5 comments about Queen and Country: The Fifty-Year Reign of Elizabeth II.

1. I am going to disagree with my fellow reviewers. This was a fluff piece about Elizabeth II by a well respected author. Shawcross is the author of Sideshow, a definitive book about the the American campaign in Cambodia. This was a hard hitting book that asked some tough questions about the Nixon's administration spread of the war into Cambodia. I would have thought Shawcross would have done the same with the British royal family. This was not the case.
   
   Shawcross details the long reign of Elizabeth II. She has been a success not only in her relations with the British political process, but also Commonwealth relations. To say otherwise would be to go against her solid reputation. However, her sister Margaret, and her children Anne, Charles, and Andrew have had disasterous marriages, and have generally not been successful in representing the British royal family. Shawcross defends these members, but is not critical enough of them in his history of the British monarchy.
   
   Shawcross shows his views about the monarchy in this writing. A more critical viewpoint perhaps would have shown the true nature of this British institution.



2. "There was something magical about this Queen's accession to the throne. She is the only woman known to have gone up a tree a Princess and come down a Queen." William Shawcross is referring to the circumstances of Her Majesty's accession which happened automatically once her father, King George VI died. She and her husband were in Kenya at the time with a small company of courtiers and servants on a trip on behalf of her government since her father was stricken with cancer. At a place called Treetops, which was a hut built within an enormous and old fig tree, the small royal entourage watched all sorts of wildlife gather at a salt lick, and it might have been when they were there that her father passed away. I loved this story told by Lieutenant Michael Parker, the Prince's Private Secretary: "Parker remembered ever after that as they sat there a large white eagle circled and swooped low above their heads. He was concerned that it might even dive on them. Later he realized that the appearance of the eagle had almost coincided with the moment when the King died."
   
   Shawcross wrote this book to coincide with Her Majesty's golden jubilee. As a protestant American, I've always scoffed at all of the pageantry which the British subject themselves to. You must understand my religion is a no frills religion, my government, a no frills government. A monarchy of any kind seems outdated. What purpose could it possibly serve? And so too today, there are some in Great Britain who feel the same way. At one of my workplaces, a British couple would talk about such things like the Trooping of the Color as if it were some grand event not to be missed. What is the Trooping of the Color, I thought? Who cares, was another? I'm slowly beginning to understand why.
   
   I wish I had read this book before Ben Pimlott's. It is infinitely easier to read, not as detailed. Shawcross's chapter on "Constitutional Monarch" is infinitely easier to comprehend than others I've tried to read. He has clearly written this book for the lay reader. I'm finally beginning to understand vaguely the workings of the British system of government. And most importantly why people love this particular monarch so much the world over and why the Brits are so fond of the monarchy. It somehow doesn't seem so strange to me anymore. Shawcross succeeds in revealing Queen Elizabeth II's character traits which account for her popularity the world over, even if she has some fierce critics in her own country. In her relationships with the many prime ministers who have come her way, she has never forced her opinions on anyone, always advising, and listening to their concerns about issues and crises. She is somehow above the fray, making it easy to accomodate a new prime minister, whether they be Conservative or Labour leaders. Many prominent statesmen make some of the same comments about her that she has had a stabilizing influence in so many crises around the world. Reading this book you'll understand too how Great Britain has evolved, changed so much since the beginning of her reign. Shawcross states in his closing chapter that "In all the turmoil and change, only the Queen has remained the same-a still small voice of calm at the vortex of the storm."
   
   Her role of peacemaker stems from her character, her religious beliefs, her sense of duty, undoubtably instilled within her from her symbolic anointing with oil during her coronation ceremony in 1953. I loved Pimlott's detailed description of the ceremony. Shawcross also quotes Pimlott quite often. I share with you a quote I loved by Lord Tweedsmuir/John Buchan in his Pilgrim's Way about King George V, Queen Elizabeth II's grandfather: "He had one key of access to all hearts, his sincere love of his fellows....His simplicity, honesty, and warm human sympathy made themselves felt not only in the Empire but throughout the globe, so that millions who owed him no allegiance seemed to know and love him. He was a pillar of all that was stable and honourable and of good report in a distracted world."
   
   There are many photos in this small book, my favorite being the Corgis descending the steps of a Royal airplane. They're so cute!



3. I read the book in one sitting, and while it covers all a book can given the enormity of its subject, I was left wanting more. Give the author credit for capturing a remarkable monarch.



4. Those who believe that the institution of monarchy is archaic and serves no purpose in the modern nation-state might find Mr. Shawcross's book somewhat suprising. Employing a succinct writing style, Mr. Shawcross provides his reader with a fascinating glimpse into the woman who, by accident of birth and unforseen dynastic events, has occupied the throne of Great Britain for half a century and who, in a quiet, unassuming way, has exacted considerable influence over the politics of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and world. This book shows the error in characterizing the Queen as a mere figurehead. Indeed, her role as confidant to prime ministers, the political knowledge and wisdom she has acquired through her lengthy tenure as sovereign, her ability to lead by example, and her steadfast willingness to dedicate her life to the service of her nation and the Commonwealth, combine to produce a portrait of a woman who is anything but a token head of state.

   This book successfully argues the case for monarchy. Politicians, scandals, and events come and go, but there, above it all, remains the Queen.




5. I found this book very interesting. I suggest all Britons campaigning for a republic read this book. It proves how influential and important the monarchy really is. It also proves what a brilliant woman Elizabeth II is and how she has come to embody the ideal constitutional monarch. What I found most interesting is her actual involvement in British (and many Commonwealth) affairs. Most Americans think of her as a mere figurehead who opens up hospitals here and there. This is far from the truth. As she is probably the most experienced diplomat in Britain, her sage counsel to Prime Ministers has proven invaluable. I urge those who pass off Elizabeth as dispensable to read this book and see how indispensable she really is.

5 comments about Clausewitz and the State: The Man, His Theories, and His Times.

1. I thought I knew Clausewitz. I have an advanced degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies in a program that emphasizes Clausewitz's writings and general influence in its curriculum, including a close, semester-long reading and discussion of "On War" in its entirety. In addition, since graduating I've read several biographical sketches and insightful academic essays on Clausewitz and his theories by Michael Howard, Alan Beyerchan, Christopher Bassford, Barry Watts, and other noted Clausewitz scholars. The only reason I picked this book up was because of the glowing praise it received from Williamson "Wick" Murray, one the nation's most prominent military historians, in a military bibliography he compiled as part of a DoD contract. He listed "Clausewitz and the State" as one of twenty-five books making up "The Essential Military History Library." (To give the reader a sense, other books in this elite category include Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War," Clausewitz's "On War," Tolstoy's "War and Peace," Grant's "Memoirs" and Churchill's "Life of Marlborough." Lofty company, indeed.) Given such a strong endorsement from such a qualified source, I felt compelled to add it to my reading list, although I was only expecting a "Clausewitz refresher." I was wrong.
   
   Paret's work is a masterful mix of biography, philosophy and history, which combine to provide the reader insights into Clausewitz's character and theories like no other secondary work has or likely ever will.
   
   The great feature of this book is the 360-degree view of Clausewitz it presents. Even with the best intentions, most biographers end up presenting an idealized view of their subjects. But the Clausewitz presented by Paret is entirely human. It's a tall task to get a twenty-first century American to truly understand an early nineteenth century Prussian, but that's precisely what Paret's book enables. The author includes a number of incisive quotations on Clausewitz from military performance evaluations, professional recommendations, book reviews of his work, and the diaries of leading socialites. Some are effusive in praise; others are quite denigrating. But nearly all capture the essence of a man of intense ambition and genius, but from a humble background, socially awkward and perceived (incorrectly) by the senior state leadership as a man with dangerously radical political tendencies. All of this combined to create a remarkable career given his social roots, but nevertheless supremely frustrating to a man of rare ability. The effect is similar to the character development of a great novelist. You begin to feel that you actually know Clausewitz, as though he were a close, life-long acquaintance. You begin to sense that you could accurately guess how he would react to any given situation. All of this is more than just interesting reading: it makes Clausewitz's theories and intentions much more understandable.
   
   One of the most common complaints from Clausewitz critics and enthusiasts alike is that his original ideas and writings have been misunderstood and subsequently warped over the years. Even some of the philosopher's sharpest critics - most notably the British military historian B.H. Liddell Hart - have conceded that much of the destruction done in Clausewitz's name is attributable to those who misread his true point or, more commonly, never actually read "On War" at all except for a few phrases taken out of context. "Clausewitz and the State" was written as a companion to Paret's groundbreaking 1976 re-translation of "On War" and it should not be viewed as a substitute for that great work. Nevertheless, no serious student of war and peace will want to approach Clausewitz, his theories and his magnum opus without also closely reading this book. It is simply indispensable.



2. Paret argues that the great Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz was a realist with a life-long affinity to serve the nation-state and pursued a desire to understand this intricate and diverse concept. Clausewitz progressed from an idealized vision of statehood as a young man to a realist outlook in later life. This realism, argues Paret, is evident in Clausewitz's political writings as well as his mot famous treatise _On War_the ultimate extension of policy by concerted use of force. Yet it is the "Psychological and historical genesis" (p. 10) of Clausewitz's theories that Paret ultimately wants to convey. Paret concludes: "Clausewitz combined two very different callings-service to the state and scholarship-with remarkable success" (p. 436). Paret utilizes a contextual approach. Paret contends that in order to better understand Clausewitz's theories, the reader must first identify with the time frame that Clausewitz lived. Paret divides the book between biography and analysis of some prominent historical and political writings. Paret utilizes biography to illustrate Clausewitz's transformation from idealist to realist. Paret's analysis of Clausewitz's writings serves to show the differentiation between Clausewitz the political commentator and Clausewitz the military theorist. The printed materials available on Clausewitz are extensive though Paret leans more towards primary sources in this study. Besides the vast array of Clausewitz's own writings, Paret also makes extensive use of letters. Correspondence between Clausewitz and his fiancée/wife Marie v. Brühl and August von Gneisanau, collected in a plethora of German language sources are the most frequently cited. Paret makes it known, however, that new primary evidence dealing with Clausewitz is still surfacing though "widely dispersed." Source books and collections by Werner Hahlweg, Hans Rothfels and Walther Shering are also critically cited. It is obvious that Paret is enamored with Clausewitz and gives more than a sympathetic portrayal of his subject. Paret only passes lightly over criticisms of Clausewitz mainly the writings of W. Hahlweg and H. Rothfels and completely ignores the works of John Keegan and B.H. Liddle-Hart. Although the vast arrays of German language sources are impressive, they seem overdone for a book aimed at English speaking readers. As Paret mentions, this book provides an excellent companion volume to the M. Howard, P. Paret translation of _On War_ (Princeton: 1976) that is becoming a much-standardized text. Paret has succeeded in helping the reader to better understand Clausewitz by placing him in a contextual setting, especially his early experiences, influences, and education. Without a doubt, Clausewitz lived through some turbulent political changes in Europe between 1815-1831 and Paret illustrates this successfully. A major consensus seems to be that one can only understand Clausewitz by reading him. Paret certainly has created a thirst to do so in this book.



3. This book is a biography of a noteworthy but relatively obscure figure, Carl von Clausewitz, whose main claim to fame is having coined the famous dictum, "War is the Extension of Politics by other i.e. violent means" cited to by V.I. Lenin and others. This work, while dense and sometimes tedious in its explication of Clausewitz' views is fascinating in its description of its subject's life and times which facts serve to illuminate his ideas and their evolution.

   Clausewitz was born into a middle-class family in Prussia in the late 18th Century. His father, not being a noble, was unable to retain his provisional officer rank of lieutenant he had achieved during the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in the North American theater of operations). Thus a subtext of Clausewitz and his family's dubious pretentions to nobility that were finally "recognized" in the wake of his own and to a lesser extent his brother's-who also became a lesser known general-achievements.

   Clausewitz and his older brother were farmed out to the military by their father in 1792 when Clausewitz was 12 years old as officer cadets during the Wars of the French Revolution and he served in the military throughout the entire Napoleonic period and thereafter rising to the rank of major general. It was this highly charged political atmosphere that conditioned Clausewitz' world view and made him-along with his mentor Gerhard Scharnhorst-realize that the old set piece notions of war which played out like a chess game held in a gentleman's club between rival aristocratic principalities were no longer viable. It also gave added fuel to his and the other "reformers" views that certain social changes were needed to neutralize the appeal of the French Revolution. Thus they called for the scaling back of aristocratic privilege and the building of a military based on broader nationalist and meritocratic bases. They also emphasized, ironically given the reputation of mindless obedience that Prussian militarism retained, the importance of inculcating troops with a spirit of self reliance which involved de-emphasizing dogma and promoting analytical thinking that could form the basis for decision making in unforseen circumstances of crisis. These ideas took on greater urgency after Prussia's stunning and swift defeat at the hands of Napolean in 1806 in a few weeks of fighting (when Clausewitz was taken prisoner and actually was granted an audience with the French Emperor)- a situation that ironically suggests the fate of France of 1940, but this in the era of horse cavalry!-resulting in Napolean and the Grand Armee marching triumphantly through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. As a result Prussia was for a number of years reduced to a virtual vassal state of France, not unlike what Vichy France was to Germany a century and half later, and when war broke out again in 1812 it was forced to take the side of Napolean. This was deeply offensive to patriotic and nationalist advocates like Scharnhorst, Clausewitz and others like Field Marshal Gneisenau and ultimately Clausewitz decamped to Russia where he became involved with the "Russo-German Legion" which after Napoleon's reverses there was able to first convince the Prussian commander Yorck to switch sides and then Prussia-like Italy in WW2-to do the same. Clausewitz then went with the "Allied" armies all the way to Paris and thereafter fought in a rear guard action at Waterloo.

   The sweetness of this victory for him and others (Sharnhorst having died on the field of battle in 1813) was muted by the extreme reactionary turn of the victors towards resurrecting old time aristocratic and monarchical privilege, something Clauswitz from his vantage point of a military instructor in Berlin saw as holding back both Prussia and Germany's social and political development internally towards becoming a modern nation state and only adding fuel to the fire of discontent throughout Europe. Moreover, his reputation as a bourgois, if not "liberal", reformer caused his career to stall. It was in this context, that returned to line duty, he died of cholera while observing the events of the revolution of 1830 in Poland.

   The book's shortcoming is its dense style which makes its ideas less accessible than they could be. Moreover, the ideas of its subject could be elucidated better; the author relies too heavily on extended quotations from his subject's work. For example, an entire chapter of On War is reproduced with little gloss.

   After having read this book, I saw a documentary about James Cameron's recent mission to the wreck of the battleship Bismarck and was able to appreciate its references to two of the heavy cruisers in that great warship's battle group: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Finally, for what it's worth, we can speculate about what Clausewitz' view of later German military history might have been, but one conclusion seems inescapable: he would have found Hitler's invasion of Russia a collosal blunder breathtaking in its ingnorance of the lessons of history which resulted in a similar outcome that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.




4. Clausewitz was not a god of war, nor an advocate of the waging of war for war's, or conquest's, sake. He was a thoughtful, experienced soldier who saw much service, wrote about his experiences and tried to improve the armed forces of his country, Prussia.

   This exceptional book by Peter Paret not only gives interesting information on Clausewitz the soldier and the man, but also explains the interesting enigma that was Prussia before, during, and after the Napoleonic Wars. This is not a companion book to anything, but a well-researched volume that stands on its own as authoritative history.

   Paret goes into detail on why Prussia was defeated, and its army destroyed by Napoleon in the cataclysm of 1806. Conversely, the thoughtful, professional soldiers who sought to rebuild that army, 'with vengeance very much in mind' are developed to the extent that they are perceived as human without the false front of a textbook.

   Excellently reserarched from original sources and credible secondary ones, Paret also goes in depth to cover the Prussian 'War of Liberation' of Germany from the French, the liberation in large part meaning annexation by Prussia. Additionally, he also explains that the Prussian civilian population, somewhat a thing apart from the Prussian army, was persuaded, by force if necessary, to participate in the wars in 1813-1814.

   This book goes a long way into explaining Clausewitz and his times, is worth favorable, consideration, and belongs on the bookshelf of every thoughtful student.




5. Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln. That one line from Carl von Clausewitz's most famous work, On War, is the most often quoted and perhaps most misunderstood concept that belongs to the Prussian officer's theory of war. Clausewitz's ideas are complex and his writings require study and contemplation to understand, but for those who invest the time and effort the results will be that your view of war will change forever. Professor Paret's book provides a helpful aide to this understanding. While Clausewitz and the State is not light reading and a background in German or at least Napoleanic history is helpful, this book provides the basis for developing a fuller understanding of Clausewitz and his concepts. The Clausewitz that Paret introduces is hardly the stereotype Prussian marinet. He's a reformer and distinctly modern in his outlook. A career officer who joined a line regiment as a cadet at 12, saw his first action at 14 and rose to the rank of Major General, yet wrote of the profound sorrow he felt upon leaving home at such a tender age, Clausewitz put his sense of duty to the state, and by extension the Prussian people, before his duty to the monarch. Branded a radical his career suffered, but he remained true to his convictions. The General Staff officers of the 20 July 1944 plot against Hitler can trace the roots of their decision to him. This book provides an excellent base from which to start in understanding the thoughts of this trully novel thinker. I also recommend a visit to the Clausewitz Page on the web. Read this book before you attempt to take on On War.

3 comments about Maeve Brennan: Homesick at the New Yorker.

1. I really wanted to learn more about Maeve Brennan, but we got stuck with every detail around her in this book, like we wanted to learn about this colorful carousel, but all we got were details of the circus!



2. Angela Bourke, who has written a serviceable biography of Maeve Brennan, must have cringed when marketing suggested she include the totem words "The New Yorker" in the subtitle of her book.
   
   It is such bad taste to try to sell this book by linking it to the supposed chic of THE NEW YORKER. Imagine a comparable biography of, say, JD Salinger with the subtitle, "He Wrote for THE NEW YORKER." How reductive, how pointless, to make her reputation depend, like the sword of Damocles, on the perceived glamour of the magazine!
   
   Brennan, with two spiritual homes, one in New York, one in Ireland, was always homesick for whichever one she wasn't in. The subtitle, with its suggestion of "homeless" as well as "homesick," hints at her eventual destination: pauperhood, madness, wandering the streets like the lowest of the low. It's a sad story indeed, and more of an indictment of The New Yorker's corporate philosophy then anything else. If they stop glittering, chuck them out I guess! Watch out, Hilton Als! Alex Ross, you too!
   
   I like the book but I think Bourke is a little guilty of overselling her wares. One sentence in particular floored me, "Her effect on the people who met her, her eye for human behavior, clothing and interiors, her unsparing reading of literature, her memory of home and her courageous life as a woman alone in metropolitan America make her an icon of the twentieth century." Excuse me, but no, they don't. Angela Bourke, may I introduce you to the word "icon"? It's in the dictionary. It doesn't mean Maeve Brennan.



3. There are many reasons to read Homesick at the New Yorker. Among them, the book may be the only existing full-length biography of this talented and fascinating author. And Homesick at the New Yorker is well-written, indeed.
   
   But there are shortcomings to this account of Maeve Brennan's life. The review prior to this one speculates that author Angela Bourke may have found her subject illusive. And that may be the case. But what certainly is the case is that Bourke's resulting portrait of Brennan is somewhat blurred. Is it because Brennan moves out of scope of the camera just as the shutter is capturing the image...or is it that Bourke's camera itself is moving? I don't know for certain. But repeatedly, just as it seems we're homing in for some tasty detail or substantive level of depth, Bourke takes off in another direction, and the initial thread is dropped. Frustrating.
   
   The very restraint that makes Bourke's prose so neat and elegant may also serve to diminish the overall impact of the book. Often the author brings us close to gaining insight about Maeve Brennan, and then abruptly pulls down the shade, as if it would be too embarrassing for her, us, or Brennan, to see what would be revealed if she analyzed her subject a bit more closely. Brennan's relationship with her father comes to mind; it seems an extremely important and complex relationship, but beyond stating that fact, Bourke doesn't pursue it. What conflicts did it create? What are the implications for her work? relationships? etc. Perhaps the author figured she could drop the ingredients onto the pages and readers could bake up our own conclusions, but I'd like to have had a few of her *theories* served straight up. I have few if any theories on Maeve Brennan myself, but Angela Bourke must, after clearly having spent a great deal of time researching Brennan.
   
   Another example, Brennan's relationship with her husband. Bourke may be trying to be journalistic, keeping distance from her subject(s), but the result is basically: they did this, and then they did this, and then they did this, and someone said this about them--but not what any of that might *mean* or how it would foreshadow X, or how that was reminiscent of Y, or how it seems to have affected Z. I suppose what I am saying is the author seems to keep too polite a distance from Maeve Brennan.
   
   Finally, the review prior to this one also commented positively on Bourke's frequent mentions of Irish history, in context of Brennan's life. To me, Bourke's attempt to braid her own interests in Irish history, Irish nationalism, and Irish language movement into the narrative of Brennan's life seemed gratuitous and somewhat self-indulgent. There are entire passages that could have been edited out. Not that they weren't in some way interesting, but they had little or no bearing -- neither direct not distant -- on Brennan's life or work. Consequently, these references were distracting and ultimately irritating, rather than illuminating.
   
   Perhaps Angela Bourke is more comfortable in the realm of "facts," rather than speculation or analysis. One biography cannot ever be the only biography. And perhaps this one will spur on others to research and write about Maeve Brennan. And, even if not, Homesick at the New Yorker is, quite lovely indeed, in many ways, a very nice read, even if it isn't everything that might be hoped for.

4 comments about Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution (Studies in Maritime History).

1. In Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution Nicholas Lambert has provided a comprehensive analysis of the policies of Admiral Sir John Fisher and the Royal Navy in the ten years before the outbreak of World War One. Displaying a remarkable command of the source documents Lambert examines grand strategy, tactical concepts, national financial policy and politics with great skill and fluidly moves between these seemingly disparate subjects with ease. It becomes apparent as Lambert dissects events that much of the research that has went on before on this subject and which forms the basis for many people's ideas about era is superficial and incomplete.
   
   This is a complicated subject but Lambert's grasp of narrative and clean clear prose makes it easy for the interested reader to follow the string through the maze that was British naval policy in the Fisher era. Lambert makes it clear that Fisher was not appointed First Sea Lord in 1904 to introduce the dreadnought battleship/battlecruiser but to cut naval spending. This fact spurred Fisher to introduce new technologies to maintain Britain's naval supremacy when that supremacy was increasingly under threat from a number of quarters. Lambert puts emphasis on Fisher's ideas about the use of flotilla craft. These were small submersible boats and surface craft armed with torpedoes that could close the narrow seas around the British Isles to enemy battle fleets thus freeing the British fleet to roam the high seas, bringing battle to the enemy and protecting her own huge ocean trade. Lambert shows how on the eve of the war, the Royal Navy was on the verge of stopping battleship construction altogether on favor of flotilla craft. This is new ground.
   
   Fisher was faced with four other areas of crisis which this book delves into: financial constraints, manpower limitations, ship deployment policies and forging new tactics that would take advantage of the developing technology that was changing the face of naval warfare. Lambert also makes clear that the senior officers of the Royal Navy in the decade before the war were not operating in an intellectual vacuum, countering the unfortunate impression that many historians have fostered that the navy was resistant to new technology, unable to think critically, and too lazy for deep analysis and staff work. While a number of hidebound ignoramuses had managed to reach high command, most senior officers were energetically working to exploit the emergent technologies to the full extent.
   
   Lambert's story of the Royal Navy before 1914 presents a picture completely different from the accepted one. It is one that is wholly convincing and presents a more satisfying explanation of what happened, and why, than we have had before. I recommend this book to those who are familiar with the subject and have a desire to go deeper into it. You won't be sorry.



2. This is a superby researched book, though it falls flat on its major premise, that Fisher and the Royal Navy were ahead of the times in terms of naval strategy, armaments or hwat not.
   
   Also the book is a misnomer, as it's more on the rivalries amongst the Board of Amiralty than on Fisher, and its dubious claim that Fisher pioneered the so called "flotilla defense" by submarines and torpedo boats stretches credulity, as Fisher is notorious for NOT beleving in a Naval War Staff, or any war plans at all.
   
   The author also neglects, being a fan of Fisher, to point out that the latter's morbid fascination with "battle cruiser" led to the fiasco in Jutland, though all British historians and apologist will claim that they may have lost a battle there, but ultimately won the war!



3. An interesting book on the politics of defense spending and its relationship with grand strategy and domestic politics. Tedious at times, and often unbalanced as to proving the grand point and instead focusing on partisan minutae, this book is still interesting to consider; you have to commend Lambert for his exaustive research behind the common assumptions. He did major work in the primary sources.

   The point is that much of the arms race theory before WWI is not genuinely correct. The motivations for the growth and posturing of the British Navy prior to WWI had less to do with fear of Germany -although using that fear was an effective tool- than with a naval revolution by the Admiralty's First Lord, Sir John Fisher. It is an intersting foray into the dynamics of defense spending politics, and how that ultimately impacts capabilities and strategy.




4. This is a major revisionist interpretation of British naval policy as conceived and carried out by Admiral Sir John Fisher as First Sea Lord between late 1904 and early 1910. In fact, there appears to be hardly a single conventional assumption about Fisher's policies, and the policies and technical flexibility of the Admiralty during this period that is not subject to reconsideration in the book.

   What I found most interesting was the startling - to me - degree to which senior British naval officers readily accepted the potential for torpedo-armed submarine and destroyer flotillas to change naval warfare, and the amount of effort they were willing to put into devising ways to use this revolutionary potential to reinforce British naval supremacy. The book is filled with descriptions of British investment in submarine technology and the ongoing discussions between naval officers of ways to adapt that technology to British needs.

   According to the book, Fisher's planned great revolution in naval warfare was not intended to be the Dreadnought battleship that his name is still commonly associated with. Instead it was to be a British fleet made up of a combination of battlecruisers with Dreadnought-scale heavy armament, great speed, and excellent gun laying based on analogue computers, designed for overseas force projection; and a submarines and destroyer flotillas designed and deployed for protection of Great Britain and such other narrow seas where they could be used to bottle up potential enemy forces. This assertion is thoroughly backed up with detailed quotes from personal letters and Admiralty memos and position papers, plus the evidence of how Fisher spent funds available to him.

   The plans of Admiral Fisher and others in the British Admiralty were developed in largely hostile political environment. The British government during this period, and the opposition political parties, were intent on reducing British naval expenditures, and not at all interested in developing the ability to expand British ability to project naval force overseas. Therefore, Fisher and his allies had to act largely in secret, while disguising their true goals from most of their political masters.

   This book has a lot of trees in its forest. I did not find it easy reading, and I would not recommend it to someone with only casual interest in British naval history or the history of naval technology. To fully understand appreciate the book's thesis and scope, the reader must be willing to delve along with the book's author into British domestic politics, British foreign policy, and a host of technical issues beyond those mentioned above. I personally found it difficult at first to fully understand why, given that Fisher had much of the Admiralty behind him, and that Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty from 1910 up to 1915, also had great faith in submarine and destroyer flotillas to control narrow seas, the Royal Navy didn't manage to make the changeover desired by Admiral Fisher. The way I finally understood it, it comes down to one basic fact, Fisher, Churchill and their allies in the Admiralty simply did not have enough time. Not enough time to educate and prepare the politicians and the British public, not enough time to nurture the necessary submarine building industry in Britain or in one of the Dominions, and not enough time to guarantee a completely united front in the Admiralty needed to quickly push through such radical change in naval policy. Given that it was less than a decade between Fisher's appointment as First Sea Lord and the outbreak of WWI, that is probably reason enough.

No comments about Pádraig Ó Fathaigh's War of Independence: Recollections of a Galway Gaelic Leaguer (Irish Narrative Series).

4 comments about Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland: A Carroll Saga, 1500-1782.

1. This is perhaps the most pleasurable "academic" history I have come across. Although it provides an extensive account of life in the Chesapeake through the lives and business dealings - and there are plenty of those enumerated - of the tenacious Carroll family, I was also struck by Ronald Hoffman's major theme of family continuity, of purpose driven by recollection and ambition that the Carrolls had in spades. The very tightly researched accounts of the family history in Ireland, and of all the other families like them in the chaos of the 17th century, is little short of astonishing. I'll admit to an enduring interest in Irish history, but this one illustrates why Carrolls and others left their broken aristocracy. That continuity touches on my own forebearers, one of whom was a first cousin of Charles Carroll of Carrollton's. She married another Irish immigrant Marylander and set out in 1796 to populate the then frontier in Kentucky with other Catholics, I am sure at direction of one of their neighbors in Upper Marlborough, MD, Fr. John Carroll, first Catholic bishop in America and also Charles' first cousin. A great read on many levels.



2. Traditional patriotism demands that we believe that the founding fathers of America were all great democratic idealist. Although this may have been true for some, many others had no problem with the idea of an elite ruling class, so long as they were considered the elite. Thus the victory over England can be viewed as less of an American Democratic Revolution and more of a power transition from the English crown to the new American aristocracy.
   
   A primary example of this American elite class was Maryland representative Charles Carroll of Carrollton. A signer of the American Declaration of Independence, Charles of Carrollton was a wealthy planter and businessman who became such not by his own doings but primarily through the inheritance and molding of his father, Charles Carroll of Annapolis. Ever mindful of his Irish and Catholic roots and the persecution therein by English aristocrats, the elder Charles did everything in his power to equip his son to fend off those who would attempt to cripple him politically and economically. In so doing, the elder Charles created a mindset of elitism within his son.
   
   This irony is highlighted by Ronald Hoffman in his book, "Princes of Ireland, Planters of Europe," in which he examines the Carroll family and traces how a persecuted family from Ireland in 1500 came to be one of the prominent families in America by the time of the American Revolution



3. Ronald Hoffman is an excellent historian who has brought great knowledge of Chesapeake social and cultural history to this biographical work that places three generations of the Carroll family within their colonial context. It is a wonderful biography that gets the reader into the minds and lives of these three Charles Carroll's. But for me the best thing was the number of times it made me think, "Oh, that's how it was." I have read enough colonial history to know that there were lots of tenant laborers and not just slaves in the region, to know that Catholic Maryland quickly became Anglican Maryland, and to know that the Revolution was not just about ideas but also about social change. Ronald Hoffman's narrative, however, really brings these facts home. His book is not about any one of these issues in particular, but in telling the story of three generations of Carroll's in Maryland he brings home the greater circumstances of the colony better than many historians who have set out to make a case for one of the above arguments, or many of the other fascinating takes on early Chesapeake society contained in this highly readable book. I have not read any book lately that I enjoyed more.



4. I was originally attracted to this book out of a simple curiosity about the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence (Charles Carroll outlived Adams and Jefferson by about six years, or about 56 years after 1776!). On a deeper level, I hoped to learn more about the kind of early capitalist that would be attracted to signing on to the American Revolution in general. What this book helped me discover was a family that had over time become focused, almost obsessed, with making a buck under fairly adverse circumstances (namely, continuing in their Roman Catholic faith that made it difficult for them to thrive, even in an enclave as seemingly sympathetic as colonial Maryland, with its relatively large Catholic population). But when the time came for this family to rise above its simple wealth building and to champion the cause of the Revolution, it did indeed rise to the occasion, however brief and painful the process might be. (Hoffman attends to both the private and public lives of the Carrolls.) The history of the Carrolls is a part of the history of the magic that was the American Revolution. It is not surprising that the book ends abruptly with the death of Charles Carroll's father and his wife, about 10 days apart from one another in 1782 (though there is a brief summing up of Carroll's remaining 50 years and the attention attracted by his death in 1832). The story is told, the dynasty pretty much complete.

   What's the book like? At times it seems downright willfully prosaic, and the story proceeds much like a carefully written doctoral dissertation - all conclusions fully supported and made in as logical a context as possible, all contentions politically correct for our time. Hoffman's goal is of course to be scholarly and thorough, not to be entertaining or controversial. Thus the sweep of this history must emerge and coalesce in the mind of the reader. Leave being beaten over the head with the broader conclusions inherent in the narrative to more popularly written histories.

   Suffice it to say, if you're a municipal library and you need to beef up your Revolutionary War material, this is a prime buy. If you're a true history buff, this would be an excellent choice to work into your reading list. It has the effect of immersing you into the spirit of the times and providing you with detail you could not have imagined you would find interesting (but you do). If you're a casual reader, just be advised - this is heavy stuff. It's not an easy read, but it is ultimately a rewarding one.

No comments about Rob Roy Macgregor.

4 comments about How It Was: A Memoir of Samuel Beckett.

1. At this point, given the reviews, it is clear that Anne Atik has written a fine memoir. What I would like to comment on in particular is the role she herself plays as both writer and actor. She manages to be remarkably self-effacing, something not at all easy for a writer who was a close friend of a famous artist. There is no tone of bragging, there are no self-serving anecdotes, and there are minimal details about the memoirist herself. In fact, if anything, I found myself wanting to know a bit more about her. But her discretion is admirable.



2. This is a revealing, insightful portrayal of the great Irish writer, by a close friend of his, the poet Anne Atik, wife of the painter Avigdor Arikha, whose striking portraits of Beckett are reproduced here. The book is unique for its descriptions of, and insights into the springs of artistic creation, for the refined 'table talk' it lovingly and discretely recounts, for the details that only a friend could know and see so well - all told by a poet. This is definitely a must for Beckett fans and lovers of literature.



3. This memoir is what we hope for. Lots of new information, inside anecdotes, and pictures.
   
   If you love Beckett you must have this book. I would've gone without meals to buy it, if necessary.
   
   Also be sure to buy Why Beckett, by Enoch Brater. It is magical.



4. 
   
   
   This book ( How it was)
   
   well,... it was amazing.
   
   I am so glad I bought it.
   
   I was in cafes with Beckett....
   
   ( no other book can do that)
   
   I wondered for a long time whether I should buy it...
   
   I'm glad I did..
   
   
   What a wonderful book!
   
   if you love Beckett

1 comments about The Duchess of Windsor and Other Friends.

1. Really, I am quite puzzled....don't you have to have the book in order to review it? I have been waiting since September 11th to receive this book and have been told to continue the order since then. My question is - how can Amazon sell a book they don't have....I checked and the book is still being offered for sale and I don't even have mine.....WHAT IS GOING ON?

5 comments about James Joyce (Penguin Lives).

1. Reading any biography of James Joyce reminds me of something that Bernard DeVoto once said to Robert Frost after the other had behaved abominably towards Archibald MacLeish on several occasions in the space of a few days: "Robert, you are a great poet, but a bad man." What can the biographer do with Joyce? Was he a great writer? His astonishing literary genius is completely beyond debate. But he was almost completely lacking in humane qualities, and it isn't clear that he was capable of any relationship with any human being surpassed the value a tool had for its user. There are other equally unpleasant figures in the history of literature, but not many, and I've yet to read a biography of Joyce that creates the suspicion that meeting him might have been a positive experience. In fact, for me reading about Joyce's life has in ways acted as an impediment to appreciating his books. The difficulty is that he stuffs so much of his own experience into his books that the reader is forced to know at least the rudiments. Indeed, both PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN and ULYSSES feature his alter ego Stephen Hero as the/or a major character.
   
   If any biography of Joyce is the biography of a morally repulsive individual, there is at least the consolation of his being repulsive on an epic scale. If Joyce is not a human being we can admire as a person, as opposed to a literary genius, he is as least an interesting brute. He fascinates with his utter lack of compunction in his use and misuse and abuse of others. It leads to the question of what personal qualities made it possible for him to mistreat so many people. Unfortunately, O'Brien does not help us discover this. In fact, I find that in her treatment of his life, Joyce the human being doesn't emerge in any detectable way. I ended the book without much of a sense of how he might have seemed if I had encountered him on the street. Instead, O'Brien's Joyce feels very much like a character in a novel. He seems unembedded in his world, partially exacerbated by O'Brien persistent failure to relate Joyce to any social or historical events. She rarely dates events, and often goes twenty or thirty pages without noting a specific date. For instance, very little dating is provided in conjunction with the obscenity trial in New York. If the book contained a chronology at the front or back of the book this might not be so unfortunate. This is important because other writers at approximately the same time were also facing censorship trials, such as D. H. Lawrence for THE RAINBOW, so Joyce's case was not an isolated incident. She also left so much out! She neglects, for instance, to mention that Joyce and Proust once shared a cab ride. Perhaps not a crucial moment for either writer, but given that in the English speaking world Proust and Joyce are widely regarded as the two literary giants of the 20th century, while internationally Joyce is considered second only to Proust one would have expected some acknowledgement of their encounter. So many details like this are excised from Joyce's story. The book also suffers by a complete lack of critical tools. As noted above, there is no chronology, but there is also no index and not much of a bibliography. These are lacks that detract from the book's overall usefulness.
   
   Where O'Brien excels is when she writes about the books themselves. Although I did not feel like I gained much insight into Joyce (that Joyce was a world-historical jerk is simple to document, but the intricacies of why he was and why people let him get away from it was largely untouched upon), O'Brien the novelist did a marvelous job of illuminating many aspects of the books themselves. Although she does not write exhaustively about any of Joyce's works, every passage she writes shimmers with understanding and insight.
   
   In one sense there is no overwhelming need for any new biography of James Joyce. Richard Ellmann's magisterial biography is not merely the finest book on Joyce, but arguably the finest English-language literary biography of the past half century. Given the large bulk of Ellmann's work, however, a solid brief biography is, however, highly desirable. I am not confident that O'Brien's book meets this need. The tone is far too impressionistic, the attention to historical and chronological detail too slight. I can recommend this to readers of Joyce who want to know a bit more about him, but I hope that someone writes a new biography sometime in the next few years.



2. This book is a good introduction to Joyce. It is written with a real feel for his language and life. It is not the overwhelming biographical scholarship of Ellmann, nor the detailed reading of the text much academic scholarship gives.It is however a competent and at times especially insightful look into the tribulations of the writer's life As part of the popular Penguin series in which Writers tell of the lives of other writers, O'Brien focuses on what most interests her.She talks about the insult of the Joyce family's poverty , and what it meant for them to go down from a kind of bourgeois life to one of great neediness. She writes about Joyce's love life and she tells the story of his infidelities and his complicated relationship to his wife Nora without going into each particular incident at length. She has an interesting few pages on reader reaction to ' Ulysses' including Virginia Woolf's comment calling it ' underbred, the effort of a ' queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples' In this work O'Brien often generalizes insightfully about the writer's condition in general, maintaining controversially that the more dedicated the writer is , and the more capable of seeing into the feeling of others on the page, the more monstrous the writer becomes in life. She compares Joyce's lonely end with that of Tolstoy, O'Neill, Virginia Woolf and Dickens. She says ,"A writer and especially a great writer, feels both more and less about human grief, being at once celebrant, witness and victim. If the writing ceases or seems to cease the mind so occupied with the stringing of words is fallow.There was nothing he(Joyce at the seperation from Nora) admitted but rage and despair in his heart, the rage of a child and the despair of a broken man." p. 176
   She also provides very fragmentary but good analysis of Ulysses, explaining the stylistic genius of the ' Oxen in the Sun episode ' where Joyce parodies and rewrites the history of the English language stylistically.
   It is light and quick reading , a good glance at the great man's work and life.



3. Biographies in this series are the perfect fun size. Light, but long enough to have a lot of real stuff in them, more than a mere introduction.

   The very first sentence of this book invites you into Joyce with an imitation of his writing style, & after that Edna O'Brien shares generously & mellifluously her great understanding of the man, his life, & his work, drawing on scholarly commentary of his books & from the journals & letters of him & the people around him so that you know how they all felt about his life & their lives in themselves & for the purposes of this biography in relation to him. It's so well-written & so interesting -- what a life he had, crazy as he was, that -- I could hardly put it down. Edna O'Brien's great interest in him comes across truly.




4. I read this book at the Jersey shore. Joyce's life was as bizarre as his fiction. This book gives you an insight into what Joyce was trying to do with "Ulysses" and later "Finegan's Wake." Of course, the Ellmann bio is still the definitive. This is a great little read with sand and roasted peanuts.



5. This is one of several volumes in the Penguin Lives Series, each of which written by a distinguished author in her or his own right. Each provides a concise but remarkably comprehensive biography of its subject in combination with a penetrating analysis of the significance of that subject's life and career. I think this is a brilliant concept. My only complaint (albeit a quibble) is that even an abbreviated index is not provided. Those who wish to learn more about the given subject are directed to other sources.

   When preparing to review various volumes in this series, I have struggled with determining what would be of greatest interest and assistance to those who read my reviews. Finally I decided that a few brief excerpts and then some concluding comments of my own would be appropriate.

   On Joyce and Ireland: "Of all the great Irish writers, Joyce's relationship with his country remains the most incensed and yet the most meditative. Beckett, a much more cloistered man, was unequivocal; he made France his home and eventually wrote in French and though his elegiac works carry the breath of his native land, he did not expect Foxrock, his birthplace, to be etched in the consciousness of the world. Joyce did. He determined to reinvent the city where he had been marginalized, laughed at and barred from literary circles. he would be the poet of his race." (page 15)

   On criticisms of his portrayal of Dublin: Joyce "said he was not to be blamed for the odor of ash pits and rotted cabbage and offal in these stories [i.e. in Dubliners] because that was how he saw his city. 'We are foolish, comic, motionless, corrupted, yet we are worthy of sympathy too,' he laughed haughtily and added that if Ireland were to deny that sympathy to its characters, the rest of the world would not. In this he was mistaken." (page 78)

   On his deteriorating health: "The strains were beginning to show. he had endocrine treatment for his arthritis, had to have all his teeth removed and was fitted with permanent plates. His eyesight so worsened that he had only one-seventh normal vision. He was given iodine leeches for his bad eye but soon it was clear that they would have to operate." (page 130)

   On his enigmatic nature: "The truth is that the Joyce [others] saw was a fraction of the inner man. No one knew Joyce, only himself, no one could. His imagination was meteoric, his mind ceaseless in the accruing of knowledge, words crackling in his head, images crowding in on him 'like the shades at the entrance to the underworld.' What he wanted to do was to wrest the secret from life and that could only be done through language because, as he said, the history of people is the history of language." (pages 165-166)

   As is also true of the other volumes in the "Penguin Lives" series, this one provides all of the essential historical and biographical information but its greatest strength lies in the extended commentary, in this instance by Edna O'Brien. She also includes a brief but sufficient "Bibliography" for those who wish to learn more about Joyce. I hope these brief excerpts encourage those who read this review to read O'Brien's biography. It is indeed a brilliant achievement.