5 comments about All too Human.

1. In this moving look into the White House, Stephanopoulos carefully treads the line between worship for his idealized boss who embodied all the dreams and hopes Stephanopoulos had for his country, and distraught disappointment at the human flaws that caused this man to dally with a certain females and to lie to his aides about it. For Stephanopoulos, the crime here is not the actual act, but the fact that his boss let his people lie for him - without even realizing they were lying. This lack of trust and respect was crushing to the young idealist and it shows through in every page of the book. He mourns for what could have been, but wasn't; he hangs his head for the mistakes made by his "all too human" boss. He does not, however, descend into mudslinging - he obviously still adores his former boss, even if he did turn out to be a little less large than life.



2. This book is interesting in two ways. The first is the rise of a working class immigrant's son to the position of political advisor of the world's most powerful statesman. The father of Stephanopoulos was an working class immigrant yet his son was able to become a Rhodes scholar and reach the position in politics he did. The American success story. It is also interesting, from a much more cynical perspective, in that Stephanopolous' political advice was all politically motivated and absolutely none (with emphasis on absolutely) had a basis in the actual non-political benefits or costs (or efficacy). Extremely cynical. One comes away wondering whether it is even possible for the political process to produce socially beneficial policies instead of just politically expediant solutions.



3. First, my standard disclaimer: I am a political moderate and social conservative. This book is an average look at what happens in political inner circles, specifically the Clinton white house. I was a little disappointed that Stephanopoulos did not take more risks to write about subjects that the general public did not already know. It seemed that much of the reason for the book was for the author to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing.



4. George Stephanopoulos' memoir of working in the White House during Bill Clinton's first term in office makes you feel like a fly on the wall of the Oval Office. Written in that hypersmart, jargon-fluent style familiar to "West Wing" viewers, "All Too Human" is an engaging, candid companion to readers of any political stripe, in part an impassioned defense of one of America's most infuriatingly bipolar personalities, in part a cautionary tale of power trumping principle.
   
   Among the best and brightest that made up Clinton's 1992 campaign staff, no one burned brighter than Stephanopoulos, a senior advisor to the President at the tender age of 31 whose charge included Congress (he formerly worked for House Majority Whip Dick Gephardt) and satisfying Clinton's critical liberal base.
   
   Stephanopoulos makes no bones about being a true believer. He likens his work with Clinton to being an altar boy for the Greek Orthodox priests of his youth. "It's Nazi time out there," Clinton explodes when the Republicans campaign against him in a special congressional election in Kentucky. Stephanopoulos seems on board with this Hitlerian characterization of the GOP.
   
   Yet Stephanopoulos' passion is tempered by a cool calculating side that finds much common ground with the president, too much, he comes to find. "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason," goes the Eliot verse Stephanopoulos keeps on his desk, in a cramped room he coveted for its proximity to the Oval Office. Even when he manages to get the president to save affirmative action or appease other liberal concerns, it all comes back to a base sort of pragmatism. Is Clinton doing it because it's the right thing to do, or for the political benefit? What about George?
   
   Stephanopoulos' candor is this book's greatest asset, candor about the calculating Clinton, his prickly wife Hillary, and especially himself. He recalls a moment in the first campaign when he caught himself telling a small child that her father is "a bad man" for lying about Clinton. Stephanopoulos wants us to see him, and his boss, as good people, but like the title suggests, with some intrinsic flaws.
   
   While the first half of the book is marginally more interesting as a whole, as the Clinton team finds their way into the White House amid bimbo eruptions and fights its own party to pass a budget through Congress, the second half has the book's most interesting figure, the one man Stephanopoulos paints in entirely black hues: Dick Morris.
   
   Morris could be a Dickens character, "a small sausage of a man encased in a green suit with wide lapels, a wide floral tie, and a wide-collared shirt." As unctuous as Uriah Heep, Morris twitters on about his access to the president, all the time sizing our narrator's back for a place to stick his knife. Stephanopoulos, who views Morris as nothing less than a Republican mole, does likewise.
   
   "I have no home. I have no one left to talk to," Morris tells Stephanopoulos at one point.
   
   Get a dog, Stephanopoulos finds himself wishing he had the nerve to reply.
   
   Morris has claimed Stephanopoulos misrepresented him, but I find the depiction very close to the bone from what I've seen of this fellow commentating on Fox News.
   
   There are flaws in the book, like Stephanopoulos' shorthand with the facts. He seems to assume the reader is as well-versed as he is about the Clinton years, which has him skirt over a lot of material or peripherally refer to things like Tammy Wynette being upset with the First Lady as if we all will know the rest of the story. There is also a fatal Yuppie self-absorption in how Stephanopoulos whines about his trials. A lot of people deal with mega-stress. Not so many have a movie actress ready to draw them a bath.
   
   But "All Too Human" is a good read, and buttressed by Bob Woodward's "The Agenda," one gets an immersive sense of life around Bill Clinton in his first term, a time of great possibilities, hopes, and, inevitably, more than a bit of frailty.



5. The subtitle of this wonderful memoir taught me more about politics in 400 pages than I'd learned in 40 years. A diehard liberal and a political fanatic, someone whose views would normally make me sneer and scoff, Stephanopolous paints a picture of the stresses, ins-and-outs, spin, activities and the vital scope of the world inside the Oval Office. Every newsworthy event or program is canvassed for its political ramafications; the very definition and refinement of the word "politics" is reinforced on every page; the mistakes that lead to triumphs, and the feel-good preparations that lead to disasters are all here in stark detail. Stephanopolous proves himself a very sensible man, and even his staunchly liberal views are sidenotes to the greater energies, arguments and preparations that occur inside the White House. I occasionally disliked S's speaking his own platform (which he did sparingly), or telling how political parties are constructed to blunt the other even when their plans are sensible, but all in all I learned more from this book about the workings inside the White House than from all my prior readings and public education.

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

1. 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.



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



3. 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.



4. At the outset of her short biography of Richard Nixon (1913 -- 1994), Elizabeth Drew quotes Henry Kissinger's comment: "Can you imagine what this man would be like if someone loved him"? Nixon served as the 37th President of the United States and as the only president who resigned from office following his efforts, and the efforts of those close to him, to obstruct justice in the wake of Watergate. As the reviews on this site show, Nixon still inspires strong passions, predominantly negative, in many people. And these negative views were undoubtledly earned by Nixon's actions which threatened the rule of law of our political system.
   
   I was alive during almost the entirety of Nixon's political career and able to remember most of it, including the 1960 election and Nixon's presidency. I have always found Nixon an enigmatic figure, and in my younger days admired him more than I should have. Elizabeth Drew's short biography, "Richard M. Nixon" (2007) written for the American President's series is unsparing in its criticism of Nixon. Yet Drew shows some sympathy for her subject and some appreciation of his strengths. Her book was not easy to read, with its reminders of our recent American past and with the appeal Nixon at one time had for me; but I found it rewarding as well as troubling. Drew has, on the whole, tried to present a balanced picture of Richard Nixon.
   
   Drew portrays a Nixon who is introspsective and a loner -- he is intelligent, highly driven to succeed, and resilient. The Nixon of her portrait is also an extremely ruthless vindictive and unprincipled paranoid, who drinks to excess, is merciless towards his perceived enemies and opponents, and viciously anti-semitic. Drew shows that these aspects of Nixon were inextricably intertwined and operated to doom his presidency.
   
   Drew traces Nixon's complex psychological make up to his days as a child in California growing up in a loveless, poor home with few friends. Nixon became a loner and a fighter -- qualities he was able to recognize in himself. The traits that would doom his presidency -- the corruption and the no-holds-barred dirty campaigning, were evident in his first campaign for Congress in 1946, in his Senate campaign of 1950, and in his activities in securing a place on the Republican presidential ticket in 1952. Many of Nixon's advisers from his early political years found a place in his presidency.
   
   During his presidency, Nixon had a modestly progressive domestic program, for which Drew may not give him enough credit, including substantial environmental reforms, increased aid for the poor, the end of the draft, an activist approach to the problems of Native Americans, and other matters. Nixon was, Drew points out, the last progressive Republican president, although much of this may have resulted from his relative uninterest in domestic affairs. In foreign affairs, Nixon established detente with the Soviet Union and broached an opening with China -- large accomplishments which Drew justly praises. Nixon had many other foreign policy setbacks, and he protracted the United States involvement in Vietnam which -- together with Watergate -- became the defining aspects of America for an entire generation. Drew briefly but powerfully describes the Watergate story which led to Nixon's disgrace and to his resignation from office to avoid impeachment. It was an extraordinarily difficult time for our country.
   
   There was a quality of grit and fight in Richard Nixon which was a strength as well as the source of his downfall. Thus Nixon was able to surmount any number of setbacks which could have ended his career -- his 1952 "Checkers" speech, the loss of the presidency to Kennedy in 1960, the loss of the California governorship in 1962, and the resignation from the presidency itself. Following his resignation, Nixon attempted to rehabilitate himself in a series of books, speeches, and interviews, and soirees in an attempt to portray himself as an "elder statesman". In part, he succeeded. Nixon was also able to transform his early background of poverty and to use it in terms that resonated with many Americans -- paradoxically in Nixon's criticism of elitism and of those more fortunate than himself whom, he believed, stood in his way. In the turbulent times of the late 1960s, during his presidential campaign, Nixon's slogan was "bring us together." Unfortunately, he was unable to use the gifts he possessed in a constructive way but instead pursued a course that led to a devaluation of our political life and to his own self-destruction.
   
   Elizbeth Drew's book is a good introduction to a tortured man and to his presidency.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. I am a big fan of the 'The American Presidents' book series. Many have some interesting perspectives on the men they are presenting. Every book in the series does a good job until I read this one. If I had wished to read a book about Watergate or the author's idiotic attempts at psychiatry I would have bought a book on Watergate or a beginners book on psychology. Aspects of the Nixon presidency like his foreign policy victories in China, Russia, and Vietnam are missing. Nixon's debateable domestic programs and nuclear freeze politics are hardly examined. His political battles in getting to Congress, the Vice Presidency, and remaking the Solid South are invisible.
   
   The only interesting section of the book has to do with Nixon's reinventing himself after each of his defeats yet the author never gives Nixon credit for anything. Instead the book devolves into personal attacks and inane theories from the author. I asked for a biography but instead got a one sided political attack in the image of Ann Coulter or Al Franken.
   
   Terrible.
   
   If you are looking for a good Nixon book try any book but this.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series).

1. One can't help but view this biography as if Remini were defending the honor of an individual he clearly found wanting. John Quincy is so much the prideful product of his famous forebears (must read McCullough's John Adams first), that he can't help but fall short in his own right. Particularly insightful is Quincy's stubborn wrong-headedness in his managing of his cabinet appointments, which contributed greatly to a sour legacy. Remini does serve JQ well in praising his foreign policy successes as ambassador and Sec. of State, and provides enlightened review of his post-presidency legislative terms.....but clearly the tone is condemning of a most ascetic and belligerent man reaching beyond his natural skills as a diplomat to underachieve as an executive.



2. This biography of John Quincy Adams, referred to as JQA throughout much of the book, is quite a treat. It astonishes me that so much information can be packed into such a short book (155 pages of text). Still, from my perspective, this is a satisfying book.
   
   John Quincy Adams was truly an exceptional character to study. As a young person, he accompanied his father, John Adams, to Europe to help him in his diplomatic duties. JQA learned an immense amount, developed many useful skills (including learning different languages), and began his career of public service at a very young age.
   
   Born in 1767, he lives a long and full life, dying in 1848. His coffin contained language was written by Daniel Webster (whom Adams detested) (Page 155): "A citizen of the United States, in the Capitol of Washington, February 23, 1848, Having served his country for half a century, And enjoyed its highest honors."
   
   A sampling of some of his accomplishments: His service abroad while in his teens, going to Russia apart from his father to serve as an assistant to the American ambassador there (the ambassador did not speak French, and JQA's command of that language was valuable in the Russian court); His first tour of Congress was controversial as his independence led both parties to sometimes get irritated with him; His time as Secretary of State, during which he developed the Monroe Doctrine; His controversial election as President and the rough politics of his one term; his return to the House of Representatives as a cantankerous and independent Representative. His return to Congress after serving as President is extraordinary, not repeated afterwards by any former President. In his term, old as he was, he served as a stalwart against slavery, and near the end of his life (as viewers of the movie "Amistad" know) he argued before the Supreme Court of the miscarriage of justice against the enslaved Africans who had seized control of the slave ship.
   
   All in all, a quick read and a pretty satisfying volume.



3. Robert Remini's brief study of John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) is part of the American Presidency Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The series has the commendable aim of introducing the reader to each of the Presidents in a volume of short scope. The broader aim, I think, is to reawaken an appreciation of the history of our country and to stimulate reflection on the American experience. Thus, each volume tries to present a story of a life and also to explain briefly what is unique about each President and makes him worthy to be remembered.
   
   Remini gives an excellent discussion of John Quincy Adams's service to the United States, both during his Presidency and before and after it. The aspect of JQA's public service that stands out, both in his Presidency and otherwise, is his commitment to American Nationalism. By this I mean a devotion to creating a strong, united nation for all the people to promote the public welfare. JQA worked diligently to advance the interests of the entire American people, as he saw these interests, rather than to be a tool of any faction or party or momentary passion. Much of the time, he succeeded.
   
   As President, JQA advocated the creation of public works and improvements to link the country together. He was a strong supporter of education, scientific advancement, and learning. He wanted the Federal government to play an active role in supporting these ends and worked towards the creation of an American university. (After his Presidency he was a strong advocate for the creation of the Smithsonian Institution.)
   
   Before he assumed the Presidency, Adams served as the Secretary of State under James Monroe. He worked for the goal of American Nationalism by expanding the boundaries of the United States through a skillful exercise of diplomacy until they extended to the Pacific Ocean. JQA also was instrumental in the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.
   
   Following his presidency. JQA served as a Congressman from Massachusetts. He distinguished himself in working for the anti-slavery cause and, specifically, by his tireless opposition to the "gag rule" which aimed to prevent critical discussion of slavery-related issues in the halls of Congress.
   
   Remini presents his material in a way that focuses on this theme of JQA's public service and on its nationalistic aspirations . He also points out how and why JQA failed to realize many of his goals, particularly during his term as the sixth President (1825-1828) Adams was named President by the House of Representatives following a highly contested election. It was alleged that he struck a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay, who became Adams's Secretary of State. This "corrupt bargain" doomed the Adams Presidency and tarnished both Adams's and Clay's careers.
   
   Adams was also highly opinionated and stuffy and gave the impression of aloofness. He was not a good politician and lacked a certain ability to compromise or to work cooperatively with others. At one point Remini writes (p. 110): "It is really impossible to think of any other president quite like John Quincy Adams. He seemed intent on destroying himself and his administration. By the same token, it is difficult to think of a president with greater personal integrity." JQA was defeated for a second term by Andrew Jackson in a bitterly fought campaign. Among other things, Jackson possessed abundant popular appeal and charisma, in sharp contrast to JQA's aloof, intellectual character.
   
   While Adams's Presidency failed, his goals and ideals were good. They lived on and deserve studying and remembering.
   
   Remini also gives a good summary of Adams's personal life, adopting some of the psychohistory of JQa's recent biographers. He points out the stresses that Adams endured from his famous father and mother and the pressures placed upon him and his brothers for high achievement. JQA also imposed these pressures and expectations, alas, on his own children. There is a good discussion of Adams's failed love affair as a young man --probably the one passion of his life -- and of his subsequent marriage to Louisa Johnson. Remini describes JQAs extensive intellectual interests, his tendencies to anger and to depression and he links these traits in a sensible way to the failings of Adams's Presidency.
   
   This is an excellent study of JQA which captures in short compass the essence and character of his contribution to the United States. Readers who want to learn more about JQA -- with a focus on his service as Secretary of State and as Congressman from Massachusetts may wish to read the two-volume study by Samuel Flagg Bemis: "Joh Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy" (1949) and "John Quincy Adams and the Union" (1956).
   
   Robin Friedman



4. I am familiar with the concept of the American Presidents Series, whereby each chief executive is given a relatively short and concise treatment. Perfect for the history buff that might not want to invest several weeks in reading a two volume discourse on the life and times of James K. Polk.
   
   John Quincy Adams was an important American statesman during a turbulent period of American history. His heritage as a son of Founding Father John Adams, coupled with a virtual lifetime of public service is certainly deserving of study (granted, for a serious history buff, probably more than that provided in this work). I was therefore somewhat disappointed when upon receipt of the book, it was no larger than a mere pamphlet.
   
   The Amazon synopsis lists it as being composed of 196 pages. I can't imagine how this number was arrived at. The text of the book comes in at 155 pages. Even including the "Editor's Note", endnotes, milestones, bibliography and index, only 173 are consumed. If you add the title page, all the blank pages at the beginning and end of the book AND the front and back cover, you still can't come up with 196 pages. Therefore, what you have is a very short biography that is actually over 20% shorter than advertised. Certainly understandable in the case of some of the "sketchier" Presidents, but John Quincy Adams?
   
   Adams, born into the illustrious family of John and Abigail Adams, was raised to lead a life in politics. It is an unusual set of circumstances that resulted in Adams's presidency actually being viewed as the least successful period of his life, rather than its pinnacle. Adams was an accomplished diplomat from an early age, spending productive time in all the European capitals throughout the early American administrations. He finally served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, a recognized stepping stone to the presidency.
   
   His election in 1824, by a bitterly divided House of Representatives, ushered in a period of political bitterness and infighting astonishing in its ferocity. His personal feuds with Andrew Jackson and his supporters are possibly the most vicious in political history. Adams's presidency is generally viewed as quite ineffective. His refusal to take advantage of political patronage and his naivety in matters of political strategy doomed him to serve a single term.
   
   Following his presidency, Adams was elected to represent the state of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of his opponents, from all aspects of the political spectrum. The single personality trait of Adams highlighted throughout this work is independence. His refusal to abide by party lines and forge long lasting alliances resulted in his failure to govern firm majorities throuhgout his career.
   
   He was a henpecked son and, according to the author, a failure as a father and husband. He comes across many times as a sanctimonious Puritan and devolved later in life into an unpleasant, irascible, back bencher. Nevertheless, he was a seminal figure in early 19th century American history and deserving of more than 155 pages of treatment.
   
   Finally, a note on the author's style. Given the brevity of the work and the scope of Adams's life, it is not surprising that the writing sometimes feels clipped and brusque, moving quickly from topic to topic. On several ocassions, the author begins paragraphs with short, declarative statements such as, "What a disaster!", "What an opening!", "That did it!" (twice), "Superior management!", "What idiocy!", that lent a jarring almost inappropriately informal tone to the writing.
   
   All in all a relatively unsatisfactory work. Had the author in fact taken 196 pages to present the subject, perhaps it would have been better received. Nevertheless, if you want an ultra quick and dirty synopsis on the life and political career of John Quincy Adams and only have 5-6 hours to invest, this may be the best you could do.



5. The author is best known as the biographer of Jackson, so understandably he shows some favoritism for Jackson.
   
   He covers the essentials of JQA's life but very briefly as intended. The book serves its purpose as a concise biography of a president whose life was intimately connected with the history of the first six decades of the United States.

5 comments about The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History.

1. Pocahontas's life has reached mythical proportions. How could any book possibly offer new information? The True Story of Pocahontas was written by the Mattaponi, her tribe. After having read many accounts about the legendary woman's life, I tried to interlock the jigsaw puzzle with the pieces never quite fitting. Not only did this book answer my questions, it filled in the gaping holes.
   
   John Smith wrote the stories about Pocahontas saving his life several years after her death. Other texts admit as much, yet most gloss over why this may have been. Few also question why a woman abducted by what must have seemed like an alien culture would immediately dress like her captors, convert to Christianity, and marry within a year of her captivity. All of those facts, plus another side to Pocahontas's death, are revealed with shocking clarity. The True Story of Pocahontas should be required reading for every American history class.



2. The authors of this book felt that this was the time to finally tell the true story of Pocahontas, and I completely agree. It's time people, especially Americans, face the truth that has been shrouded in romantic myth for far too long. It may be difficult for some to think of such historical figures as John Smith, John Rolfe and others to be anything but heroes, but it's far more important to the history of this country that the truth be told. The Mattaponi, Pocahontas's tribe, has kept their secret knowledge of the truth to themselves for 400 years. It is with bravery and no doubt a sense of relief that they finally decided to share it with the world. The time for Disney movies and romaticized stories is over: it is now time for the truth.



3. This is a very important story that should be read by as many people as possible. It is essential that we recognize the value of oral history--and the other side of history that is presented here. We generally know so little about the native people who interacted with the English settlers of Jamestown--their beliefs, their way of life, and their perspective. We are very fortunate that Dr. Custalow was willing to share the story that he knows with the rest of us, particularly as we turn our attention to Jamestown during this "celebration" year. It is beautifully and evocatively written and well worth your time and thought. I know that reading it has affected me, and increased my understanding of this pivotal time in our nation's history. Thank you for your contribution, Dr. Custalow.



4. After reading this version of Pocahontas, a lot of things became clearer to me. I could never understand how, when the Natives from the rest of the United States were treated so horribly by the Anglos, that the Natives of Virginia escaped, virtually unscathed, during the time of Powhatan. It was very informative, beautifully written and I am grateful that the truth has been told. My congratulations go out to both Linwood Custalow and Angie Daniels for writing this book. I know that Chief Webster 'Little Eagle' Custalow, from his present vantage point, is very proud of this contribution to history. I only wish that he were here, in person, to tell you this.
   
   Thank you for sharing,
   Barbara 'Little Doe' Adkins
   Gloucester, Virginia



5. The book tells a "new" story to me from the standpoint of the Powhatan Indians of Virginia. I enjoyed learning of Pocahontas from the viewpoint of her ancestors. This oral history of her life was enlightening. It made me rethink how my English ancestors behaved and how they may not have been as truthful and honest to a trusting Powhatan Indian Chief, Pocahontas's father, to gain successful knowledge about planting and growing crops in the "New World." I also never knew that Pocahontas might have been kidnapped by the settlers. To learn in this book that Pocahontas may have been poisoned in England, where she died, it was very sad.
   Great read!
   Thanks to Dr. Custalow.

5 comments about Granuaile: Ireland's Pirate Queen C. 1530-1603.

1. Anne Chambers is the authority on Granuaile O'Malley, and she has written the definitive scholarly work in this biography on her.



2. Anne Chambers' book provides a fascinating and inspiring glimpse into the life of an extraordinary Irish woman. Ms Chambers does an excellent job painting a picture of life in Ireland during the 16th century and the role of women in Ireland through the ages. Anyone traveling to Ireland or interesting in Irish history and the role of women in Irish society will benefit from reading this biography.



3. It's my fault really but this book is just not what I was looking for and I could not get through it.



4. This book was excellently written. To the person who said the anti-christian statements were not true- Let me guess? Your a christian right. Thats the problem with christians, they still deny the truth no matter what. Christianity has always been a man's religion and its the most degrading religion to women and womens rights that has ever existed. I'm glad this author had the guts to be more unique and unconventional to tell the TRUTH. Sorry Christians. I know you never appreciate that.



5. I'm an O'Malley, so you can bet I was looking forward to this book. However, with all due respect to the author, at least in the early going, this book contains some anti-Christian, radical feminist claims that put into question the integrity of the rest of it. For instance, on page 17-18 (paperback edition) the author states: "The writings of the early Christian saints, such as Paul, John, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, reflected the degraded position of women in Roman society. Augustine wrote of the 'horrible beastliness of women'..."
   
   Not surprisingly, the author can not substantiate this claim and therefore does not give reference to the original source documents in her endnotes as she does with other claims. Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that the period in which Granuaile lived was male dominated, and at times, shamefully so. However, that doesn't give an author a license to try to right any injustices by yet another injustice.
   
   It's a shame that the apparent good intentions of this author were laid waste by her seeming desire to bash males and Christianity. A biographer should, at the very least, seek, know and uphold the truth, and then tell the good, the bad and the ugly in an even handed way. This isn't too much to ask.

3 comments about Separate Pasts: Growing Up White in the Segregated South (Brown Thrasher Books).

1. Since few people in respectable circles today would admit to having supported segregation, it is rare to read honest accounts from White southerners who admittely accepted the system and went along with it, as most did at the time.
   
   This book is an interesting read for that reason. He speaks matter of factly about his own acceptance of the prejudices of his era and area, as he punches a black boy who uses his mouth on the same needle that he does to blow up a basketball without realizing why at the moment, although he is usually pleasant in hiis relations with the black customers who frequent his grandfather's general store in Wade, NC in the 1950s.
   
   However, he comes across people who challenge everything he is led to believe about Blacks. There is the African-American schoolteacher who forces him to refer to her as "Miss" and most of all, his unlikely friend Street. Street is a self-educated free spirited intellectual who is amazingly accurate on biblical, astronomical, and constitutional facts who lives in a cave by himself. The local Whites dismiss him as crazy and eccentric, but Melton comes to see that Street is not only accurate in his facts, but represents the tragedy of racism through the inability of Street to make a living from his knowledge. One of the most interesting characters in all of Southern biography, one could easily picture Louis Gosset Jr. or James Earl Jones portraying Street in a film version of this book.
   
   I would strongly recommend this for exposing young people in particular to a seldom-heard side in writings about the segregation era.



2. McLaurin has written a valuable and beautiful book. It deserves a place on the shelf with "Coming of Age in Mississippi" as a document of life in the segregated South and of the moral challenges that segregation presented to those who lived in the system.



3. McLaurin's book is a touching recollection of growing up in the South during the 1950s. His rich narative describes not only the difficulties all teenagers face, but explores how these difficulties are made even more difficult in a changing environment. While so many imagine the white teenagers of the Little Rock school integration as pictures of young whites during the 1950s, McLaurin paints a picture of a young man sensitive to the plight of blacks in the Jim Crow South. A very good book, highly recommended to those who wish to get a detailed portrait of the 1950s South

4 comments about Lives of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the Augustan History, with Newly Compiled Lives of Nerva & Trajan.

1. The German scholar H. Dessau unmasked the six authors of the Historia Augusta (HA) as the brainchildren of one impostor, whom Sir Ronald Syme in his `Ammianus and the Historia Augusta' calls a master of historical romance.
   This book contains 17 lives of emperors from the HA, together with 2 small biographies of Nerva and Trajan compiled by the excellent translator Anthony Birley.
   The anonymous author of the HA mingled excerpts from other works, particularly by Cassius Dio and Herodian, with his own `fiction' to compile a parody of imperial hagiographies, exposing those who `belittle the defeated'.
   It is a work in super-Hollywood style with fake letters, bogey references and even an insult litany on Commodus. The latter `killed with his own hand many thousands of wild animals, even elephants.' During the reign of Antoninus Pius, `four lions became tame of their own accord and yielded to capture'.
   Hadrian was a Stakhanovist: `At one and the same time, he wrote, dictated, listened and conversed with his friends - if it can be believed.'
   Avidus Cassius had a schizophrenic character; he `seemed truculent and rough, but sometimes placid and mild; often he was devout, but at other times scornful of sacred things; avid of wine, and again abstinent; eager for food but able to endure starvation; a devotee of Venus and a lover of chastity.'
   Marcus Antoninus `made the bad good and the good very good.'
   Pescennius Niger insulted his soldiers: `You have the Nile and you ask for wine?'
   But the author is fundamentally a moralist: `Wretched is the republic which endures those men who are desirous of riches, and the rich.'
   Severus `killed many for allegedly consulting astrologers or seers about his health, especially each and every person suitable for the imperial office.... Yet the murderer of these men is regarded as a god.'
   Emperors don't need hagiographies: (Hadrian) `The lot of emperors is wretched, for they cannot be believed in cases of attempted usurpation - unless they have been killed.'
   
   This cleverly disguised author wrote a superb hoax, which is a must read for all lovers of classical literature.



2. If you are to read this enigmatic work, you are already a Roman History buff, so beware to sort the fiction from actual history. Historia Augusta, in its better moments, renders the same flavor as a well-accomplished Xena episode; one feels befuddled by the mix between History, sheer invention and tongue-in-cheek humour; eventually, one wants to read more (well, supposing you are a Roman history buff and a xenite...) Therefore I regret very much the absence of an integral version of the whole work, that is the second half - the histories of the emperors after Heliogabalus - where fiction predominates, and which is perhaps the most intersting part in historical terms, as it is pratically the only written source for the most troubled years of the Roman Empire. Reading the work puts a most intriguing question: why it was that Late Antiquity found it necessary to look at its own past this way? Not a entirely otiose question in our postmodern days, I daresay.



3. This book is meant to be a continuing off of the Suetonius book, ending with Elagabalus (Heliogalabalus). This book is written similarly to Suetonius and includes the cover and inside grittiness of each emperor. a must read for people interested in the personal lives of the emperors.



4. The Augustan History is probably one of the most enigmatic and controversial historical documents to reach the present. Birley gives an excellent introduction on the current state of knowledge - according to which the book was a fraud or joke of sorts - and his notes are careful to point out what is likely to be true or not. The ancient text itself can be quite irritating to read, though. Birley's own lives of Nerva and Trajan are rather more interesting.

5 comments about Setting the Desert on Fire: T. E. Lawrence and Britain's Secret War in Arabia, 1916-1918.

1. For anyone who doubts the adage "that those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them" then this is the book for them. Barr not only looks at Lawrence's role in the desert revolt of 1917 to 1918 but also the convoluted dealings of Britain and France in the Sykes-Picot accord and its consequences for the Middle East today.
   The book is well researched with copious notes and references and extensive bibliography. There are also photographs of many of the people and places mentioned in the text. The book examines the reason for Britain's involvement in the region, the tensions between the India Office and its support for the ibn Saud family and the Egypt Office and its support for the ibn Husain family and the tensions between the Arab tribes themselves and the lack of a clear aim for the revolt. It also examines in some detail how the British government wanted to distance itself from the Sykes-Picot accord as the war progressed and the French insistence that it be honoured.
   The only criticism I have is that the author has a tendency to interpose his own observations of the sites of events in the middle of the text about those events without the benefit of separate paragraph. Apart from this the book is an excellent read and well worth its purchase for anyone interested in the region, the desert revolt or T. E. Lawrence.



2. James Barr should have left T.E. Lawrence's name out of the title of this book, although I assume that the "Lawrence of Arabia" name sells more books than "The Hijaz Revolt." As someone who views the American Revolution and World War I as the defining post-Enlightenment events of world history, the repercussions of both are still being felt 225 and 90 years, respectively, after these wars ended, I was immediately drawn to this book. With the current conflicts in the middle east drawing so much time and energy, I saw the title of this book and thought it would be a must read when I picked it up. Barr shoots for the Goldilocks approach here in terms of detail (not too much detail, not too little detail, just in the middle), but I think upon reading this book, I wanted more detail.
   
   While T.E. Lawrence is a prominent figure in the Arab revolt of WWI, he shares the spotlight with several other people that most non-historians would not know. The legend of "Lawrence of Arabia" is so strong in the Western world. Barr does an admirable job at summarizing the context of Britain's stoking of an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire, but I became lost amid all of the names, places, and events. It would have been helpful to include more maps of the areas where Lawrence and his colleagues travelled and sabotaged Ottoman outposts. I also found Barr's interspersing of his own travels to this part of the world to give a modern day account of the places in the book a bit awkward. These modern accounts fall randomly in chapters and are seldom more than a paragraph in length. Again, Barr seems to shoot for the Goldilocks approach even with these firsthand accounts.
   
   What I will say for this book is that it sparked my interests in the Arab revolts of WWI, and I intend to read more on this subject. In this sense, this book is sort of like a Cliff Notes version of a longer book. That could have been Barr's intent.



3. There's a great old song from 70 years ago called "Perfidia", and the title and lyrics seem quite appropriate to this fine new historical work. The war in Arabia conjurs up all kind of heroic and romantic visions, almost all centering on T.E. Lawrence. WW I was, for the most part, a hell of trench warfare and attrition. The individual counted for little here, and the death toll was huge. There was a longing for heroic figures during the war, and between the wars, and there were basically only two kinds of such figures. Both kinds were men who could act on their own (as opposed to the slog of trench warfare) and who could achieve visibly important deeds. One kind was the fighter pilots (two-seater recon pilots didn't count, even though on the English side this was about 2/3 of the pilots), and the other kind was Lawrence. Lawrence became a legend during the war: very few other English officers in WW I could roam about pretty much at will. Oxford-educated, independent-minded, ambitious, fluent in Arabic and sympathetic to Arab causes, charismatic, and, most importantly, a fine soldier with a good strategic and tactical mind, Lawrence was a natural hero, a natural legend.
   
   Lawrence's story--Seven Pillars of Wisdom (abridged as Revolt in the Desert) helped keep the legend alive after WW I. But being a legend, creating a legend, and narrating legendary deeds (in a sometimes self-serving way) isn't always as enjoyable as you might think. Lawrence had to become Private Shaw to achieve anonimity. For a long time, the legend was the history: Seven Pillars of Wisom was the historical reference. Then there were books from the Arab point of view, often belittling many of Lawrence's claims. And, of course, we have Peter O'Toole on camelback. What is needed is a sorting-out. What actually happened? What was the larger picture? Barr's book does an exemplary job here.
   
   Barr puts everything in perspective: how Lawrence got involved (he nearly didn't get involved at all in the conflict), the incessant tribal conflicts and loyalties, the clashing personalities on both the Arab and British sides, and, most of all, the politics. Arabia was a sideshow to the Western Front, but it had vital strategic importance. The Suez Canal was gravely threatened, and immense turmoil could have been caused among the Moslems in British India. So the British wanted a strategic victory, or at least a strategic stalemate in the area. They also wanted to maintain control after the war ended. The French had an interest in Syria, and felt that they would have to control Syria after the war. So the British were happy to make lots of promises which they figured they could renegotiate or break after the war, and were willing to supply money and a few supplies and an advisor or two--such as Lawrence. They also made agreements with the French, often diametrically opposite of what they had promised the Arabs.
   
   So what you get here is a well-written tale of deeds, setting mines under railroad tracks, politics, promises, personalities. Barr visited many of the sites to get a firsthand feel of the area, and there are plenty of photos showing remains of trains blown up by Lawrence during the war. You get the overall picture, and you get a balanced perspective. Barr will tell you when he thinks Lawrence is exaggerating or dissembling. Lawrence remains a magnificent figure in the book--it's not anti-Lawrence. We need to put the legend in context, and we've needed this book for a long time!



4. This is a very useful layman's history of the Arab Revolt. Contrary to most accounts, it does not see Lawrence as the central figure; rather, it details the motivations of, and the conflicts between, all the soldiers, politicians, and countries that were involved in the affair. This book puts Lawrence's role in context, making him a less important player in the entire scheme of things, but carefully demonstrating the critical contributions that resulted from his unique ability and personality.
   
   The writing is, particularly in the beginning, slightly sloppy, cliche-ridden, and self-indulgent, but the narrative demonstrates careful and exhaustive research. However, the final page's attempt to make this story relevant to the current Middle East struggle, by claiming that Britain's failed pledges to the Arabs in 1918 are what created Osama bin Laden, is nonsense.



5. Setting the desert on fire is a historical account of British Army missions in the Middle East during the First World War. However, its impact is a great deal more wide ranging than that sounds. Given the current delicate situation in this part of the world, this book takes the reader on a fascinating journey to the heart of the region, and certainly helped me to place some of our current follies in context.
   
   At the heart of this book is T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), and his extraordinarily daring, brave and probably short sighted actions. There seems to be tendency these days to dismiss the Legend of Lawrence (partly created by his own writings), but Mr. Barr's assessment of his involvements take an intelligently balanced point of view. His involvement in the story does provide a dynamic end engaging drive, but there are many other equally important characters in the narrative. The author gives particularly welcome insight into the significant parts that Sharif Husein and Sharif Feisel play in the encouragement of Arab revolt against the Turks.
   
   As a whole this book takes us through the events in detail, carefully mapping out the positions of the Turks, British, French and Arabs along the way, whilst placing the whole vital but small-scale actions in the context of the mass slaughter going on in France at the time. However, what really brings this book alive, and completes its important accessibility are the contemporary insights of the author. A trip by Mr. Barr to the site of the Hijaz railway and the various towns in the area provides numerous connections to the present day. This creates a freshness and energy that helps the reader to visualize the place and time with clarity and texture.

5 comments about Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.

1. As a Child of Exiles, I read and had the pleasure of meeting the author, Very Informative book, I did not need to read it to know that this book says what Us "Crazy Cubans In Miami" as were called ,Always have thought about this scumbag. The book dares to Confront the truth, a ugly one not liked by "so-called scholars" and way-left loonies, First, That he was A blood thirsty killer, who sent not just So-Called Batista's Men but Apolitical people who were caught up. Ordered many executions(see The lost city, Read Spanish Book: El Che Mito o Realidad By Enrique Ros,Or See Documentary of same name.)Yet Foolish Idiots like Santana, Rich Suburban College kids who have never stepped foot in communist torned cuba. That the so-called liberator was a mere follower, Was a Spoiled kid and yes even liked the so-called ills of capitalism!.That he was a Psychopath with deep rooted problems(He shot a Dog for no reason), Was a Coward(Never fought on the front lines and did not know military strategy) Never got his "Degree". So The Doctor Was not a Accredited one.and Was a Failure at all he touched included the Monetary system in cuba. Often you will hear idiots say But before the "Revolution" Cuba was a third world country". Was not, not until after Castro and INC. came on the scene.Cuba was one of the most advanced countries in the world right along the united states, sometimes ahead of the U.s.! We had the 1940 constitution, of course batista was a bad leader, but the situation was not as severe as described by "Historians", and NO the Mob as popular myth has it did not run cuba as its own as much one would say the mob ran the U.s. Many things are exposed here.Again, If your A blind leftist this book is not for you. if your apolitical or conservative. you must read. everyone should read a book that does not depend on sources(Straight from the cuban regime!)and from a critical point.



2. If Humberto Fontova's book were not so disturbing, I would call it a page-turner. And in as much as it grips you from the first sentence, it is still difficult to read of the first-hand accounts of such brutalities which, sadly, fill this book from beginning to end. Unlike Jon Lee Anderson's disgraceful and idolizing tribute to the bumbling, blood-thirsty butcher of La Cabana, constructed upon interviews with present-day communists still ruling in Cuba (Anderson wrote his book while living in Cuba), Fontova instead reaches out to the families and victims themselves to tell the story of the coward and mass murderer, Che Guevara. In fact, one of the great joys in reading this book was the masterful deconstruction of credibility he wields against leftist Che biographers like Anderson and Jorge Casteneda. Fontova eerily transports you to the blood-spattered execution wall where thousands of innocent Cubans were murdered as Guevara gazed down from his office window while dining -- a favorite pastime for Che. He takes you to the filthy dungeons where prisoners awaited their turn at any moment, day or night, to be dragged to the stake and shot. He also takes you to the dank, repulsive rooms where prisoners had almost two pints of blood drawn from their bodies moments before execution. This blood was, in turn, sold to North Vietnam as an export item for profit. In short, Humberto Fontova vividly brings the horrific world of Castro and Guevara's "revolucion" into your living room.
   
   Fontova's book finally reveals Che T-shirt-wearing dolts like Johnny Depp, Carlos Santana as well as every other useful idiot stupid enough to don them as they fools they truly are.



3. This book is so bias that it makes books by people like Michael Moore look truthful--and in all openness, I love Moore's books, I find them hilarious--but that's okay, if you can make some clear points and elaborate on them. However, in this book, that steams with the sated hatred Mr. Fontova has for Che and the people that like him and think him a Revolutionary, his points are too broad, and too outward against what is actually known. But I will be fair and show the points that he did make that are true.
   
   1. Che was a murderer.
   2. Che participated in acts of torture.
   3. Che was responsible for the murder of several male teens.
   4. Che aided in installing an egaltarian dictatorship--though much of communism is shadowed on egalitariaism, Castro's views are to the extreme.
   5. Che was not a chivilarous and kind person who only wanted freedom.
   
   All of these things are true about Che Guevara, he shouldn't be an icon of freedom. But the smart person sees him as one for Revolution. He was a revolutionary. He was not a psychotic, though he did suffer from paranoia, his acts of murder of the multitude of men that he did kill (quite a lot less than what Fontova has listed, 14,000, more like 4 or 6), came not from a callousness, but from a fear of being overtrown and killed (this is referenced in the change of voice in his journals through the times, several biographies, not to be biased myself, but Che A Revolutionary's Life is one great source). He did not murder children. He did murder boys--teenagers--old enough to take up arms that he felt a threat, or a support of the former dictatorship. He disowned the movement with Fidel after seeing what Fidel did with the power. Che Guevara did believe what he spoke and did believe in what he was doing, it made him a dangerous person, a person that would not stop until he accomplished his goals. He was willing to die for his cause. He was a revolutionary.
   
   I do not like Che Guevara, I think he's overhyped. I do not like this book. I think it's a poorly written, poorly structured, and even worst, poor lies--if you're going to lie to me, at least do it creatively and believably like Michael Moore. There are plenty of reasons to not like Che Guevara, but the facts in this book aren't one of them.



4. Exposing the Real Che Guevara is an interesting text, and certainly sheds some light on a man who was a blight in twentieth century history. I learned some out of the ordinary facts in this text, and I would tell people to read it simply as a starting point to finding out the truth about Che.
   Having said that though...Mr. Fontova's prejudices come through, and he has a right to them. But in being so emotional, he gives his detractors something to point at and belittle. This allows people, and disingenuous reviewers on this site, to distort the book by attacking his obvious emotional bent without touching on the truth in this book. For the most part Fontova substantiates most of what he says, and some of it is truly shocking. Still, I keep coming back to my desire for a more scholarly approach to this text. The book suffers from redundancy and that again takes away from his thesis. This text is imminently readable, which I think accounts for some of the author's simplistic style choices, and I hope it serves as a jumping off point for even more scholarly research into the joke that is the myth of Che Guevara.



5. this book doesn't expose how truely evil che was. i'll allways remember his evil laugh while being tortured, i was one of the lucky ones who managed to escape during the revolution

2 comments about The Story of My Life: The Restored Edition (Modern Library Classics).

1. My vote of many others who believe Helen Keller was Person of the Century. She was an incredible human being. Personified what should be the "Human Spirit".



2. This is a beautiful 100th year anniversary edition of Helen Keller's The Story of My Life, originally published in 1903. In his introduction, editor James Berger stresses the importance of offering Helen Keller's text in its original form, but he has greatly enhanced the original story by including additional background information, a section of Keller's own letters from the age of eight, and finally, commentaries on Keller's personality, education, speech, and style written by Annie Sullivan and others.

   Although Helen Keller's story is familiar to all, to read it described in her own words is even more compelling. Using wonderful, descriptive prose, Keller does a masterful job of depicting her transformation into a sentient being after the arrival of her teacher, Annie Sullivan. Of particular note is Keller's frequent use of sight-oriented language (e.g., "very soon the green, pointed buds showed signs of opening") despite her disabilities. Although Keller tells of several dark periods in her life--including the "Frost King" incident and her struggles at college--what shines through most clearly is her incredible optimism and unfailingly cheerful disposition.

   As amazing as it is to read Keller's story in her own words, it is her letters which leave the reader feeling truly astonished. Just three and a half months after Sullivan first arrived to teach Helen, Keller was able to write simple declaratory statements such as "helen write anna george will give helen apple." The progression of Keller's language is truly extraordinary; just five months later, she is writing nearly as well as--or perhaps better than--other children her age: "I am glad to write you a letter. Father will send you a picture." Soon it is nearly impossible to believe that this young woman spent her first eight years without thought or speech. Included within Keller's letters are some of the replies she received from her many famous friends, such as the poet John Whittier.

   Following Keller's letters are supplementary accounts from various sources, most notably the letters of Annie Sullivan. My one complaint about the book is that I wish these letters had been printed side-by-side with Keller's; it would have been truly captivating to read the accounts of pupil and teacher in tandem. Still, Sullivan's accounts are appealing in their own right, and her life's dedication to her student was truly remarkable. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone wanting to get the clearest, most true account of one of the 20th century's most fascinating women, Helen Keller.