1 comments about Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.

1. A double shot of a biography on whiskey magnate Jack Daniel with hard-work and determination as the foundation to his life and principles.
   Born in the mid-1800's and orphaned at the age of fifteen, JD immediately found himself working in a local Tennessee distillery manufacturing some of the highest quality spirits in the region from men who were the best in the business. He was known as the boy distiller.
   In his early twenties, he had the opportunity to partnership with his mentor and the rest as they say is history.
   It was not easy though. For decades he battled revenuers, the government, corrupt officials, temperance groups and later the prohibition movement. Even with these many adversities throughout his life, philanthropy was his middle name.
   Peter Krass has uncorked an imbibing read of a unique man and the times in which he lived.

5 comments about Richard M. Nixon: The American Presidents Series: The 37th President, 1969-1974 (The American Presidents).

1. This book represents the life and times of Richard M. Nixon in a un-biased manner. It takes the good and bad aspects of his time and presents them in a way that lets the reader decide their own view of his legacy.



2. Candid and revealing book about this controversial president. I enjoyed reading about Richard M. Nixon.



3. Even thirty years after his presidency and fourteen after his death, Richard Nixon is still a controversial leader. Drew who lived through Watergate can't seem to get past the anger she feels toward Nixon. Nixon's presidency was one of brillance and stupidity. Brilliance in his pragmatic handling of domestice issues and his careful handling of foreign policy, and stupidity in creating a wall around himself with bad advisors and then committing crimes. Give credit where credit is due, but Drew states that Nixon, although smart, was not really a good politician. One comment is very telling. Nixon's first cabinet did not have stellar quality, because there were no good quality people there. Then Drew goes on to tell the Eastern establishment was not represented in this cabinet. Maybe, just maybe Nixon was right when he talked of the elitist Eastern establishment because it is obvious Drew is from this group, being a former writer for the New Yorker.
   
   Another telling comment is the drug charge brought up in The Arrogance of Power. She then tells how Nixon probably took drugs, along with being drunk on most nights. Again, I have issues with both the objectivity of the drug charges. With other writers, it is obvious Nixon was under tremendous strains and used drink as an escape clause during this time. However, I don't think he was an alcholic. I guess Drew just wanted to rip down this man once more and the American President series let her.
   
   This series is fine. I learned a lot about the American Presidents. It was sad that Drew had to write on Nixon. She proved Nixon's theory that the Left took the sword and twisted it. Unfortunately Nixon is dead. He had brillant moments in foreign policy. He also did stupid and criminal things that resulted in his resignation from the American presidency. Drew is not an objective author.



4. Great, short book on Tricky Dick. He was a nut. A brilliant nut. But a nut nonetheless.



5. Elizabeth Drew's biography of President Richard M. Nixon is yet one more entry in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's "The American Presidents" series. One interesting wrinkle. Other volumes in this series have suggested that the incessant critique of certain presidents may have missed other aspects of their work that is not so negative. The works on Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant come to mind. One may well disagree with the authors, but they provide sympathetic--albeit realistic--evaluations of their subjects.
   
   Elizabeth Drew is pretty hard-nosed in her biography of Nixon. The final line is very different than other ill-regarded presidents (Page 151): "[His actions] leave the historic question of whether this otherwise smart, talented man, but most peculiar and haunted of presidents, was fit to occupy the most powerful office in the nation--and large room for doubt that he was."
   
   The biography begins with an equation of Nixon with a Shakespearean figure (Pages 1-2): ". . .he brought us into his tragedy and made us go through it with him." And the story begins with a childhood that was hard, including a hard to please father and a distant mother. He worked hard, and his native intelligence served him well. But he was himself a remote person, and many of his peers didn't fully understand him. After rather routine military service during World War II, he began his political career soon after war's end. He began with a victory in a House of Representatives race and then for one of California's Senate seats. His campaign style was hard-nosed and brought him the nickname of "Tricky Dick."
   
   Through a series of circumstances, he was named as Ike's Vice-Presidential running mate in 1952. There follows the story of his career as VEEP, his defeat by John Kennedy in 1960, and his subsequent defeat when he ran for governor of California in 1962. His political career seemed over (Nixon himself said in a press conference, when he famously mentioned that [page 18] ""You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore."). But he began his rise to president shortly thereafter, as he worked tirelessly for the Republican Party and its candidates. In 1968, he was rewarded with the party's nomination and his subsequent election.
   
   Then, his presidency. Drew related his domestic successes and failures, as well as his foreign policy successes and failures. And how his tortured persona affected him (including excessive drinking). There are occasions that I think Drew too harsh. For instance, Nixon may not himself have been serious about his Family Assistance Plan, but this was an innovative effort to attack poverty that still intrigues today. His trip to China and his negotiations with the Soviet Union and the development of the concept of detente were important (whatever one thinks of the wisdom of such decisions, they do represent major achievements). And then, the loss of everything with Watergate. But the road to Watergate was presaged by many other actions. . . .
   
   So, an interesting read of Richard Nixon. Sometimes, I think it quite harsh. On the other hand, history has not redeemed his presidency and he still stands as an example of how personal demons can affect a presidency. A useful biography of Richard Nixon, in short, and one that will provoke reflection of this complex person.

5 comments about The Education of Henry Adams.

1. I was first drawn into the book "The Education of Henry Adams" when Henry Adams wrote how he was led to "... more than once to sit at sunset on the steps of the Church of Santa Maria di Ara Coeli..." (page 91) Adams wanted to teach people how we can teach ourselves. He wanted to say that knowledge devoid of feeling is of little use and meaning. He said, towards the end of the book and towards the end of his life, "All the teacher could hope was to teach it reaction." Despite his willful, self-imposed criticism of his own inadequacies and failures, he succeeded brilliantly in teaching us how to achieve our own personal Annunciation, as he obviously experienced his, at sunset on the steps of the Church of Santa Maria di Ara Coeli.



2. Note that this review is for the audio book narrated by David Colacci. I have been on a kick the last year or so of listening to the `classics' on my daily commute. This book has been on several lists of great books and I decided to give it a try. I started out wondering why this book would be considered so good, but after a few hours of listening I learned to appreciate the unique writing style and personality of the author.
   
   The narrator was perfect for the part. His voice and manner of speaking fit the style of the book very well. He sounded just like I imagined Adams himself would have sounded if he had read this book.
   
   I have always been a fan of history, and his perspective as a minor participant in several great events was fascinating. From the Civil War to the Teddy Roosevelt administration, he provided several interesting insights into those events. He knew many of the key players. His overriding theme of obtaining an `education' was also interesting and he looked at it much more broadly than most people would. He lived at a time of great technological change, especially from a perspective of power and seemed concerned that society was not ready to handle that much power. He saw the source of power switching from Christianity (The Virgin Mary) to the dynamo.
   
   I initially didn't like him. He seemed almost too humble and didn't seem to have a strong opinion of right and wrong because he wasn't sure which was which. In the end I appreciated his perspective and thought he would have been an interesting person to know, though I wouldn't consider him as a great leader. I also would have liked to have him talk more of his personal life; note that this book omits the years 1872-1891, which would have included his marriage.
   
   Overall I recommend this book for anyone interested in history and a unique literary style. He was clearly an intellectual and it gives a good snapshot of the intellectual views of that era.



3. I bought this version and started reading it, but ended up buying another version. This version is poorly printed - the pages are overlarge for a paperback, and the margins at the spine are too narrow. Because of the width of the page it wasn't possible to read one line without moving my head, and since the book didn't lie flat I would have to peer into the spine area to get the last word on any line on the left hand page. Pick another version that's easier to read.



4. The main problem I had with this book was the format. The 7-1/2X9-15/16" and the very narrow margins made reading difficult for me. I had to bend the binding back to read the end of a the very long line of text on the left page and the beginning of a line of text on the right. I also often had to use my finger to return the to the correct start of the next lenghty line. The truly made reading less enjoyable than it should have been. I suspect I would rate it higher in a more standard format book.
   This will be one of my book club's readings this academic year and I can review it after the meeting within 12 months. I suspect many of us in the club will give it higher than 3 stars - which as I have indicated is marred by the difficulty in the physical (visual) reading.
   
   
   
   
   a
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



5. It took me a few months to grind my way through this, and I must conclude that unless you are a serious student of history--a professor or grad student, or highly-motivated undergrad--you are not going to get much out of this book.
   
   I've got undergraduate and masters degrees (in computer science), am fairly widely read, and have a pretty good knowledge of history. Nevertheless, I usually could not figure out what Adams was getting at in his overly poetic abstractions. As other reviewers have pointed out, Adams can never simply describe concretely what he sees, but instead has to formulate some sort of generalization, as when the "dynamo"--a machine he sees at a World's Fair--becomes a symbol for the sweeping forces of mechanization and industrialization. That sounds insightful, but did he really need an entire chapter to describe how it upheaved his soul?
   
   Adams wrote this book for his close circle of friends, not the general public. This manifests when he casually tosses around the names of obscure people without explaining who they are, as if we are just supposed to know. I often kept Wikipedia open as I read.
   
   Unless you are already an expert on 19th-century U.S. history, be prepared for a hard slog and, I regret to predict, a lack of fulfillment.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life.

1. John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life is a very good read. Its easy to understand. The author manages to keep my interest by his writing style. You don't have to have a masters degree to read this book.
   After reading this book, one will have a better informed idea of JQA's life. Overall I felt that the book was a little brief and should have dug a little deeper, but there is only so much you can say in 427 pages. Another 300 pages would have allowed the auther to dig a little deeper in the life and presidency of John Quincy Adams. That being said, I highly recommend this book.



2. So much revolves in the live of JQA in terms of his parents. Yes he did benefit from their guidance, but most of his life was in an aspect of difference. He did get many political positions because of the Adams heritage but he wore that as a crown of thorns. Though he relished his father JQA was always fighting his mother on so many issues. Abigail Adams was the worst person to follow in these times. If she could not control something she would destroy it. And she desired to destroy her son in both his love for Louisa his wife and his career plans. I do not know for the life of me why feminists have embraced this woman. She was in error so many times and suffocated her children.
   
   JQA rose above her admonitions and grew as a human being who was interested in letters and thoughts. He never turned back from her protests. He was about thought and not about control. Louisa, his wife was a wonderful match. She encouraged his interests and got him to follow her interests as well. Adams lived during a very changing environment. It was in this time that slave and free states became important. It was no longer about what Massachusetts said, things were perculating on national issues. He understood that. His presidency albeit dereft of many accomplishments, tried very hard to rid America of the leftovers of the War of 1812. He wanted a national vision. AQnd he was scolded by Jackson, Clay, and many others who wanted his office.
   
   Adams had it all. He had a wonderful and brilliant wife in Louisa, He had a family pedicree who served him well. But he had a one term presidency. He was looked at as a dour and sour personality. Yes that was true in his latter years but not so as a young man. Adams knew his place in time and he knew he had to do meanially things for the benefit of the republic. Very much like Truman, his decisions were linked to what others did before. So he never got to do the things he wanted.
   
   This man has been so tarred and relegated to the ashbin of history. That is not right. He did the best he could with what he had to work with. God bless JQA. He made America a better place to be. And also a hurrah for Louisa who really did much to set out what first ladies need to be.



3. A great biography on John Quincy Adams. The author thoroughly went through everything from childhood to death. He was able to describe him very well. I liked hearing about his various government jobs and living in Europe. I only have a minor nitpick the author should have sticked with refering to him as JQA instead of rotating from JQA, John and Adams given his famous father it would have been better to stick with just JQA. Other that it was a great biography.



4. A fine biography about America's most important second generation citizen. Nagel manages the tricky balancing act of covering the relevant topic without overstaying his welcome with everything and the kitchen sink. Nagel also earns due credit for resisting, for the most part, the urge to apply today's psychological interpretations to the mind and motives of a man who lived two hundred years ago. Discussion is important but speculation is just that. It also helps Nagel's cause that JQA led a pretty uncontroversial life.
   
   A great legislator and a (by his own admission) below average President, JQA proved his mettle as a Secretary of State and congressman. The only President to return to congress, he fought vehemently for abolition and civil liberties. He even died on the job. How's that for service to the nation.
   
   If the personal aspect of the biography seems underwhelming, perhaps that is due to the subject's relative colorlessness. A staid, serious individual who may have even suffered from mild depression, JQA lived his entire life as his father's son. Hard to live up to a man revered around the world as a living or recently deceased god. JQA lived a very quiet, serious life for a public figure.



5. I'm nearly at the halfway point of my mission to read a biography of each President. I would put this bio in the top third of those I've read for a variety of reasons.
   
   First, it was the perfect length. JQA was an important President but was he TJ, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln... no. Nothing that important happened when he was President at least in a very broad, international sense. I'm very glad the author didn't lengthen the biography and make it detailed to a fault just to make it look like he did more research or overvalued the importance of JQA.
   
   JQA was quite a character. Clearly he was an intelligent man. I loved the way the author talked about what JQA read. In fact, I might even read some of those books myself because as with nearly every President, they gathered most of their intelligence from reading on their own. I liked the fact that the author included all the info about JQA's literary, research and professorship.
   
   I didn't get the point of how the author pointed out JQA's schedule so often, when he got up, what he did all day, that got a bit old.
   
   Other than that, it was really a great biography that shed a lot of light on this man.
   
   A few things I found interesting about JQA that the author did a good job detailing.
   
   1. Abigail and John Adams really put a lot of pressure on their son. That was very apparent and made JQA a sympathetic person at times.
   
   2. JQA was a stick in the mud a lot of times so it is easy to see why a lot of people didn't like him. It also explains why his presidency isn't held in such high regard. I thought it very telling that on Andrew Jackson's deathbed JQA was very uncomplementary. I would've hated to cross him.
   
   3. And perhaps this is the most interesting. JQA couldn't rise above the pressure that was put on him by his parents. He passed that pressure on to his kids, causing one to kill himself. Of course, I do think he mellowed as he got older which the author detailed allowing him to become a sympathetic figure again.
   
   Lastly, how about the fact that JQA died pretty much in congress. Wow, what dedication.
   
   Good bio that I would recommend.

5 comments about Robert Kennedy : His Life.

1. The book is okay. It is that simple. The prose are incoherent and it is very hard to tell who or what the subject of the sentence is. He tries to be far too clever with his sentence structure which results in being forced to read a sentence several times, sometimes understanding what he's talking about the fifth time, sometimes still confused but forced to move on
   The most prominent of my complaints is that he is so repetitious. He will use the same adjectives to describe the same person over and over in almost identical sentences which begs the question: How long would this book be if he didn't repeat himself?
   My final complaint is that he will write ad nauseam about the most mundane events and details and will examine the motives and come to a verdict while repeating the evidence almost verbatim to what he just wrote the paragraph before.
   I haven't read another book on Bobby so I cannot compare it to other Bobby-books. However, since I was born in the eighties and did not live during all of this, it is new information and basically the only fact I can't give this a lower grade is because the information itself propels the book into mediocrity.



2. I was so looking forward to listening to this book and so frustrated with the outcome.
   
   That part that I did listen to was written well but read poorly. Attempting to mimick the voice of Kennedy (and others) grows so old so quickly one would have thought it would have captured the eye of an editor sooner rather than later. But never? Alas, apparently that was not in anyone's job description.
   
   If you must do anything buy the printed version.



3. Although I was only 7 years old when he died I have talked to many people about the passion they felt for Bobby. Boy, could we use someone like that now. Although the book does not shy away from his sometime machiavellian tactics, it shows a person who was so affected by tragedy that he really cared. I see film clips of when he visited Buffalo, and the entire Niagara Square was packed with tens of thousands of people. I cannot think of anyone, short of the Bills after a super bowl win, that would garner that much enthusiasm. Evan Thomas captures that and draws the reader in. I actually felt empty when finishing the book and sad that I could think of no one today that could fill that void. Thomas also through thorough research seems to dispel the popular myth of Bobby as a womanizer. He was actually a devoted family man haunted by his brothers death but loyal to wife and children. Not so with Jack. When Bobby was in Indianapolis about to speak before a black audience it was announced that Martin Luther King had just been killed. He discarded his planned speech and relayed his own feelings of how he felt when his brother Jack was killed. It was totally ad-libbed and from the heart. Indianapolis was one of the few major cities not to erupt in violence. I wonder how different this country might be had he the opportunity to serve us.



4. Evan offers much insight into an unfinished life. He meets the mark of a good biographer; as a history this is a well-balanced read.
   
   Bobby once famously said: "Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies". Mr. Thomas has done a commendable job of tracking that change, speaking to the better known facets of Bobby's personal as well as political evolution. Evan's book captures the antecedents: his awkwardness as a young Kennedy; the shadow, and then death of, his brother Jack; the opportunities to question the rigidity of his Catholic faith; his decision to align himself with McCarthy (Joe not Gene). These alternately help set the foundation for the evolution of Bobby from FDR politician to modern-day progressive. These help explain what caused a 1950's era government attorney concerned about Comintern penetration of the State Department to become a proponent of the United Farmworkers in its most radical years. Or those changes that caused the one-time skeptic of Martin Luther King to become one of his most ardent political champions.
   
   Evans provides the rationale for the enmity shared by various mobsters, LBJ, and even Roy Cohn. His rationale is this: Bobby cared. Evans touches us when he describes Bobby as a man who strived to live lives as others did. The description of Bobby's pain witnessing the utter poverty of rural blacks in the 1960's Mississippi delta is palpable and authentic. But Bobby was also a shrewd strategist, adapting to a time when the solid south was no longer the dependable, conservative counterweight of the Democratic Party fulcrum, and the campus was no longer the only forum in America for frank discussion of problems in America. Bobby was not an opportunist, but he was a political realist, and in the days leading up to the '68 convention Bobby reflected not simply the changes occurring within the antiwar movement or the modern-day Democratic Party, but also those changes occurring all across America at that time.
   
   Would Bobby have turned around a country that was heading down a path of "secret plans" to end the Vietnam War, Watergate, "Trickle Down" economics and South American puppeteering? Evan Thomas to his credit wrote a book about an unfinished life, and a good one at that. But for those interested in what might have been, that's a different book.



5. The life and times of Robert Kennedy beg for a coherent and in depth book .... unfortunately this is not it. Living in the shadow of his presidential brother, the shadow of his oldest brother killed in WWII and the all encompassing shadow of his father, RFK was able to chisel out an identity of his own in US history before his tragic death. Hoping to gain some understanding/insight of/into this man's character and evolution from a sullen child to presidential candidate and everything in between, and a chonology of such things as his involvement in the US civil rights movement, McCarthyism, Cuba (Bay of Pigs and The Missle Crisis) and his relationship in the White House with his brother JFK... I was greatly disappointed. A glaring hole in this book is any serious treatment of RFK and Vietnam. What the book does contain are snippets, quotes and anecdotes, some mildly interesting, (i.e. RFK's role in the release of Martin Luther King from prison), without any cohesiveness and very little context. And although many of the conclusions reached in this volume are valid they are simply not borne out here. The book's attempt to cover significant parallel events is at best confusing and there is also an alarming amount of armchair psychology. I hate to be so hard nosed but the subject deserves much better than this book.

5 comments about The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of Laura Bush.

1. At the end of this book, despite having interviewed plenty of people for it, this reader still doesn't really know who Laura Bush is. She comes off as very private, and seems to be doing a noteworthy job of her quasi-job - "First Lady", which we learns is a term she does not care for in the least.
   
   The author takes a few pot shots at President Bush ~ such as saying that the President has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and Mrs. Bush has one with reading. She paints them as polar opposites, and I got the sense that the author was constantly shaking her head at what possessed Mrs. Bush to marry Mr. Bush. She also tries to suggest that Mrs. Bush is farther to the left than she would like to let on, but I don't necessarily buy that.
   
   Ms. Gerhart takes a chapter and dedicates it to the Bush daughters, and to their parents' parenting style, which suggests that the girls were brought up spoiled. She seems to nitpick every comment Mrs. Bush has ever publicly made about the girls, and this reader got the feeling that the author was shaking her head over the Bush girls' antics.
   
   Overall I didn't come away learning anything important about Laura Bush. Maybe someday she'll write her own story, in her own words. It would be fitting considering her fervor for the literary arts, and quite probably it would be without the sniping that the author sneaks in every few pages.



2. I'll admit up front that I am not a George W. Bush fan (does an American exist who does not have a strong opinion of him one way or the other?). But I thought there must be a deeper, more complex Laura Bush.
   
   Ann Gerhart's book is well written and I could not stop reading it once I started. There are lots of interesting tidbits (Laura Bush smokes cigarettes, but never in public) and revealing anecdotes and interviews. The chapter on the twins is ruthless. In another chapter, Gerhart describes in detail the tragic car accident that Laura Bush caused when she was seventeen, and what a traumatic experience it was for all concerned.
   
   So how does a woman who voted for Eugene McCarthy, who hangs out with liberal friends, and who loves her work, meet a guy who is running for congress on a Republican ticket and marry him six weeks later, giving up forever a career she has wanted since she was in second grade? I was certain that there was more to Laura Bush than meets the eye. After reading The Perfect Wife, I am convinced that there is less.
   
   Maybe she couldn't bear the thought of staying single into her thirties. I don't doubt that she loves George and that he loves her. It is obvious what George gets out of the deal. Less obvious is what Laura gets. One (male) interviewee suggested to Gerhart that George was irresistibly handsome and sexy. Please.
   
   There is little evidence that Laura Bush is an introspective person. She reads a lot, but seems to be as shallow as her husband. If she ever does evaluate her life and her decisions, I wonder how she will come to grips with having left the desperately important job of teaching at-risk children to raise a pair of self-centered and inconsiderate daughters. And with having supported a man who is dismantling the most important social programs this nation has. Will she ever speak out?
   
   Gerhart leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but by the time you finish The Perfect Wife, you will have enough information to form your own opinion about Laura Bush.



3. I read this book in October 2004 - an interesting time to be reading such a book, during the latter weeks of the US presidential campaign with Bush seeking a second term as president. The book dragged in places, the earlier and latter chapters being the more interesting. The writer seems sympathetic to Laura Bush - hence it is almost a shock to read the chapter on their twin daughters which is not at all sympathetic to them, and critical of the parenting they have received, such a contrast to the tone of the rest of the book (and perhaps also something of a relief?). A woman who says (and seems to believe) that supporting her husband is the most important part of her job, "whether my husband is president or not", and who gave up her own career as soon as she married him (after knowing him for just 12 weeks), a woman who has been able to refrain from voicing any of her own views and opinions - maybe that sort of woman is indeed the perfect wife for a President of the United States. I may have my own thoughts about what that tells us, but it is interesting to read about a woman with such a different outlook from your own and to try to see the world through her eyes for a time. I have considerable respect for anyone who has been through what she went through as a 17 year old (when she drove her car through a STOP sign at 50 miles an hour, crashing into and killing a very popular 17 year old male friend) and has managed to come to terms with it and go forward. And there is no denying the wisdom of this woman - whether it has come from her life experience or from her extensive reading - we can probably all take something from the lessons she teaches. Having read the book, I am no more enthusiastic about Bush and his policies than I was before, and have not been converted to a die-hard Laura Bush fan either, but I feel considerable respect for the choices she has made and for her commitment.



4. Laura Bush and her mother in law, Barbara, both reflect the enigma society has long created that women who have little or no income lack status or deserve no status, and therefore, have little or no value to society. The misconception arises from the hierarchy which values income level over social contribution and one that fails to recognize the value of marital support, childbearing and raising activities and housewivery. Women and men have been led to believe that unless they have substantial income, they have little value to society. Yet, First Ladies are always valued for their voluntary contributions, expected or not, but anticipated with enormous respect and anticipation with each new administration. Defying the logic that, by default, falls upon every female in this nation, or any nation, the income-based hierarchy of capitalism that fails to acknowledge the contributions of women to their families, to the community, and even to themselves, presents the most schizophrenic of economic philosophies to women, and the most difficult to digest over their lives. Due to the trend to adopt more women into the economic hierarchy of income earnings, Mrs. Bush represents the remnants of our civil society that once respected women for their presence, rather than the barbaric feudal world to which America continues to gravitate which defines women only by their level of income, as it does for males, and ignores their status as wives and mothers, deferring to the singular world where the benchmark of status is conferred by the status of the warrior, as measured by his conquest alone. That women allow this to happen is even more striking, and shows they lack the wisdom of the ages to allow themselves to be placed in so narrow a social box!



5. The woman KILLED a boy - she was driving her car down the street and of all people in town for her to accidently kill - she runs over her boyfriend!!! Talk about coincidence! There's a lot of bloodshed in that family. They're the new Kennedy's!! Let's open a dialogue about what a murderer Laura Bush is! Why didn't her husband send her to the deathchair???

3 comments about George H. W. Bush: The American Presidents Series: The 41st President, 1989-1993 (The American Presidents).

1. This book, authored by Timothy Naftali, ends with the following comment (Page 176): "George W. Bush's controversial presidency led to a positive reassessment of his father's time in the White House. . . .[M]any missed the elder Bush's realism, his diplomacy, his political modesty, and, yes, even his prudence."
   
   George H. W. Bush was a one term president who presided over the end of the Cold War. This slender biography, another entry in The American Presidents series, provides a useful biography of the 41st president of the United States. The book begins with his childhood and youth, culminating in his estimable service in the Navy's air wing, including being shot down in the Pacific. Upon his return to the United States, Bush entered Yale and, upon graduation, became a businessman who did well, after moving from New England to Texas.
   
   In Texas, Bush became interested in politics, and public service consumed him until the end of his presidency. He was ambitious from the start of his career. He had successes (election to the House of Representatives) and failures (defeat in a Senate race). He became a person respected by his Republican Party leaders, and served in a number of important roles, from Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the U. N., Chair of the Republican National Committee, and head of the U. S. diplomatic post in the People's Republic of China.
   
   After his China tour, he began thinking about the presidency. It didn't work out in 1980 (Ronald Reagan simply did a better job as candidate); however, he got quite a consolation prize--Vice President. Then, the tale of his campaign to become President in 1988.
   
   Once elected, he displayed prudence. He ran into trouble when he backed off his "Read my lips; no new taxes" promise from the 1988 campaign. Many Republicans were angered. His presidency did feature both domestic successes and foreign policy successes (end of the Cold War and the stunning cobbling together of a coalition to boot Iraq out of Kuwait--and his refusal to advance on Baghdad). There were also problems, such as seeming sometimes to be out of touch. Then , his dismaying defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.
   
   All in all, a good depiction of the man and his presidency. Another worthy addition to the series.



2. This was not a strict biography of the entire life of George H. W. Bush. The author. Timothy Naftali, gave brief information about President Bush's family background, military service and early career and of course how he came into public life. Most of the book centered on the challenges that President Bush faced during his years of presidential service and how his early experiences influenced the decisions that he made at a very difficult time in the history of the world.
   
   President Bush was at the helm during the period when the Cold War ended and the people of the Eastern European countries were throwing off the shackles of years of enforced communist rule. The author states that "Poland was the scene of the first dramatic change. In February 1989 Solidarity was legalized and Lech Walesa entered into talks with the Communist government to prepare for a new electoral system."
   
   President Bush's diplomatic relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev was good which was helpful in negotiating peaceful resolutions to some of the many problems which surfaced as the Cold War was ending. The nonviolent reunification of East and West Germany was also accredited to the President's intervention. A few years later in 1991, his diplomacy helped to garner a coalition of united forces that joined together to defeat Saddam Hussein's take over of Kuwait.
   
   On the home front, the President was not particularly popular. The American people found him difficult to understand. In some ways his aristocratic coolness turned many people off and within the Republican Party, he did not have the strong backing that President Reagan had experienced. The election promise that President Bush made when he ran for office was, "Read my lips--no new taxes." When he was forced to break that promise he lost a great deal of support and his bid for reelection.
   
   Timothy Naftali's assessment of President Bush was that he was probably the right man for the job at that time and that "George Bush answered the call for greatness when his country required it." I thought this book was well done and it helped me to understand more about world politics and President Bush. Time and history seems to be the best judge of how well a president performed while in office.
   
   
   
   



3. George Herbert Walker Bush - 1989-93
   "Read my lips!" the elder Bush said when he promised no raise in taxes. When taxes were raised, David Duke said he meant, "Kiss my hips!" The door opened for a stampede on the Oval Office from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric billionaire. "You want jobs? Here's the deal!" He got scared he was going to win and dropped out. He re-entered and got 19% of the vote as his Reform Party's candidate. The legacy of Bush 41 is his confrontation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. Bush put together a coalition and drove him out. Bush said it was not about oil. If it was not about oil, then it was not about anything. Americans do not care about Kuwaitis or Iraqis. They care about driving to and from sporting events, getting home to their wives and kids and putting food on the table. Bush made enemies across the Muslim world. Americans who wanted regime change in 1991 would get their chance. Bush kept looking at his watch when he debated Clinton. He underestimated Baby Boomers.

5 comments about Draw: The Greatest Gunfights of the American West.

1. Breezy, lightweight recaps of the greatest gunfights of the American West, as the subtitle says. Pretty much sums it up. No detailed historical research, plenty of gunslingers gives this the feel of fiction, and Reasoner's intro does say that he (a well-known novelist) did write toward drama if there was any question about the facts.
   
   Don't worry about it, just enjoy it.



2. David Poyer has written another book that amply displays his technical knowledge of all things nautical, in this case the historic battle between the Merrimack and the Monitor, the first of the iron-clads. Navy men should love this book, others perhaps not so much, wishing that there was more about the characters than about the construction and fighting ability of these two ships. The technical aspects of this battle have probably been detailed in some non-fiction book. If not, Poyer is well-equipped to do the job. For a fiction novel we would like more on the characters, their development and interaction.



3. Overall this a great book, however I only read about 3/4 of it. I really enjoyed reading this book in the evenings before falling asleep. I'm a non-fiction reader and love adventure books like this. This book reminds me of Mark Twain's Roughing It. It also reminds me of a book on bear attacks I read years ago called Mark of the Grizzly which is fantastic. You get to know the various outlaws, gangs, and lawmen of the time. Each chapter is a short biography of one or more characters and tells the story of a well known gun fight involving those characters. It's interesting to see how the citizens of the American West decided that some murders were justified.
   
   One reviewer said this book is repetitive, which is a little bit true, but what do you expect from a book that tells the story of the greatest gunfights of the West? There are only so many variations in the way bank robberies, holdups and gun fights can happen.
   
   That reviewer also said the author should have used references to back up accuracy of these events. I'm okay with there not being references in this book since I read it for entertainment. The events in this book are hard to prove true, but I believe the author has done a good job in researching each of these stories. A little bit of story telling is fine with me.
   
   I recommend this book even though I didn't finish reading it.



4. Well the stories were interesting, but not as interesting as they could have been because the author turned them into just "stories" and not "history." The main problem is the lack of research. There's not a single primary source listed in the bibliography. It's all taken from other people's books...this isn't history, it's a book report. The lack of primary sources turns what could have been a fascinating subject into little more than a "My First Big Book of Gunfights," full of bad guys turned into a bedtime story. If you want history, look elsewhere.
   
   My other complaint is that the writing is, frankly, repetitive. If I had to read the phrase "soiled dove," to describe prostitutes again I was going to scream. (Seriously, he uses the phrase at least 10 times.) He reuses quite a lot of other phrases and sentence constructions as well. (Lots sentences like "he had anger in his heart and vengence in his eyes.") Perhaps not a problem if you pick this up, read one chapter, and put the book down for a bit -- but when you read it over the course of a few days it gets really annoying.



5. The author, who is known for his fiction writing, has penned a very readable and entertaining history of the significant gunfights of the American West. The stories are detailed without being overly lengthy. Where disagreement exists between sources, the author points this out and opines what he feels is the most likely truth. His writing style is engaging and enjoyable. No western buff should be without a copy of this book on their shelf. If you like this subject, another must read is O'Neal's Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters.

5 comments about Commodore: The Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt.

1. This story of Cornelius Vanderbilt's life, from his birth in 1794 to his death in 1877, is also the story of the dawn and growth of American industerial enterprise. It also illuminates the rise of technology as an engine that raised living standards as nothing else has done in recorded history. Vanderbilt built a huge fortune without benefit of a wealthy family, education, training, or even any social graces. His wasn't the only fortune that was made during the early period of American industrialization, but certainly the largest that, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, has not been equaled since. His rise to fame and fortune took many years, spanning the transition from muscle to steam power, from sailing ships to steamers and then railroads, with side developments that included finance and communications with characteristics that are still with us today. This very readable book covers all of that as well as his warts and blemishes, which were as large as the man himself. The 347 pages are organized into 24 chapters, capped with an epilog that surveyed the rags to riches to rags again in three generations. Included are extensive notes on sources and materials that formed the basis and supporting background of the book.



2. When I bought this book, I thought it was going to have more about his involvement in railroading more than he was it was his favorite son who was the one who grew the NYC railroad. Don't get me wrong about this book it is a good read, very detailed and humorous, if you see it. This book covers in detail about his shipping business, his beginnings in life, his family history, including a little bit of what life was like back then. You think politics is bad today, it is just as bad then as it is today. State sanctioned monopolies and how he ran circles around them, and not get caught. If the Commodore said he was going to ruin you, he did.
   
   I enjoyed this book, and you will too.



3. My recommendation on this book is very nuanced. This book is very good in that it is an excellent collection of facts on "Commodore" Cornelius Vanderbilt. More specifically, this is one of the few, greatly detailed books on the Commodore in existence. In this biography, you will read about Vanderbilt's ingenuity as a steamship captain, his defiant stance and eventual victory against the state-enforced steamboat monopoly of Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston, his prodigious success as a railroad magnate and his spirited offer to personally help, as a steamship captain, the Union army hunt down the USS Merrimack, an ironclad steam-propelled Confederate warship. The adventures of Cornelius Vanderbilt often reads better than fiction!
   
   Unfortunately, this book is often unpleasant to read because the author seems to relish bashing Cornelius Vanderbilt for many of his colorful but reprehensible personal attributes. Renehan really seems to go out of his way to gleefully remind the readers how Cornelius Vanderbilt was illiterate, how he displayed little command of the English language and how he seemed to ridicule and despise individuals who valued intellectual pursuits. To me, it almost seemed as if the author wanted to persuade the readers that despite Vanderbilt's immense business achievements, he cannot really be that great because he cannot spell properly.
   
   This schadenfreude towards Vanderbilt is further exemplified in how the author really seems to take great pleasure in reporting Vanderbilt getting swindled by Jay Gould during his struggle for control of the Erie Railroad. The author unsympathetically describes Vanderbilt as having to "lick his wounds" as if he is a pathetic, scalded dog who got what he deserved and not a great businessmen who was sold fraudulent stock certificates (as implies the allegation against Jay Gould).
   
   Not to leave any personal vice unexplored, this book also delves into Vanderbilt's unadmirable relationships with the many women in his life. In this book, you will learn about Vanderbilt's habitual womanizing with the most uncouth of women, his being cajoled by his girlfriends to bankroll the mass production of Marxist literature, his (eventually fatal) contraction of STDs and in the grand finale of all odious personal acts, his (presumably unjust) institutionalization of his wife allegedly to allow him to continue his illicit affairs. If the last part is even remotely true, then Vanderbilt has truly led a disgusting personal life.
   
   To be clear, I certainly do not think that the author should deny that Cornelius Vanderbilt did not live an admirable personal life. However, the only reason why Cornelius Vanderbilt is in history books is because of his achievements as a great industrialist. The relentless descriptions of Vanderbilt's illiteracy, his philandering, his boorishness and his other negative attributes is at best overemphasized, if not downright annoying and immature. I did not get this book because I wanted to read about what a horrible personal Cornelius Vanderbilt was; I read this book because I wanted to get a better understanding of his remarkable achievements as an industrialist.
   
   In summary, a good book on Cornelius Vanderbilt today is a scarce reason indeed. For this reason, I definitely recommend this book until something better comes along as it is a very good source of information on Vanderbilt's accomplishments as a businessman. However, be warned of the constant bashing of Vanderbilt for his hideous personal character contained within, as it really is irritating.



4. At his death in 1877, Cornelius Vanderbilt, the "Commodore", had amassed more money than any American. Edward J. Renahan's book is a brief examination of his personal and professional life. Vanderbilt was born on Staten Island, New York, to a poor family that had to sail if they were to escape from their relative isolation. From his earliest days, Vanderbilt provided reliable transpoprtation of people and freight for the lowest fees. Gradually, he acquired larger and more modern craft and expanded his activities around the Northeast, and then the Western hemisphere. He acquired his first railroad as a short connector between docks, but eventually came to control or own stock in many rail companies. What made Vanderbilt different from most people was his drive to keep expanding. Not only did he increase water routes, but he branched into steamships, then to railroads and finally to backroom stock manipulation. Most people would have curtailed their radical growth and been content to do one thing well, but Vanderbilt was comfortable with the constant thrill of new routes, better machines and continual competition. The competition was cutthroat and many big lines would have gladly smothered the hard-working Vanderbilt had he not moved into less developed, more profitable arenas. And, he had no compunctions about strangling his rivals whenever he could.
   
   Renehan's portrait of the Commodore is generally unfavorable. He was a wiley businessman and had practices that are now illegal. He treated his family badly- eg. had his wife committed when she refused to move to a new home. He also was intent on keeping his fortune together and left scraps to most of his children. (Only one son, Billy, won his approval as the mogul who would take his place.) The Commodore had a weakness for lower class harlots and paid for his wenching by dying miserably of syphilis. Perhaps most damning, is the fact that Vanderbilt gave away very little of his fortune. (Vanderbilt University somehow coaxed about $1 million from him, but noblesse oblige was not in his world view.
   
   Despite this, there are admirable traits that shine through. Vanderbilt had no family connections or inherited wealth to draw from. He was virtually illiterate and required secretaries to read and write his business transactions. He lacked polish and the drawing room manners so essential for acceptance in New York society. But, the Commodore didn't pretend to be what he was not. He did not waste his money fawning over European arts and pleasures; racing steeds and racy strumpets seem to have been his only extravagances. There seems to be a solid historical record of Vanderbilt's business dealings, but this biography lacks the family tales and back-room, old boy yarns that would give this book more human interest. (I don't know that this is the author's fault- maybe the Commodore was silent or humorless.) Nevertheless, this is an enjoyable study of one of the 19th century's most important men.



5. Cornelius Vanderbilt's life makes for anything but a dull story. It is a classic 19th century rags to riches story in which a farmer's cunning and pugnacious son forges a powerful shipping empire through any means at his disposal. The Commodore goes so far as to orchestrate a coup against an American puppet government in Nicaragua to push up the value of his stock. Renehan spins a fine yarn, but also dwells in tedious detail on the antitrust and state vs. federal government dynamic - i.e. his sections on Ogden and Gibbons - which are unnecessary and less relevant in a brief book about Vanderbilt.
   
   Overall, the book is informative and colored with choice anecdotes. During his slow syphilis induced demise, a septuagenarian Vanderbilt takes a pair of young sisters - one only in her twenties - as mistresses which he believes to have magnetic healing powers. Ultimately the two women go on to start the first female owned brokerage - relying on inside information provided by Vanderbilt's son in an effort to keep them away from his married father - the Commodore.

5 comments about The Life of Thomas More.

1. This book requires focus. I had previously read much about the Tudor period, some light, some serious, before this demanding biography. It's a thorough and detailed book. Given More's brilliant intellect and career, understanding his story requires commitment. The author writes with clarity and energy. I appreciated the unbiased yet empathetic view Ackroyd presents. We learn equally about More's flaws (superstitious, scathing, rigid, devious) and virtues (dutiful, discrete, skillful, loyal, pious). The author examines More's evolution from avid humanist to persecuting polemic to his final integrity-inspired stand against the Act of Royal Supremacy.



2. Sir Thomas More was a Londoner from birth. He was born in 1478 in the last flowering of the late Middle Ages Roman Catholic world of that distant day. More was a brilliant student who studied at Oxford and at the law courts of Lincoln Inn. More rose high and became Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. All was well with Sir Thomas as he served King and Country as lawyer, judge, diplomat, Steward of Oxford and Cambridge, pious Christian layperson and author. His book "Utopia" has become a deserved classic of satire.
   More was a humanist who was friendly with great men such as Erasmus who often visited him in his estate in Sussex. More was twice married to Jane Colt who died at 22 and the widow Alice Middleton who was witty, wealth and wise. More had a quick wit, deep love of God and strong belief in the
   beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. More had several children by his first wife. His daughter Margaret was considered to be the smartest woman in England being proficient in Latin, Greek and the classics. All of his children loved him. More indulged in scatological jokes; had countless pets and viewed life as a grand drama with him as an actor upon the stage of affairs.
   On becoming Lord Chancellor after the fall of Cardinal Wolsey he was zealous in the persecution and burning of reformers and Protestant. More opposed the English translation of the Bible by William Tyndale. He could be cruel and was a bitter enemy of anyone who opposed the Church. Like most people of the age he was superstitious believing firmly in ghosts, omens in dreams and the literal interpretation of the Bible. More called for reform in the existing church but believed everyone should obey the Pope in Rome as a father is obeyed in the well ordered home. He would not brook breaking away from Roman Catholicism.
   More was beheaded in July 1535 and his property was attained due to his refusal to subscribe to the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. More believed Henry's marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon was valid. He believed that by marrying Anne the King of England was not in obedience to God's law. More believed the church should be governed from Rome rather than be ruled by the King of England. He hated Martin Luther condemning him to hell. More was inimical to the Protestant Reformation. His faith was in the old church which had governed Western religion for a millenium.
   My feelings towards More are mixed. I do not like his persecution of heretics but one most concede that he was a product of the cruel times in which he lived. I do admire his courage in dying rather than sacrifice his belief in what is right to do as God gave him the light to discern that right. More has been sainted by the Roman Catholic Church.
   Peter Ackroyd is the author of this 400 pages book making it much shorter than the definite biography of Sir Thomas by Richard Marius. Ackroyd portrays More warts and all giving a balanced view of the controversial man's life and times. More and his contemporaries are often quoted using the English of the period. This may prove annoying to many readers who prefer to read about him in a standard English format. This is a fine biography by one of England's best biographers.



3. Thomas More lived an exemplary life during hard times. His faith in the Catholic Church was put to the test by his king, and though he failed his king and paid the price on the scaffold, he served his God and was rewarded with martyrdom and sainthood. Peter Ackroyd's book is a brilliant and dramatic telling of More's life.
   
   Thomas More was born in London in 1478. He was educated at Oxford where upon his father's insistence he studied law. But he was also interested in theology and thought for a while of becoming a monk. Famously he wore a hair shirt his entire life. Instead of taking vows, however, he took a wife and had four children. He made sure his daughters received as rigorous an education as his sons. (His wife died in 1511 and he married Alice Middleton and adopted her daughter.)
   
   The law was More's lifelong profession where he represented various groups in the courts and helped settle trade disputes abroad. He wrote a history of King Richard III, wherein he portrayed Richard as a cruel, even criminal, ruler. In 1516, he published his most famous book, UTOPIA, which described an ideal community governed totally by reason. When Cardinal Wolsey failed to secure an annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he was replaced by More as lord chancellor. He worked diligently in this position and became a friend to the king. But troubles were already visible in the horizon.
   
   When Henry, through the Act of Supremacy, declared himself the head of the Church of England, More was in opposition to him: he refused to take an oath of allegiance to Henry that would deny papal supremacy of the church. He was tried, found guilty, and beheaded five days later.
   
   Ackroyd is especially good in relating the dramatic events during these last few years in More's life. He narrates this with the power and skill of a novelist; indeed, it's almost impossible to put the book down during the last 100 pages. Anyone in want of moral uplift need only read these last pages for complete satisfaction. More went to the scaffold bravely, even telling the executioner to stay calm and aim true. He joked after stumbling on the scaffold steps and received help: "When I come down again let me shift for myself as well as I can." Then "he died the King's good servant but God's first," which is his life in a nutshell. Ackroyd writes with authority and tremendous style, but it's the drama that he infuses in his account that truly sets this book apart. Highly recommended.



4. The moment I finished Peter Ackroyd's "Life of Thomas More," my strongest impulse was to close it, open it up to the first page again, and start -- immediately -- reading it all over again, word by word, page by page.
   
   I hung on every word of this text. I wanted to understand Thomas More.
   
   I wanted to understand a man whose misogyny was obvious in his many derogatory statements about women. For example, when asked why he liked short women, he said that it was best to choose the lesser of evils.
   
   When a mature man, More married a mere girl and got her pregnant so many times in such rapid succession that she lived only a few short years after marrying him.
   
   More married his second wife, as the saying goes, while still in mourning clothes for his first. He mocked that second wife, Dame Alice, publicly. He wrote texts that associated women exclusively with sex and disgusting bodily functions like vomiting and diarrhea.
   
   And, yet, More was exceptional for his time in educating his beloved daughter, the one great passion of his life, Margaret More Roper.
   
   More persecuted his countrymen who deviated from the Catholic faith, and published vile condemnations of Luther, and eventually, knowingly, and humbly, sacrificed his own life to his own interpretation of that faith.
   
   More rose, through obediance, flattery, and dogged labor, from relatively humble circumstances to being Henry the VIII's chancellor, and a wealthy man, and then tossed away his considerable worldly goods and power to die an ignominious death.
   
   You want to understand a man who could encompass so many passionate apparent contradictions.
   
   And, so, I hung on every word of Ackroyd's detailed and yet economical text.
   
   My attention was amply rewarded. Ackroyd marshalls the kind of authentic, telling details of the Medieval life that More lived that can make an era, and its inhabitants, come alive. Even so, Ackroyd is never wordy. When he has said enough, he simply stops.
   
   Along the way, Ackroyd brings to light the life and impact of a woman he says has been nearly forgotten: Elizabeth Barton, a seeress and nun in Kent. Barton spoke against Henry VIII's divorce of his wife, Catherine of Aragon.
   
   Her voice was considered so important that Henry himself visited her.
   
   For her trouble, Barton and her priestly followers were tortured to death.
   
   As I read, I could not help but reflect: in our own age of "celebrity," we know too many details about non-entities we don't care about at all -- the Britney Spears and Paris Hiltons enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame. We can view film footage of their most intimate moments on the internet; hear their every thought in televised interviews.
   
   Thomas More lived five hundred years ago. We can't ask him to reconcile for us his hateful diatribes against women and his love of Margaret, his ant-like accumulation of worldly goods and his sacrifice for his beliefs.
   
   The records just don't exist.
   
   And, yet ... even though the More in these pages has to remain something of a cypher, even though More, as was the norm in his time, wrote with extreme caution in ambiguous, tradition-bound, unspontaneous and sometimes flowery prose, I felt I had an encounter, through Ackroyd's book, with a remarkable human being. I was in tears throughout the final passages leading up to More's death.
   
   A final word: I am a fan of "A Man for all Seasons." Again and again, reviewers pit Ackroyd's book against the Robert Bolt play and subsequent movie.
   
   One does not necessarily cancel out the other...both the film and this book work, for me, from what I know about More, as explorations of his life and impact, and his famous final choice.
   
   I never saw Paul Scofield's More as a Thoreau-like figure, as some reviewers have said; he was not depicted as living in a house in the woods, after all, and he did base his decision on adherence to a greater principle than personal conscience, i.e., the law, just as Ackroyd's More does.
   
   So, yes, do see the movie, and do read this book.



5. Gosh, golly gee, crikey - the superlatives could go on all day. This is a superb, densely textured biography. Ackroyd revels in the complex psychology and sociology of his subject, e.g., his devotion to duty, his father fixation, etc. He also places Thomas More firmly in the London of his time and in his historical moment - the Reformation - especially through More's own writings.
   
   It has been remarked that the chapters amount to a series of vignettes. That's true, and the amount of knowledge retailed in each glimpse of More and his world is staggering.
   
   To give but a few examples:
   Chap. 3 - St. Anthony's Pigs: we follow young More through the streets of Tudor London to his school and get insight into the Renaissance education system.
   
   Ch 4 - Cough Not, Nor Spit: Thomas' early career as a page to Archbishop (of Canterbury) Morton, Henry VII's notorious "enforcer". This relationship illuminates More's later dealings with Cardinal Wolsey.
   
   Ch 8 - We Talk Of Letters: sketches of Grocyn, Linacre, Lily, Colet, More - the "London humanists", or More's intellectual circle.
   
   And so on. The book continues in the same fascinating vein. It is a hard slog to read, and I'm sorry that Peter Ackroyd did not give a glossary of A) Latin and Greek expressions, and B) even some of his more obscure English words. I also regret that there's no map to illustrate Ackroyd's loving depiction of the London where More learned, lived, worked and suffered.
   
   More's story is well known and often told. Ackroyd has given a fully-rounded portrayal of the man, his background, career, family and friends.
   
   What a pleasure to read.