5 comments about Eleanor the Queen.

1. Although the writing is fair in this book, I was disappointed by the lack of depth to the characters, including Eleanor. This is one of the most fascinating queens in history, whose story is multi-faceted. However, this book only scratches the surface of Eleanor's life. It does not develop the relationship between her and Henry (or their sons, for that matter), which is a major pivoting point in Eleanor's life. I did like Eleanor's prison companion, Kate, and thought her character was not as flat as most were in this book. And what about the Princess Alys, who was betrothed to Richard from a young age? This book doesn't even go into the possibility of the rumored relationship between King Henry (Richard's father) and Alys as being the reason Richard called off the betrothal. I would not recommend purchasing this book unless you can find it for a quarter or less.



2. Though Ms. Lofts prose is lovely, there is no substance to this novel. Eleanor of Aquitaine was perhaps the most influential woman in European history, culture, and politics until Elizabeth I of England, yet Ms. Lofts ignores most of Eleanor's most important contributions to Western Heritage (e.g. troubadour poetry and her patronage of Fontevrault). Ms. Lofts inexplicably ends the novel with the departure of Richard I on the Third Crusade, which means that Eleanor's role as Regent is utterly ignored. Personages who had significant roles in Eleanor's story are never or barely mentioned, such as Empress Maude and Thomas Becket. The information provided in the work seems designed for a much younger reader than the style of writing indicates.



3. I think Norah Lofts is an excellent writer of historical fiction & this book was very well done, however, it is not a story with many happy moments for Eleanor of Aquitaine. I usually will re-read books that I enjoy, but I find this one too sad to want to read it again - Eleanor just can't get a break, it seems. I've read Jean Plaidy's Plantagenet books involving Eleanor and she's presented in a less accurate but somehow more cheerful way in those books. This is certainly a more accurate account, but just not something that will put many smiles on your face.



4. Eleanor of Aquitaine must be one of the most interesting women in history. Her intellegence, her legendary beauty and her joint crusade with her first husband, the King of France would make for an amazing story alone. Now add to it that she was also the wife of King Henry II of England and the mother of Richard the Lionheart (and SEVERAL other children) and you have the makings of an epic story filled with love, betrayal, political intrigue and so much more! Instead, Lofts tells a nice story though uninspiring which touches areas of excitement briefly toying with them and then instead wanders down the a road that is interesting but dull. This is my third Norah Lofts novel and I am still seeking the same talent and style I found in A Wayside Tavern. I am again left disappointed and wondering how the same woman wrote that book and this.



5. This is an interesting work of historical fiction by a noted writer of historical fiction and gifted storyteller, Norah Lofts. the author capably details the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, one of the most famous and celebrated women of the middle ages. Touted by the troubadours of her time as being a woman without compare, Eleanor of Aquitaine could certainly be held to be the first feminist.

   Married first to the pious King of France, Louis VII, she bore him two daughters and went with him on an unsuccessful Crusade, where she was to have a number of adventures. Stifled by the King's somewhat misogynistic advisors, she and the King would come to a parting of the way after fifteen years of marriage. No sooner was she divorced and returned to her Duchy of Aquitaine, than she met eighteen year old Henry Plantagenet, who was to become King Henry II of England. Nearly a dozen years separated them but this was to be no bar to their marriage.

   Eleanor and Henry were to marry, and she bore him numerous sons and daughters. She lived happily with Henry for many years, until she discovered that he had a mistress, the fair Rosamonde of legend. The break in their relationship would eventually result in the estrangement of Henry from his sons and the imprisonment of Eleanor for nearly eighteen years.

   This is an excellent work of historical fiction, filled with the political intrigues of the day, historical events and personages, and a story that has withstood the test of time. It is a book that those who like well-written historical fiction will, undoubtedly, enjoy.

5 comments about The Last of the Hitlers.

1. A rather sordid little peek show, set against the background of the post-Nuremberg truths about 'what really happened' and the shame of having to live with it.
   
   And, if, as modern liberal multicultural, 'we-are-all-simply-products-of-our-environment' lore would have it, does it matter if someone has Hitler's genes?



2. It's the very first book I have read about Hitler's family, and I found this book rather interesting. The author writes that Hitler tried his very best to hide the facts about his clearly dysfunctional family. Gardner tells us about Adolf Hitler's father who was born out of wedlock, and all the questions made about who was his real father. Alois Hitler sr. is described as a bully and adulterer. Alois jr. should have been beaten unconscious by his father, and Alois sr. should also have kept a string of mistresses whom he married when his current wife died.
   Adolf Hitler's mother protected her own son, but should have been cruel to her stepson Alois jr.
   Alois jr. turned out to be a bigamist, and he also comes across as irresponsible, selfish and a bad father to his English son.
   We also learn about Adolf Hitler's sisters Angela and Paula, while the author keeps tracking the führer 's family in the USA.
   I found this book to be well written and I learnt a lot I didn't know.



3. This is a pretty good book. However, it concentrates primarily on the authors search for the Hitler relatives in the US and not so much on information about them. It does provide a look at Adolph Hitler as a young man which is actually pretty interesting. This is apparently a rare book, so it took 6-8 weeks for delivery which was kind of a disappointment.



4. This is one of the rare books that holds you in riveting attention all the way through. The reader should try to view the history channel documentary on this subject. The book is well written and is five stars+
   farleyrd



5. This book is very entertaining. I bought it expecting to get answers on what became of Hitler's blood relations. I was disappointed in the amount of information concerning Hitler's nephew, and what became of him. But, it did have some fascinating evidence about Adolf's mother, father, and siblings. Worth a look, but, it's quite expensive for what you really get. I'd recommend checking it out from a library if you can.

No comments about Two Early Tudor Lives: The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey by George Cavendish; The Life of Sir Thomas More by William Roper.

2 comments about Joyce: Selected Letters.

1. Unbelieveable. There is no doubting that James Joyce was one of the twentieth century's greatest writers. His contribution to modern literature is still being felt 60 years after his death. And, yet, his letters, which are as close as we will ever get to knowing what he was thinking while composing his great works, are no longer available in print?

   Thank God I purchased this book years ago! Richard Ellmann had done a tremendous job of sorting and compiling Joyce's letters in a way that shows us Joyce's thinking as he put together "Dubliners", "Exiles", "Stephen Hero", "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", "Ulysses", and "Finnegan's Wake". While some (back when the book first came out) questioned the extremely private/sexual communications that Ellmann included, no one doubted the importance of all the other selected letters. This is a remarkable look into the mind of a great writer, and I hope some publisher will pick it up and reprint it. In the meanwhile, try to get a used copy through Amazon.




2. This book contains a suite of new letters to Joyce's wife Nora and another to his benefactress Harriet Weaver, which have been abridged or excluded from previous editions. The explicit nature of these love letters makes them unlike anything you have read before. This book delivers the full Joyce - unabridged and uncensored.

No comments about Mary Robinson: A Woman of Ireland and the World.

5 comments about Fatal Passion:, A: The Story of the Uncrowned Last Empress of Russia.

1. This is not a terrible biography, but I have to agree with the reviewer who said the author is way too enamored of his subject to be objective. He's not the best writer in the world, and he does his subject no service by romanticizing; being melodramatic (that title!), and/or speculating about her life and the people who surround her...It's difficult to write about someone who ordered her personal papers destroyed, which must be why Mr. Sullivan indulges in speculation at times. I preferred John Van der Kiste's "Princess Victoria Melita" as the better biography of this granddaughter of Queen Victoria; it's a far more balanced biography than Mr. Sullivan's.



2. I have at least 100 different books about the Romanovs in my personal library, and I have to say that this is the bottom of the barrel. The writing is trite, the research is flawed, and there are so many inaccuracies that I question this book being called non-fiction. There were so many things Sullivan could have developed in greater depth--especially the relationship between Victoria and her sister. Of course, Ducky was such a shallow individual that I imagine it must have been difficult to write a biography about her. Past reviewers seemed to either love or hate this book. I suspect that the raves came from Sullivan's friends. Any historian familiar with Romanov history will identify this book for what it is--a very flawed attempt to make a minor character in Russian/German/English history into a major one.



3. This is the biggest lot of historical nonsense. Sullivan has an
   irritating style and a gushing attitude towards his subject
   (either he's related to Ducky or madly in love with her). He
   cannot get over how impossibly wonderful, gorgeous, perfect, etc
   he thinks she was. This is a totally inappropriate stance for a
   historian towards a subject. He also trashes everyone Ducky knew
   to make her look better. Sullivan's treatment of the murdered
   Empress Alexandra is particularly cruel and unnecessary. Bottom
   line: Ducky was an overrated, frumpy, greedy historical footnote.
   Cyril wanted to be Emperor, so why didn't he start by executing
   traitors like himself and his wife? Their behavior was inexcusable, even during a revolution. This book is inexcusable
   as a history or as a biography. Don't waste your time or money.



4. This was an immensely enjoyable and fascinating book from beginning to end. The author certainly did a superlative job in gathering and presenting the facts and placing them in a very skillful and compelling narrative. So often history comes across as dull and lifeless, but not here. Sullivan has a rare talent for dramatic construction and detail which ignites the story and makes it fascinating to follow. I really enjoyed his character descriptions and the clever way he created the time and place and unique sensibility of a long-passed era. I find many of the critiques here rather difficult to comprehend. Maybe some readers had been misled or misinformed as to what type of book they would be reading. For some of the more vicious reviews, I can only assume these readers would be more at home in a ultra-hip and downbeat modern subject matter. Certainly Victoria Melita was no beauty by our current standards, but the author fully explains this and only references her in the then estimations and standards of her own era. These rather mean-spirited and extremely carping criticisms aside, I think anyone who wants to read a wonderfully written historical biography will fully appreciate this book and not be disappointed.



5. I really don't know where to begin. I read this book a year ago and am reviewing it now only in response to the extraordinarily absurd and unfair customer reviews that I recently read here. I am 36, a Phd in English Lit and teach at a local college. By any reasonable and fair criteria of review, this book is exceptionally well-written. The author Sullivan has a wonderful way of using words and an unusual gift for weaving a narrative that is both dynamic and engaging. His style equally entertains and informs. Although I am not a historian, I can appreciate his extensive and thorough research. Of course the book has flaws - but they are relatively minor ones, and certainly not the awful errors that the incredibly shallow and mean-spirited critics on this page seem so convulsed. How curious to me that this excellent biography has seemed such a lightning rod for these acutely negative people. In an age where criticism is 100% personal and subjective, it is a true study in psychology when these highly prejudiced and obviously bitter people gleefully attack a work such as this with their sharpened stilettos. Imagine someone writing a review and basing an entire negative attack on the opinion that the book's subject is not beautiful in their own estimation. Obviously Victoria Melita is no beauty for today's standards, but Sullivan bases his estimation on numerous quotes which show her as a beauty by the standards of a different world a century ago. Why anyone should have trouble accepting this fact of changing fashion and taste and cruelly dismiss the book because of it - I simply don't understand this mind-set. I think the fact that Sullivan is a young, handsome male who comes off as privileged, if not aristocratic himself, has antagonized many readers (liberals, men-hating feminists, ect) and made them resentful and jealous. There can seemingly be little other excuse for these hostile and unfair critiques. Any open-minded, intelligent reader without some extreme agenda would find this book to be what it is - not the greatest biography ever written, but certainly a fascinating, entertaining and extremely well-written historical work - one which is more than worthy of a long and careful read.

5 comments about Lenin: A New Biography.

1. Lenin, no matter what is thought of his philosophy, is one of the major figures of 20th century history. The author of this book had access to newly released documents (at the time, ca. 1994) from the archives of the USSR, and has used them in a telling biography of the man.
   
   
   
   Some have called the author less than objective, and that probably is true. The times in which the book was written need to be taken into account. But if the author was less than objective, this book still reveals much about Lenin and the inner workings of the regime he helped create.
   
   
   
   Lenin had but one thing that he used as a criterion for deciding what must be done: Does it help the revolution? That he was capable of ordering the execution of 'undesirables', letting people starve, all because he thought it was good for the revolution tells the truth about the man. He was ruthless, he was cruel, and evidently had no problem with his conscience over anything he ordered done.
   
   
   
   What I got from this book is that Lenin was the architect for what came after him. Stalin took full advantage of this, and evolved the brutality to new heights. But Lenin was the beginning. Stalin was but the continuation.
   
   
   
   A book that does get bogged down at times in detail, and has to be 'waded' through. Hence only 4 stars. But there is plenty to read and learn, and the 'wade' was worth it. Despite that caveat, still recommended.



2. In my political life I have read numerous biographies, sketches and essays on the Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, none of them recently. Thus, in looking for a new book on Lenin's life I was searching for one that would reflect the latest information from the various archives opened up by the demise of the Soviet state in 1991-92. With that in mind I happened upon this biography by a Soviet historian who had intimate access to and control over the Soviet archives. However, even with that imprimatur this hostile biography could easily have been written in 1955 by any number of former communist turned anti-communist Western writers during the heart of the Cold War under the influence of the `god that failed' theory of anti-communism. So much for the virtue of access to the new files! Moreover, after reading the biography I found that it told more about the author than the subject. He was a good Khrushchevite when Khrushchev was in power. He was a good Brezhnevite when Brezhnev was in power. He was a good Gorbachevite when Gorbachev was in power. Finally, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the capitalist counter-revolution under Yeltsin he was a good Yeltsinite. No one can deny that the author knew how to trim his sails to determine which way the political winds blew. Whether such a checkered personal biography permits him then to write a critique of a revolutionary leader, any revolutionary leader, apparently without the least embarrassment is another question. Well, such is the literary life.
   
   And so what is the latest in Soviet historiography on Lenin? The author retails every `horror' story about Lenin that has been sifted through the anti-communist milieu since Lenin first came on the political scene at the turn of the 20th century Russia. Of course, the author starts with the Bolshevik-Menshevik split in 1903- that is the `original sin' for all anti-Leninists who claim to stand in any tendency of the international social democratic tradition. He then goes through the litany of later sins; the anti-nationalist, anti-war Bolshevik propaganda of the First World War; the hoary tales of `German' gold to the Bolsheviks in the wake of the February Revolution in Russia; the `sealed train' through Germany bringing Lenin and other Social Democrats back to Russia; the defeatism toward the Provisional Government; the Bolshevik `coup' in October; the outrage to the author's nationalist sentiments of the Brest Litovsk Treaty with Germany; and, the horrors of the Civil War, lightly passing over the White internal and foreign counterrevolutionary actions and placing the onus on the Bolsheviks. And much more in that same vane.
   
   The real point of the documentation presented throughout the book, however, is to buttress the author's central argument that bad old Stalinism was not some sort of distortion of Bolshevism and Leninist thought but the true and natural heir of Leninism. Others have argued that position far more persuasively with far less access to the archives. The fact of the matter, at least based on this exposition, is that the archives provide little new hard material about Lenin and the early Bolshevik regime that has not already been in circulation for a long time. Take one example, the `relationship' between the Bolsheviks and the German military High Command during World War I that has been speculated on in reams of material. He sets up his argument for such an alliance using the time worn innuendoes of secret meetings, use of intermediaries, etc. However, if an author is using this argument in the post-Soviet period then one would expect some new information that definitely links Lenin to German `gold' or let it rest. Where is the smoking gun? As there is nothing new the author lets us off with some dubious circumstantial evidence and lots and lots of conjecture. It goes on and on like that throughout most of the book. The author has personal axes to grind here and the archives only marginally help him in his critique.
   
   Finally, what of the counterfactual argument that every historian makes to argue that an alternative situation to the one that occurred was possible? Here the author argues that in 1917 some form of Menshevik/Social Revolutionary government or a more stable Kerensky government i.e. bourgeois governments could have brought Russia out of its impasse and into the Western democratic parliamentary tradition. He even has a kind word for the Czar in retrospect, at least as a battering ram against the Bolsheviks. This hardened Stalinist who has since found `religion' attempts to argue a very, very improbable position. Kerensky was the best, and I do mean best, those forces had at their command. And he was by all accounts (except his own) a lightweight. No more need be said.
   
   Well, we do not always get the revolutions in the pristine condition we would like and this is not the place to argue extensively about the author's politics but both by their actions and by the crush of events the possibility of some kind of bourgeois democracy in 1917 Russia was the least likely possibility. In short, like in other such revolutionary periods, it was the Bolsheviks or the counterrevolutionary Whites. And one had to act accordingly.



3. I'm sorry, but there's no reason to give this a good review. First of all, the book is extremely slanted. In the beginning it's not so bad, but the author's country, Russia, is just coming out of Communism, and apparently he really hated that economic system. This guy was hell-bent on proving Lenin, as well as Communism, to be two great evils. Time and again he talked about Lenin's poor ability as a statesman, his bad decisions, his use of terror and his close-mindedness, among other things. For a chapter this author even goes into Stalin, when this book isn't even supposed to be about him! And then sometimes it goes into the last couple of decades of the Soviet country, talking about how some of the leaders were still applying Leninist and Stalinist use of terror and censorship! None of this has anything to do with Lenin's life, and it's simply used to show how bad Communism was. Apparently they spent so much time brainwashing their people that the only way for one person to convince himself Soviet Communism was wrong was to write a book disproving it. The first 100 pages or so are good and actually deal with Lenin, and are interesting, but as a biography... this is an EXTREME let down. It is NOT a biography. This is a history of Lenin, his friends, and Soviet Russia. It is like a book about Lenin and everything related to him. It could be retitled "The Leninist peroid in early Russia and it's effects on the country later on" and be more accurate. This book was not written by an experienced author, but probably published solely for the reason that this author had access to the secret soviet archives. Do not by this book -- find another biography.



4. There is no doubt that Lenin achieved a level of recognition that will continue for as long as humans maintain a sentient capacity. The fact remains, however, that he gained this recognition largely through his association with others. Dmitri Volkogonov's biography does not acknowledge this aspect and is therefore singularly shallow. In fact, those central to Lenin's rise are not even mentioned.
   Truman Capote brilliantly encapsulated this problem in his 1994 New York Times review: 'Volkogonov's biography of this unique figure is flawed not by its inclusions but by its myopic exclusions. It is impossible to present a balanced account of Lenin without reference to the other three Beatles.'



5. For some reason westerners continue to have something of a blind spot for V.I. Lenin. The conception that Stalin perverted Lenin's idealist vision, that Lenin's communism might have been a more viable utopian ideal had he survived, remains strong. This is one of several books that should help to shatter that illusion once and for all as it comprehensively documents the extent to which Stalinism was firmly rooted in Lenin's murderous totalitarian revolution.
   
   Volkogonov's book is far from perfect in this English translation. The opening chapters are somewhat non-linear and unfocused (it only really picks up once it starts discussing Germany's role in Lenin's return to Russia in 1917, about a third of the way in), for all his supposed access to secret archive documentation the author is occasionally prone to speculation (though he usually admits as much, for example in discussing Lenin and Sverdlov's roles in the murder of the Tsar's family), and the English translator freely admits that he's cut out large sections of deeply Russian philosophical discussions.
   
   But for all that, the book remains a powerful testament to Lenin's flaws. Few details in the book were that new to me. I knew the Germans had helped the Bolsheviks for their own ends in 1917; I knew about Lenin's almost mindless obsession with violence as the sole true path to revolution; I knew about Lenin's cynical willingness to discard almost any principles in the pursuit of power for the Bolsheviks. But seeing all of this documented - and far more of it is documented than some reviewers are suggesting - by the Bolsheviks' own hands makes it all the more powerful.
   
   Nor do I think that the book is that biased. Certainly Lenin still comes off better than Stalin; Lenin doesn't so much come across as personally evil as he does blindly obsessed with the idea that his great misguided experiment justified the implementation of any means, however cruel, deadly or violent. But unlike Stalin, he wasn't interested in personal power for its own sake or personal self-aggrandisement. It's a small distinction, but an important one - though I would argue that a genuine belief in your visionary ideal makes it no more forgiveable when that ideal requires killing millions.
   
   This isn't a book that's going to appeal to all tastes; some will find the first third (which, as others have noted, isn't really a traditional Western biography) hard going, and it probably isn't the only biography of Lenin that those interested in the subject should read. But readers who stick with it will nonetheless be richly rewarded.

2 comments about The Kings & Queens of England (Revealing History).

1. It would be easier to remember the kings and queens of England if they didn't all have the same names. A Chudley and an Irma in there would have helped a lot. Tired of trying to remember which Henry is which, I checked this book out of the library and then bought one so I would have a handy reference. It gives a synopsis of them all consecutively beginning with several I didn't even know about. It is forthright and not necessarily kind. I'm enjoying it.



2. I really enjoy reading about the different monarchs throughout time. Ormrod's book has made it so easy to read about and learn more about these kings and queens who have shapped the world. "The Kings and Queens of England" is the perfect introduction to all of the different houses and all of the different monarchs. The way in which this book was written allows the reader to either read the book completely or look up particular intrests. He has made it so easy and fairly enjoyable.
   
   I very much recomend this book to anyone who has a historical intrest in the royal families because this is very well written and filled with loads of information that I have not heard any where else.

No comments about Thomas Cromwell.

No comments about Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason.