist). But the book provides a nice spin on the life and times of Jesse James.



5. I picked this book up, like everyone else, as I was curious about the man behind the legend. Well, I never really learned all that much about Jesse James. I certainly learned about Missouri, Kansas, the civil war, bushwackers and the like, but not a whole lot about James.
   
   It seemed well researched and Stiles writes in a readable style but it was not the book I thought it would be.

5 comments about The Seamstress.

1. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It is a story of human spirit and triumph of good over evil. Very inspirational! Wonderful read.



2. This was one of the best books I ever read. The book was written so well. I wish more books were written about the Holocaust that were this good. 5 Stars!!!



3. Instead of buying Harry Potter we need more books like this. This was such a beautiful story of hope and courage, strength and determination. It tells history the way it was and I cannot tell you enough how this book touched my heart and my daughters heart. My daughter picked up the book and never put it down, she read the whole thing in 3 days. I could hear her giggle and laugh at some of the funny parts and I could see her tears in some of the sensitive heart moving parts. This book will capture you. Just beautiful
   I wish they could make Sareen's story into a movie
   
   God Bless



4. I read many books on the Holocaust and have always found inspiration and admiration for those people who have experienced such an appalling event and have managed to survive. But this book left me totally disturbed with the graphics given by this amazing woman, Sara Tuvel Bernstein, and I highly commend her for sharing her horrific ordeal.
   I recommend everyone should read this book and maybe,just maybe, we will learn something from it... that war is futile, and all people are equal.



5. True life events .. so well told .. The story is riveting from beginning to end .. I wish I could feel that this will never happen again but I worry that it can and that it will.

5 comments about Berlin Diaries, 1940-1945.

1. (4.5 stars)
   
   This book is quite unlike the typical WWII-era memoir which most folks are used to. The most obvious difference is that Missie is an exiled Russian princess, and not some ordinary citizen or refugee in Germany and Austria. She also wrote her diaries in English instead of in German or Russian, so she's really not a full part of the society she's living in. In spite of the differing perspective, the story is very riveting and well-told. Gaps in the narrative are filled in by editorial comments by Missie's brother George, letters she wrote and sent during the missing periods, and reminiscences from Missie, friends, and relatives years later. For someone who isn't well-versed in WWII history, the editorial comments will be very helpful, such as details of the infamous massacre at Katyn, or more information about some battle or event that's only alluded to.
   
   Though she is immune to the suffering and deprivations of the ordinary people around her in the beginning, by 1943 Missie and her circle of friends and relatives start to feel the heat. The Allied bombings raids on Berlin didn't make a distinction between commoners and nobility, and food and fuel shortages affected everyone. Because of her association with a few people involved in the July 20, 1944 plot to kill Hitler, Missie eventually has to get out of Berlin, eventually making her way into Vienna, where she works as a nurse for most of the duration of the war. Deprivations and bombing raids continue in Vienna, though, and as the war nears its final days, she once again is faced with the necessity of escaping to a safer locale. Not only is it imperative that she get out of the way of the fighting, but she also doesn't want to be discovered by the Red Army, as she is a White Russian.
   
   While it's always difficult to make value judgments on someone's journal, since we can't put ourselves in that person's footsteps, and because this person probably never dreamt it would be published, I did get the sense that a few other reviewers did, that there's a seeming indifference to the fate of the ordinary people around her. While Europe is going up in flames, Missie, her friends, and her family are still going to parties, hob-nobbing with royalty and nobility, driving around in cars, drinking champagne, using perfume, having strings pulled for them so they can have nice jobs, saving ridiculous luxury items, and staying in castles and manors. Even when the war finally catches up to even the nobility, she still has all of these powerful connections who can get her exit passes, travel permits, castles and estates to escape to, jobs to be accepted at, and cars and trains to flee in.
   
   Ordinary Europeans often had to escape on foot and drag their necessary possessions in carts, were left homeless, couldn't turn their noses up at horse meat if that were their only food available, didn't have powerful connections to save them from harm and grant them safe passage through dangerous territory, and cared more about escaping with their lives, the clothes on their backs, and a few needed items, instead of rejoicing that some Count friend of theirs managed to save something stupid like fur coats and artwork in his automobile. And while the selling point of the book is that Missie was intimately involved in the July 20 plot, I didn't see more than superficial circumstantial evidence for that. She was friends with some of the plotters and tried to get some of them out of jail, but other than that, there isn't any compelling proof that she knew way more than she was telling. That isn't even the main focus of the book. And since there are so many people moving in Missie's circle, it's sometimes hard to remember who's who.
   
   Overall, though, it is a very interesting book for anyone who's interested in a different perspective of WWII, or who's interested in the White Russian experience abroad. Obviously it's not Missie's fault that she was born into nobility and could have all of these wartime luxuries and safety nets that ordinary people could only dream of.



2. It feels cruel to be overly critical about this book because I can't imagine the author wrote entries in her diary with the thought that they would one day be published. She finds herself in Berlin at the time the Allied bombing raids are really picking up and describes very well how hard daily life was at a time when whole sections of the city were being pulverised. She also happens to be working for a part of the government alongside some of those who plotted against Hitler and tried to assassinate him in 1944. Her involvement in this is never more than casual and it's a sign of her lack of importance that she is never arrested or interrogated. Unlike most of the people around her she is also able to flee Berlin to stay in various friends' castles and country estates when life in the capital becomes too tough. She also attends many, many parties hosted by diplomats and other members of the gilded set. This is an interesting book, but not rivetting.



3. Berlin Diaries, 1940-1945 by Marie Vassilchikov (New York: Knopf, 1987)
   
   This review has been published in a collection of reviews and articles, That's What I'm Talking About (Nativa 2008).THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
   
   "29 January, 1940 . . . My office does not seem to know who its Top Boss is, as everybody is giving orders at the same time, although the Reich's Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, is said to have the last word" (page 5).
   
   Diaries can be a valuable antidote to the treacheries of memory and the self-interest of hindsight. But the trouble is, many such journals are boring. Plus, many important events unfold without the benefit of the keen-eyed and conscientious diarist. One such compulsive diarist was Marie Vassilehikov (1917-1978), daughter of a minor Russian nobleman, whose family was evicted from Russia in 1919 and who found herself trapped in Hitler's Europe at the outbreak of the Second World War. Her journal has recently been published as Berlin Diaries, 1940-1945. This document, edited after her death by her brother George, is of great importance.
   
   Brilliant, multilingual, independent, and with an eye for the telling detail, "Missie" worked for several German propaganda and information offices throughout the war. She typed many of her observations in English during office hours and concealed the pages first in file cabinets and later in various spots in and around Berlin.
   Missie's diary provides an eyewitness account of the Allied bombing of Berlin, which was undertaken in retaliation for an accidental German bombing of London on August 24, 1940. From the diary: "10 October, 1940 . . . This evening I was at a party when the alarm sounded. The shooting was very loud and poor Maxchen Kieckebusch, whose nerves have gone to pieces since he was injured in the spine in France, rolled on the floor moaning, Ich kann das nicht mehr Horen [I cannot listen to this anymore] over and over again" (p. 32).
   
   We read of the disintegration of the matrix of ordinary life: an elderly postman dies and is laid out for a week on the kitchen table before being taken away. At one end of the table near the feet of the corpse, sandwiches are prepared and given to a rescue party looking for persons alive under the rubble of the latest Allied bombing. Before the end of the war all the gravediggers had been called into the army. Relatives had to bury their dead in cardboard coffins.
   
   How important is this book? From it we learn much about aristocratic Germans who detested Hitler and who conspired to kill him. Successive plots were discussed and planned, and at least one was bravely and naively attempted; a suitcase fined with explosives was planted in Hitler's underground headquarters. With the failure of this attempt, the most active conspirators were rounded up, together with their families, associates, and acquaintances.
   
   Unbelievably, the conspirators had made long lists of those who would be invited to join the post-Hitler German government. The discovery of these lists led to the arrest and execution of more than eleven thousand persons in 1944 and the first five months of 1945. The theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was among these last. Several conspirators escaped Nazi detection only to be captured by the advancing Red Army. They disappeared forever in the Russian Gulag.
   
   Missie was informed of the conspiracy to execute Hitler and may have given more to the various plots than just her sympathy. Her diary of these events is the only firsthand account known to exist. It astonishes that a Russian woman living in Berlin and identified with anti-Hitler conspirators, somehow avoided suspicion, arrest, and execution. Her diary is a rare and remarkable document.



4. Having read countless histories and memoirs from this period, I found this book helped color yet another perspective. I was engrossed. I have done much reading on both the Kreisau Circle and the 20th July Plot, and was fascinated at how Missy's memoirs tied up some loose ends on the subject. This is a wonderful addition to the library of anyone who is a student of this particular era.



5. Following the collapse of the Romanov Empire (Russia), the Hapsburg Empire (Austria) and the Hohenzollern Empire (Germany) in the wake of World War I, Europe was overrun by aristocratic refugees. Some of them had family fortunes commensurate with their impressive titles, others did not.
   
   One of these impoverished, but well-educated young aristocrats was Princess Marie Vassiltchikov, who was in her early 20s when she and her sister moved to Germany hunting for jobs. Both found employment despite their non-German status, but it was tenuous for young anti-Communist Russians, especially when Stalin agreed to a non-agression pact with Hitler and happily carved up Poland and the Baltic states, including Lithuania in which Marie and her family had taken refuge from the Bolsheviks.
   
   Yes, she is aristocratic. Yes, she is beautiful and yes, she is generally broke, cold and hungry. Her looks and her family connections provide a safety net of sorts, and as food supplies shrink Marie's diary begins to resemble an extended food quest, typical of anybody who's hungry. She manages to acquire a modest, but apparently elegant wardrobe and admits to gorging herself at parties when the opportunity arises.
   
   Like any beautiful, young woman, she comments on the young men (many of whom are also aristocrats) and how attractive they are (or aren't.) Sometimes her blueblood works for her. Sometimes it works against her. During 1944, for example, the official SS journal (DAS SCHWARZE KORPS/THE BLACK CORPS) rails against "blaublutige Schweinehunde and Verrater"/ "blue-blooded piggish-dogs and traitors" who'd conspired to assassinate Hitler. Yet, the leader of the dreaded SS, Heinrich Himmler, continued to revel in his tenuous connection with the royal family of Bavaria, one of whom was his god-father.
   
   These were dangerous times for bluebloods like Marie and she survived. Not only that, she left some great descriptions of the inner workings of the Third Reich, the July 20th plot and impact of strategic bombing by the Allies.
   
   She doesn't moralize or engage in self pity. She copes, eats when she can, and finds shelter wherever its available. She uses the connections she has and she survives.
   
   Her diaries are straightforward accounts of a critical period in world history. She is not a model 21st century progressive, but neither were most of those who conspired to murder Hitler at his East Prussian headquarters in 1944. Some were unregenerate Monarchists and Prussian Junkers intent on regaining lost status and privileges.
   
   Her diaries and her situation are difficult for a lot of contemporary American readers to fully understand. A Princess, after all, should be wealthy as well as beautiful. The "People's Princess" (HRH Diana Spencer)is the archetypical blueblood for most Americans. While Princess Marie had the requisite elegant good looks, she lacked the money and power most of us expect royals to have.
   
   We forget, or never realized, that Europe during the 1920s and 1930s included lots of people with very impressive titles, good educations and aristocratic bearing, but little or no money. Being a Princess from an empire which no longer existed might get you invited to parties, especially if you're beautiful, but it didn't pay rent or put schnitzel (even the schnitzel made from dead donkeys) on the table.
   
   I liked Marie and her diaries and found a number of interesting insights and facts I didn't know about this period in history. If you keep in mind the totality of circumstances which formed her perceptions, her diaries can provide some interesting and unique insights into this tumultuous period of history.
   
   I recommend the diaries and gave it five stars.

5 comments about Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters.

1. Despite the author's comments to the contrary, this book is clearly biased attempt at using recently discovered coorespondance from and about the subject, in an attempt to tarnish the image of a man of true integrity and statesmanship.
   
   The actual quotations that the author uses are very sparce, and often used out of context, in thinly veiled attempts to show the subject's supposed failings. Robert E. Lee was flawed, as every human being is, but many, many well-qualified researchers have shown that he was revered, loved, and admired by his contemporaries for his impecable sense of honor and integrity.
   
   The author has chosen to allow the reader to view very little of the actual information directly, choosing instead to present it by his own description, or in poorly chosen, heavily edited snippets, obviously intended to support the author's pre-concieved judgement about the subject.
   
   What a shame that this author was given the rare opportunity to view newly discovered historical information, and has used it so carelessly.
   
   Don't waste your money on this large, expensive, and clumsy editorialization in the guise of research.



2. I was anxious to learn more about Ms Pryor's "reading" of Lee the general through whatever letters she had uncovered. Oooppps. No such thing.
   
   Pryor's "reading" of the Lee the general is so second-handish that it reminded me of another infamous treatment of Lee's generalship. So similar were the concepts and critiques of Lee the general that looking at her footnotes, I discovered that her "reading" of Lee during the war comes from her reading of select, secondary sources that support her agenda and have been thoroughly discredited as inaccurately portraiting Lee's generalship.
   
   For me, this spoiled the book. I have gifted my copy to charity.



3. By trying to examine R. E. Lee by the world of the 21st century, Ms. Pryor has put together some personal letters from or to Lee and made serious mistakes of judgement. While there is perhaps a chance to sell a few books by attempting to show unexpected flaws in the life of someone judged by almost all serious historians or biographers to have been very worthy, Ms. Pryor has chosen a belittle one of the great men of our American experience. I am very sorry I bought this book and feel that it is an egregious slur on the memory of a much better person than Ms. Pryor.



4. Fun to read a pissant writing about a man with such integrity. Taking some letters, scrutinize them carefully, add preconceived ideas and a few tea leaves, and viola, pissant can give a portrait of Robert E. Lee.



5. I think Lee would have liked this book. Remember, Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian. According to Lee's Bible, Jesus Christ said that nobody is "good" but God. Lee was a humble man, and all his life he tried to learn from his own mistakes, his father's, those of others'. That's to say, yes, Robert E. Lee did make mistakes on occasion. And so, I'd bet the one most opposed to the "Marble Man" myth would be Lee himself. I liked this book.

No comments about The Beautiful Soul of John Woolman, Apostle of Abolition.