5 comments about Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million.

1. There are a number of good negative reviews already, with which I agree for the most part, especially the one that asks: Why was this written in the first place?
   
   The book attempts to stand on the shoulders of much more serious and lengthy works by Conquest, Pipes, Solzhenitsyn, Mandelstam and many others, and might serve as a good, well-written synopsis of their work, but Amis wanted to make it more pesonal than that and took up some very odd, rather remote contingent themes, such was why Soviet history is regarded with laughter, whereas Nazi history is not. Maybe this is more of a problem in Great Britain. I think we Americans are guilty of not knowing as much about Soviet atrocities as we should, but not of undue levity.
   
   Anyway, there is much for sensitive souls to consider in the story of Russia in the 20th century, some of it is hinted at and evoked here - that maybe there is such a thing as conscious evil in the world, for example. And I think that maybe Amis wanted to provide a picture that included both the horror of the millions of civilian murders inflicted in varying degrees of maliciousness and the intellectual (me, him) sitting in his chair reading about it. But if he did, it doesn't really come across, interesting as they might have been. I think it's a intriguing illusion we have that memorializing people whose lives have been unjustly tormented and cut short somehow influences the deceased favorably.
   
   The oddest thing are the juxtapositions of historical (and outrageous) fact with his personal activities, friendships, pre-occupations, which as I say, don't jell. Ingredients are poured together but they don't make anything.
   
   Another theme hinted at but not developed that interests me very much is that Stalin and his brothers in hatred are symptoms of our soulless, inwardly dead age, in the way that alcoholism is a symptom of inner imbalance in an individual. How does a person like Stalin come about? How does an individual gain power enough over other people to get them to murder? Most people can hardly get someone else to bring them a glass of water. What are the inner dynamics of someone who gets millions to murder other millions?
   
   So all in all, it was a disappointment, though it began well.



2. Amis applies his mastery of language to the soviet "experiment", recounting his own story of discovery.
   Horrific and brilliant



3. This book was my introduction to Soviet history when it came out (a role I suspect it played for many readers) and I thought highly of it at the time. The most memorable moment in the book, for me, was Amis's epiphany that even an achieved socialist utopia would be a kind of "hell." But rereading it recently, I didn't think it had aged well. Amis's tone is relentlessly sour, smug, and soggily self-important in the way that a certain type of Nabokov fan is (I like Nabokov, but his airy pomposity is insufferable in the hands of almost any imitator). I couldn't help but think that a more straightforward style would have suited his subject better. For that matter, the book could have been considerably shorter; as is, it's too long to be a good essay and too short to be a good history book. And despite his boast that he combed through "yards" of books on the Soviet Union to write the book, he makes countless errors. For instance, Lenin's brother is listed in the index as "Alexander Lenin." Did none of the yards of books Amis read tell him that Lenin's real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov? He also makes commonsensical errors that are downright comical: He devotes a paragraph to a sentence of Trotsky's which he finds to be appallingly phrased, apparently unaware that Trotsky didn't originally write that sentence in English.
   
   His utter refusal to cite even the simplest sources is also annoying; it's as if he thinks he's writing a "better" type of book than a simple history text. Perhaps he feared that citations would make it too obvious that he's basically ripped off every major historian in the field. His open letter to Christopher Hitchens (an incredibly embarrassing concept) lectures his Trotsky-worshiping friend in such condescending tones that I can almost imagine the letter's recipient cringing on his behalf.
   
   That said, the book is a decent, readable introduction to Stalin's Russia (Amis appears to know next to nothing of Russia prior to 1917), but this emphasis makes the book's thesis seem lopsided. Surely the majority of Western leftists don't need to be told that Stalin was a wicked tyrant. If Amis actually took his own thesis seriously, he'd devote his book to tearing apart Lenin and Trotsky. I couldn't help but think that Amis simply didn't have the intellectual stomach for this task - much easier to regurgitate large chunks of Solzhenitsyn and Conquest and smugly imply that Hitchens is some kind of apologist for the Gulag. At one point he implies that the February Revolution was the "real" revolution, but at another point he brusquely dismisses Kerensky as a fool. Most of his judgments seem filched from other historians. This isn't a bad place to start, but don't let this be the last book you read on the subject.



4. This is a depressing yet brilliantly written book that jumps in your face from page 1 as the brutal history of misery and suffering inflicted on the USSR by Stalin, Lenin and their company of Bolsheviks is laid before the reader. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explores and describes the soviet system brilliantly in his Gulag Archipelago books, so too Amis explores deep into the psyche of a despotic, hopeless system of government and its deadly effect on the lives of the people it dictated to.
   
   One can only wonder at what kind of bitter, unlucky chance could come upon a people who enjoyed a brief period of inter revolutionary freedom after the overthrow of the imperial system, and with a large range of alternative parties to choose from, ended up with the despotic, psychotic Bolsheviks led by Lenin and co as top dogs at the pinnacle of the pack. Vasily Grossman's words as quoted page 251 is an excellent summation of what freedom is supposed to be. There are so many examples of countless lives destroyed physically, mentally and spiritually in this book that it hits you like a sledgehammer as you wonder thank god l was never born into this insanity. Yet at the beginning the system was built on lies, dictatorship of the proletariat meant dictatorship of all by a handful and if you did not like it then the Soviet govt would say stuff you, you are surplus and you can rot in a concentration camp or be dispatched physically.
   
   Amis maintains his white hot rage against the Bolsheviks, the USSR and of course Stalin for the whole book. The reputations of Lenin and Trotsky also sizzle like sausages on a barbeque on a hot summer's day in the Antipodes as Amis applies his blowtorch of a pen to their revolution and the system of repressive government they created which fell into Stalin's lap. As for Stalin himself, well Amis lays cudgel blows in all directions upon him and leaves no stone unturned in his description of the evil, misery and suffering he created and inflicted upon the Soviet Union. Essentially the book is about Stalin, and Amis is able to capture the evil essence of the man in his personal and public life and lay it all before the reader.



5. British novelist Martin Amis ponders the question, `why is it that one never laughs about Hitler's Holocaust which claimed the lives of 11 million, while members of the left are able to laugh about Stalin's rule, which claimed the lives of over 20 million?' This is an examination of the socio-historical-political facets that underlie Soviet style communism, and seeks to provide explanation for its broad support among the European intellectual elite of the 1950's, including Amis' father Kingsley. It is also a fairly rigorous, though often unoriginal forensic portrait of Stalin's particular breed of tyranny, which Amis attributes both to his insanity as well as the totalitarian nature of the Marxist-Leninist system which he inherited.
   
   This book might be though of as a letter to those of the old left such as Christopher Hitchens, who continue to derive a fair amount of laughter and enjoyment for their past follies. Amis breaks from his historiography in these moments, and he imposes his own anti-communism on Hitchens' work; he contrives dicey judgments such as,
   
   "although I always liked Christopher's journalism, there seemed to me to be something wrong with it, something faintly but pervasively self-defeating: the sense that the truth could be postponed. This flaw disappeared in 1989, and his prose made immense gains in burnish and authority. I used to attribute the change to the death of Christopher's father, late in 1988, and to subsequent convulsions in his life. It had little or nothing to do with that, I now see. It had to do with the collapse of Communism" (pg. 47).
   
   This is painting with a broad brush; one could easily make the case that Hitchens' journalistic authority diminished after his stance on Iraq in 2003. Still, Amis does a competent job of presenting the facts to the members of the hard left such as Hitchens, who have always taken a flippant tone in evaluating the USSR.
   
   Amis' historical work is fine, though it is generally unvaried and unoriginal; he relies mostly on Alexander Solzhenitsyn's standard historical accounts in the Gulag Archipelago Volumes, which are more than competent and standard. There are also some interesting looks at the correspondence between Nabokov and Edmund Wilson during this period. However, Amis' occasionally bizarre political oversimplifications, i.e. "[a]s in Germany, this was the birth of mass-media propaganda; people were unaware, then, that propaganda was propaganda-and propaganda worked" (pg. 213). Such declarations are less then insightful, and fail to provide adequate explanations as to Stalin's popularity. Koba the Dread is still a fairly competent evaluation of Stalin's life and politics, and it provides a fair and brief overview of the Soviet Union for readers who desire a quick blow-by-blow, even if it is derivative of Solzhenitsyn.

5 comments about Talleyrand.

1. The French bookseller responded "bien sur" when asked if he had Cooper's "Talleyrand" as if, language aside, it was standard fare at this Parisian bookstop. Published in 1932, still in print, "Talleyrand" comes with its own pedigree. The author had his own as well; author, poet, gambler, womanizer, diplomat. Duff Cooper writes with eloquence and insight about his 19th century libidinous French counterpart. His amazing career spanned ages; from kneeling at the feet of Voltaire, to pre Revolution activities, through the dark days of the Directorate, through the Napoleonic years and past the Restoration when he died in 1838 after making peace wih his God at his Parisian home in a scene wonderfully described by Cooper. "He departed with his credentials in order, his passport signed." Cooper delights in Talleyrand's quick wit and repartee' with Napoleon and "the allies" at the Congress of Vienna. The verbal duels with the French elite are delicious; Chateaubriand sees Fouche' walking arm in arm with Talleyrand as "a vision of Vice supported by Crime." By focusing on Talleyrand, his achievements, his miscues, the book moves effortlessly from era to era without being bogged down in the weeds. Cooper's admiration is obvious, his observations are precise and thoughtful; Napoleon's refusal to recognize impossibilities, the enmity of the Spanish people at the Emperor leading to his downfall, and the magnitude of Talleyrand's achievements at the Congress of Vienna by keeping France intact, and how he became through the dint of his craft and personality the determining factor at the Vienna settlement and the role of France in Europe thereafter.



2. There are few if any parallels to Charles-Maurice, Prince de Talleyrand, in the annals of diplomatic history. In modern times, there have been some examples of men who were able to somehow "dodge the raindrops" and serve for many years in high positions in tumultuous political environs. Anastas Mikoyan's ability to survive long and close proximity to Stalin is one notable instance; but he never possessed Talleyrand's gravitas and international influence, nor did he serve different, hostile regimes. No, Talleyrand is in a league of his own - more politically nimble and long-serving than even the satirical Vicar of Bray.
   
   In this classic 1932 biography by Duff Cooper (a picaresque political character in his own right), the legendary French Foreign Minister is treated with respect, almost reverence, and not without a touch of personal fondness. The author clearly does not see Talleyrand as Napoleon came to see him: as nothing but "dung in a silk stocking." Cooper constructs a portrait of Talleyrand based in large part on the diaries of men and women who mixed socially with the legendary statesman in the salons of Paris, London and elsewhere. I have found that such sources are most enlightening and allow the reader to gain a more nuanced perspective and human reflection of the subject. The picture of Talleyrand that emerges is one of a world-class charmer, a conversationalist nonpareil. One gets the sense that Talleyrand would succeed as well in early twenty-first century Washington as he did in early nineteenth century Paris.
   
   Much has been made of Talleyrand's unusual ability to survive the convulsions of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period. Cooper suggests that he was sensitive to criticism on that account and defended his decision to serve such fundamentally different regimes this way: "At every epoch there is some good to be done or some harm to hinder; that is why, if one loves his country, on can, and in my opinion, one ought to, serve it under all the Governments that it adopts." A mode of thinking contemporary Democrats and Republicans might profit from.
   
   Cooper argues vigorously that Talleyrand was a man of a few deeply held positions on foreign policy, but perhaps little in the way of deeply held moral convictions. "He was not one who would die for his principles, nor even suffer serious inconvenience on their account, but he held to them with singular tenacity and was faithful to them - in his fashion." The overriding foreign policy issue that Talleyrand championed was peace and comity with England, France's historical nemesis. Cooper calls Talleyrand's position on England "fearlessly consistent" and ultimately far-sighted and sound. "He had welcomed it before the Revolution, he had striven for it by the side Mirabeau, he had pursued it under the Feuilant Government and under the Girondins, from exile he had urged it upon Danton, during the Directorate he had endeavored to return it, and under the Consulate he had promoted it at the Peace of Amiens; he had remembered it at Erfurt and supported it against Napoleon in good and in evil days." Talleyrand was not physically brave, but he was unflappable on positions of policy in the face of the toughest negotiations or personal invective, and the desire for a stable peace with England was a stance from which he never wavered.
   
   Talleyrand led a crowded and improbable life, yet I found the most arresting chapter of this biography to be the last. In the sunset of his life, this octogenarian ci-devant priest, this married bishop and lecher, this revolutionary ex-communicated by Rome, embarked upon a slow and thoughtful return to faith, literally signing his peace with the Catholic Church just hours before his death. It was a final peace treaty of sorts that absorbed as much time, deliberation, and posturing as any he had crafted in the realm of international relations.



3. This book is absolutely brilliant and I would recommend it heartily to everybody who likes history written in clear , precise and informative language. I will read more of Duff Cooper and am already delving into Tallyrand and hope to read his autobiography.



4. A good introductory book to Talleyrand. Unfortunately it does not contain references to qtotes, events or anything at all. There is not a single footnote in this book despite fact that author makes many references to quotes, memoirs, etc. Not surprising as the book was written in the 1930s. For a more scholarly (but dry) biography see Dwyer's biblio on Talleyrand (Longman Publishers).



5. Talleyrand is possibly the most intriguing person to come out of the French Revolution. When he is not selling his services to the courts of Europe he is offering the Directory and Napoleon vital information as to how they should conduct foreign affairs. Cooper does a very good job of putting Talleyrand within the context of his times and makes diplomatic history come alive through his traitorous character. For those who understand the basics of the French Revolution and Napoleon this is a great book to expand their knowledge of how these events impacted Europe. If you are writing a diplomatic history this is an essential book that has to be understood. Cooper uses many of Talleyrands writing for his sources and gives the best impression available of the minister.

2 comments about This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century).

1. Mills' biography is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature on the civil rights movement. The well-documented work explores the life of Ms. Hamer, an important figure in the '60s Deep-South struggles whose name may be unfamiliar to some.

   Fannie Lou Hamer was a poorly educated woman who, like most of her contemporaries growing up in pre-Depression Mississippi and beyond, endured virtual apartheid for a good portion of her life. Voting rights were essentially unknown to African-Americans in the state, which was controlled for decades by opponents of civil rights locally and through the state's federal representatives, most notably James O. Eastland, a senator who consistently stalled civil rights legislation through his control of the Judiciary Committee.

   Ms. Hamer was among the first African-Americans to challenge Mississippi's voting registration practices, which were designed to bar blacks from voting. For her troubles, she was arrested, detained in a small-town jail and beaten so severely that she sustained injuries that eventually shortened her life.

   Mills paints a vivid picture of Ms. Hamer's indomitable spirit, which was symbolized by her powerful singing voice, frequently employed to boost the courage of her local comrades and of the black and white workers who came to Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964 in an attempt to challenge the white supremacists who ran the state.

   Nowhere does her spirit come through more clearly than in Mills' account of the 1964 challenge Hamer and others leveled at the Democratic delegation sent to the presidential convention in Atlantic City. The challengers persuasively claimed that they represented thousands of disenfranchised African-Americans who had been denied their right to participate in the political process. The Democratic presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and his running mate, Hubert Humphrey, Mills recounts, dragged their feet on addressing the challengers' claims, only belatedly offering a weak compromise that Hamer and some others fiercely opposed.

   "I question America," Hamer memorably said during hearings on her group's challenge of the white-only delegation. Mills is careful to explore the arguments and motivations of those within Hamer's delegation who argued in favor of accepting the compromise, but it is clear that her heart lies with Hamer's courageous stand.

   In the end, the 1964 challenge failed, but in 1968 another challenge succeeded and Hamer was seated, along with others, at that year's presidential convention. The victory, which deserves special mention in American history, was tempered and largely forgotten due to the street violence for which the 1968 convention is now largely remembered.

   Mills also does a fine job of relating Ms. Hamer's attention to the plight of the poor and her attempts to build political power for the impoverished. One gets a strong sense of the sacrifice that Hamer made to live a life committed to political struggle.

   It is only when Mills attempts to summarize the major events of the civil rights movement that the book's strength flags. I found the first couple of chapters negligible because I'm familiar with the big events of the movement and frankly they've been done better elsewhere.

   When she turns her attention to Ms. Hamer, however, Mills delivers a story worth telling in strong prose that reveals her admiration for her subject without sacrificing her critical judgment.




2. A well writen documentary of an inspirational woman. This book gives life to significant events taking place in the fight for civil rights. In particular, reading about her Freedom Ride on a bus through the American South gave chilling reality to the ordeal. Fannie Lou Hamer is a pivotal figure in American history.

1 comments about Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite (Crises in World Politics).

1. Will be of interest to all those interested in international dispute settlement and the current role of diplomacy. While ultimately unconvincing, it is thought provoking.
   
   Parts of this book are quite interesting, especially when the author describes his personal career in the British Foreign Service and work on Iraq at the United Nations.
   
   To me, the solutions to the structural diplomatic ills perceived by Mr. Ross, and offered up by him in this volume, are both unrealistic and wrong-headed. For example, just "divest ourselves of diplomats."
   
   George Soros is a big fan of Mr. Ross and his utopian ideas on ridding the world of amoral, uninformed, selfish, shortsighted, state-centric methods of working on global problems. This should be a clue to potential readers of this book.

5 comments about Disturbing the Peace.

1. is it a painfully telling portrait of american domesticity gone awry. it is a book you read from begining to end with as few breaks as possible.



2. This is the story of John C. Wilder and his descent into insanity. Wilder is a highly strung hard drinking affluent salesman, a husband and father. He tries to hide his low self-esteem which stems from a mild dyslexia and being somewhat short in stature. He seeks to fill the void in his life through drinking and women.
   
   At one point, all of Wilder's ambitions seem within his grasp. He falls in love with a woman who encourages him to pursue his dream of producing films, and it seems he has a real talent for it. However, the seeds of insanity are sown within him. Time after time, he reaches out for help, to his family, to psychiatry, to AA, looking for understanding and support, but every reed breaks at his grasp. It is a disturbing novel. We are left doubting if anything could have averted his fate.
   
   Yates always gets everything right. The dialogue, speech cadences, observations, structure: his writing is a beautiful thing to observe. He is never simplistic. Yates has a reputation for being a devasting chronicler of American suburbia. He is that, but in this novel he shows that he can deliniate urban angst and despair as well.



3. This novel, by one of my favorite late 20th century writers, is a compellingly realistic story of the downward spiral of an alcoholic. It's power comes from the exacting insights into the mundane existence of the characters trying to survive and thrive in modern society; along a view into the mind of a man making a step-by-step descent into a private hell. As Yates draws you into Wilder's mind, you find yourself,like the main character, unable to see the bottom, until you have made the slow descent into insanity.
   
   I found the book incredibly insightful, with accurate representations of the madness of addiction. The book never descends to the level of moralizing or sermonizing, and that makes it all the more powerful. Yates creates an empathy between reader and character, and that makes the outcome all the more gripping.



4. Some have said this is Yates' weakest work, and I suppose it might be, but I think credit has to be given to Yates for even managing to pull this off. This is a tough story to write, a man's journey from sanity to insanity. Yates stays in his usual third person narration all the way, even when the main character goes completely nuts, so his delusions become our delusions.

   It's not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination - we see get a no-holds-barred view into Bellevue and the complete breakdown of the protagonist. There isn't a likeable character in the entire novel, which isn't that different from Yates' other works, but the problem here is that it's very tough to have any sympathy for the main character, John Wilder. In Yates' more successful books, no matter how nasty the characters, we can't help but to feel for their faults. Not so here.

   Disturbing the Peace may not have the amazing pace of The Easter Parade or the driving power of Revolutionary Road, but it's still a pretty good read. It's a tough book to find nowadays, so if you can get your hands on it, pick it up.




5. In his writing classes, Richard Yates said that the most important thing to him, as a writer, was "telling the truth." He wasn't interested in pyrotechnics. He was interested in technique as an instrument to be used in "telling the truth." He had us read "In Our Time" and "Nine Stories." He respected accuracy, economy, the telling detail. He had no interest in the fancy, the glib. He was obviously deeply influenced by Hemingway. For my money, Yates is better. This masterpiece will tell you what it's like to crack up. No Hollywood, nothing fancy, no self-pity. Just "telling the truth." Read this, then read the rest of Yates. You won't be sorry. The guy knew what he was talking about.

1 comments about Woodrow Wilson: Princeton to the Presidency.

1. Dr. Maynard (on the faculty as Lecturer of Johns Hopkins as well as Princeton at the time his book was released) has written one of the more truthful, composite portraits of Woodrow Wilson. It is refreshing to see the depth of research, with references to older historians and Princeton alumni, who verify Wilson as the uncompromising and egotistical college president. The damage that Wilson did to Princeton continues to this day. And not only is it revealed that Wilson and his father were "a good hater" (to quote them both) but his first wife Ellen also had a terrible temper; and there is plenty of evidence.
   
   I was disappointed that the author did not go into Mary Peck's affair with Wilson more thoroughly; he also completely ignored the affair Wilson had with a Princeton professor's wife. Maynard's treatment of Wilson's doctor, Cary Grayson, was too kind; Grayson was a major player with Wilson's second wife, Edith, in the cover-up of Woodrow's almost total incapacity as president, due to his last stroke. Although, because of his art education at Princeton and the University of Delaware, he devoted many interesting pages to the proposed architectural design of the Quads.
   
   Nevertheless, the book is a page-turner. It almost reads like a novel...because in this case, the truth about Wilson seems almost stranger than fiction. This book brings more evidence to light about the truth of Wilson as a racist, a liar, a man who could not compromise, a man with tunnel vision, a man who didn't know how to raise money for the college, and a man who constantly bickered with the trustees over the Quads and almost everything else he wanted to introduce to the campus. He would not compromise on any issue, whether academic or political. And he couldn't keep friends; as his own father was quoted as saying, "I never had a friend who was faithful to me." Like father, like son.
   
   We see a picture of Wilson living with a tortured ego in a psychological "twilight zone" who could not be a friend with anyone who disagreed with him about anything. He had an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a craving for domination in everything.
   
   The author, as a former student of Princeton himself (B.A. in Art History), covers the preceptorial system Wilson brought to Princeton, which is still advertised on their website, as Wilson's "brainchild," although I do not believe it facilitates excellence in education; it pressures students to "BS" their way through the course material. And the Eating Clubs Wilson opposed, are still there, albeit, they are now co-ed and less in number. Wilson wouldn't agree, but fraternities would have had a better socializing effect on students than these Clubs.
   
   I wondered if the author would still have a job at Princeton after such a tour de force. So I was not surprised that he ended the book with what amounts to a three paragraph apology for Wilson, in which he attempts to vindicate Wilson's twisted educational vision for Princeton, by stating "Princeton University itself has finally come around to the blueprint that Wilson put forward one hundred years ago..." The author closed his book saying that "history would prove him (Wilson) right," confirms the author's vested interest as a former student and now on the Princeton faculty. A good read, but with that vested interest, one has to wonder if all the drama and fireworks presented for the previous 340 pages, is a chimera covering his own loyalty to Princeton...just putting a good face on Wilson's rocky road from Princeton to the presidency.

5 comments about Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

1. "Hell to Pay" tells the story of Hillary Rodham Clinton's life, from childhood on. We see her behind the scenes in Arkansas and Washington, pushing Bill to fight back from his sometimes political problems and accept Dick Morris' advice, and helping to squelch reactions to Bill's infidelities.
   
   More significantly, Olson reminds readers of Hillary's role in "Travelgate," selecting Bill's Cabinet appointees (including Janet Reno and Joceyln Elders), "Filegate" (FBI files used to find dirt on Bush I and Reagan appointees), likely obstruction of justice in blocking access to Vince Foster's files until her staff removed selected papers, creating HillaryCare (antagonized many through secrecy, inflexibility, and leaving them out, overly complex - 1,300+ pages, holding back pay for her ghostwriter in "It Takes a Village" for revealing that Hillary did not write it, trying to push V.P. Gore to an across the street office so she could have his W.H. spot, supporting the "sale of the W.H." - $ for sleepovers, etc., the cattle futures scandal, etc.
   
   "Hell to Pay" also portrays Hillary's "never say die" nature, and bits of her temper.
   
   The only bad news about the book is that the author was killed in the 9/11 airliner crash into the Pentagon, and thus unable to update the material.



2. This book was originally published by Barbara Olson in 1999 prior to her tragic death in the 9/11 terrorist attack on the pentagon. The timing is unfortunate in that if this book was just hitting the bookstores now (April 2008) I think it would prove to be Hillary's undoing, much as the Swift Boater's undid John Kerry with "Unfit for Command".
   
   This book is a real eye opener, following Hillary from her high school years through the Clinton White House to her election as a senator from New York. I think Ms. Olson might even have one up on Dick Morris in her documentation of Hillary's past. If even half of what Ms. Olson relates is true this woman should be sitting in a federal penitentiary somewhere, not running for President of the United States, a job she is about as qualified to perform as I am to perform open heart surgery. The book makes it clear that had she not been the First Lady of the United States she probably would have done some time in the slammer. From her shady an often illegal business deals and investments, to her blatant violation of the law by holding Hillarycare meetings in secrete, to funneling money to the PLO and Communist party, to lies, bribes, threats, insults, firings, perjury, blocking investigations, obstructing justice, hiring staff for the White House who couldn't get security clearances or required random drug testing, and altering public documents. Not to mention the fact that people who get too close to the Clintons have a bad habit of turning up dead. Ms Olson depicts Hillary is a one-woman crime wave.
   
   Shortly the American public will be asked to choose between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama as the Democrat Party's nominee to run for the Presidency of the United States. Anybody who is even entertaining the though of voting for Mrs. Clinton needs to buy this book and read it! And quickly! It sure changed my mind.



3. In an effort to objectively write a key chapter in my book, America, You Will Be Destroyed !: Thus Saith The Lord - and Other Amazing Prophecies I read Ms. Olson's book as a part of my research. While many other Hillary books focused on her and husband Bill's scandals, Olson's book tried to capture the psyche and inner workings of the former First Lady.
   
   I felt that the little, seemingly insignificant or trivial details of her life and childhood helped me to paint a better mental picure of the driving forces in Hillary's life. As a former national and state licensed therapist, the little details helped me to create a case study snapshot. The influences of the feminist movement, her continued pursuit and espousal of radicalism and socialism, her upbringing under a driven father, the upheaval of the 60's, the me-generation of the 70's, the self-consciousness towards her own body (specifically her legs), the disdain and reproachful way Bill treated her... Whew, her issues of being driven, loathing of men in general, thirst for power/dominance and control, all make sense. as another reviewer said, "When peeling back the layers, we need to know this stuff to get at what makes Hillary tick."
   
   Looking at all the background and biographical details makes me realize (and hopefully others) that in her machinations we see clearly that she has not become more conservative or even centrist. She is a radical socialist to the core, and the most frightening thng in this revelation is that she seems to truly believe that she alone is right, that she alone is the people's champion and this sense of righteous indignation fuels her passionately to apire to the pinnacle of power at all costs.
   
   Like a true socialist, Hillary will do anything and everything to obtain power. She will reinvent herself over and over to do so. This book shows clearly that pragmatism is all a pose to make her attractive to the broad electorate. For her, the end (her obtaining power) will justify any means.
   
   By examing the actions/reactions of Hillary during key events such as Whitewater, the Travel agency firings, etc. The reader has an opportunity to see the venal, petty, cruel, vindictive, vulgar and violent side of a woman that is in a position of power and who is wanting yet more. Though all writer's have some non-altruistic motivation(s) for putting pen to paper, the work of digging out new details and reframing existing ones is crucial in the discovery phase of the case against HillaryThe Case Against Hillary Clinton (another work by a different author). There will be "Hell to Pay" if Hillary is elected.



4. One of the best reviews I have read on this personality, and I have read seven books. Underlines the development of her radicalization in politics and how her dysfunctional family of orgin undergirds her indefensible justification of her husband's sex addiction and thereby blaming Christians for his deeds.



5. Since Hillary's own "Living History" was such a sterile and lifeless academic exercise - at least compared to Obama's "Dreams of My Father," or even to Bill's "My Life" -- and thus did powerful little to reveal the real person behind the "political persona," one is forced to stoop (almost embarrassingly so) to "anti-Hillary tracts" (such as I thought this one would be), to peel back the veneer covering the "Hillary Rodham" mystique.
   
   Whether intentional or not, much to my surprise, this book is NOT an altogether uncomplimentary analysis of Mrs. Clinton's life. With many rich details that highlight the good, the bad, and the ugly -- along the often bumpy road her life has taken -- this volume, quite adequately "fills in the blanks" about who the real Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is.
   
   Even though one can clearly see from the title that it was intended to appeal to the "I Hate Hillary Club," it turns out to be amazingly straightforward and free of the usual slander, political vitriol, and below the belt personal jabs that one normally associates with, and expects of books with titles of this sort. Nothing could have been more satisfying than to realize that I had misjudged this book based solely on its cover. I had indeed discounted its value, expecting it to be little more than a carefully disguised "attack ad." And even though much of the juicier aspects of its content seem to have been "culled" from other more respectable sources, it is still much more than just an "attack ad in disguise." It is meaty, coherent, and sticks tenaciously to the main task of trying to unravel, who the person behind the Hillary political persona really is. In short, those looking for an "attack ad" disguised as a book: Well, I am here to tell you, this ain't it. This is not the "National Enquirer's" version of the ex-First Lady's life. Ms. Olson can think and write, and has very high standards for her craft and exercises them all quite well here.
   
   The high points of the book lie in the careful way the author uses the details of her subject's life to outline, against the backdrop of the many layers of American society, the essential elements of Hillary's character and the motivation for her often difficult life choices. The ex-First Lady evolves from a "Goldwater Girl," to a "wide-eyed 1960s Leftist Radical," to Bill's "Hippy gal-pal," to a university Law professor, to a partner in a major law firm, to the ambitious "power grabbing money hungry" political predator that she is now thought by many to be. In the best of the American tradition, she "clawed her way to the top of the food chain."
   
   The public portrait of her is as a person seemingly willing to cut whatever moral corners are needed to advance herself; to protect her Golden Goose (Bill); to grab the brass ring for herself (the U.S. Presidency), and in the end" to find financial security for herself and her family. However, the author is careful to note that she is much more complex than just this demeaning portrait. Hillary does a great deal of good along this very treacherous and tortuous path, especially in improving education in Arkansas, with the Children's Defense Fund, steering Bill's campaigns and comebacks to victory, showing uncommon strength in "facing down" one scandal after another, and in raising consciousness about women issues.
   
   The low point of the book is watching the author get stuck chasing her own tail: Trying to graft her own self-created "Leftist Radical" image onto Hillary. No matter how many Saul Alinsky epigrams she uses, the graft simply does not "take." And the reason is because of the much larger, much deeper picture that the author's own analysis shows the ex-First Lady to be: Hillary, more than anything else, is an evolving political animal that is no longer easy to pigeonhole politically, morally or ethically.
   
   Yet, rather sadly, she misses her own most important lesson and contribution by failing to understand that the corruption of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, when seen in relief, is little more than a general critique of the American political way of life. For as she so aptly demonstrates, there is nothing unique about Hillary, her personality, her life choices, or her life journey that would make her stand out from the rest of us as predisposed towards political corruption, or towards becoming a "moral retrograde." Yet, as has been the case with so many others of American politicians, she lurched from "Right wing" idealist, to "Left wing" idealist, to a "co-opted and corrupt centrist," to a "bought-and-paid-for" pseudo-liberal democrat, and back into the closet again as a "Right wing Republican in "Democratic clothing."
   
   As a template of how to go from political naiveté to political maturity, Hillary's journey from idealist to corrupt political opportunist, could serve as THE model for anyone who gets caught up in the sausage grinding machinery of American government and politics. The sad fact is that the most likely, and the most probable outcome for any of us, is that we will be consumed by it, and will come out on the other side, grinded into unrecognizable moral mince meat -- a corrupt shell of our previous moral selves. Quite simply, we have a political system that eats and digests its young and spits them out as fertilizer for the next generation.
   
   What was most sobering about the book is that Hillary is the classic case in point. Her life's journey is an object lesson in what not to do. Through her, we can see how truly scary it is that for all but a handful of us, dealt the same hand in life as she, but for the grace of God, we too undoubtedly would have ended up in the same morally corrupt and bankrupt cul de sac that the ex-First Lady now finds herself in: with "unearned riches," dubious but exaggerated accomplishments, hanging on to a failed marriage, and still grasping for a meaningless brass ring, called the U.S. Presidency.
   
   While this is far from a balanced treatment, Hilary's own glossed-over treatment left the door wide-open for a hardnosed assessment, and this is it. Five stars

2 comments about Cesar Chavez: A Triumph of Spirit (Oklahoma Western Biographies).

1. Cesar was the second born in the chavez family that had 6 kids. After reading this incredible book (TWICE) I have found no errors. This book is true to the core. GOOD BOOK! The other reviewer was obviously a drunk monkey!



2. This book is not recommended for those interested in accurate information on the subject. Whereas I counted countless errors, I think the most telling is that the authors did not know that Cesar Chavez was the eldest son in the Chavez family. At least three times they mention his brother Richard as being older. If biographers can not get this important fact correct, you can imagine how accurate the rest of the book is. I would say reading it is a waste of time.

5 comments about Fat Man in a Middle Seat: Forty Years of Covering Politics.

1. Like Robert Casey, the great war correspondent of WWII, Jack Germond is a journalist's journalist. In this book, he not only expresses the values of a great journalist, but illustrates them by reporting what he knows and how he gathers information. He even writes about himself, to make his personal bias clear, as good journalists do. One gets the feeling that he used everyone he ever talked to--in bars, at dinners, on airplanes, in offices--as sources for his political beat. Hard drinking? Sure. Uncompromising? Always. Informed? In depth. It's interesting to note that his prose in this book differs from that of his newspaper columns, which use shorter and simpler sentences, an indication that he knows how to write in different forms. His "insider look" at the political figures of our time, warts and all, illustrate Epicurus's observation that "fate is character," because character controls choices. He changed my view on Dale Bumpers, but I'm not sure that I'll accept his pronouncement that Dave Yepsen is one of the great political reporters of our time, until David Broder agrees. And I'd have to say that Broder can get people to talk without imposing on them, although both listen more than they speak. Other than that, Germond is a great political correspondent, who is willing to share his experience, particularly with those who know how to "read between the lines." If he seems a tad pessimistic, well, experience makes cynics of us all, and he experienced America's slide into disposable leadership, which is why he's worth reading.



2. This book is written by a very entertaining individual who has an extensive knowledge about politics. On top of being informative, he gives his information in a stylish flare that can only be characteristic of Germond. Great book!



3. I liked this book. JG is basically my concept of a political reporter. He was intimately involved in the lives of Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, one could argue. So being a journalist means looking deeply into the psyche (soul?) of a politician, without being too close or personally involved. This became a problem with Jimmy Carter. Maybe this is why there are few, if any, Germonds out there.
   
   Germond's comments on Reagan are pretty amazing, to me. The same for Clinton. I guess he's getting more bitter. I have the new book, but I picked this one up used on Amazon, and I'm pretty sure it is the more significant book.
   
   I never quite knew what the deal was with Germond on McG Group. Now I do. That's where I really grew attached to the guy. Sorry it was such a bum experience. Dr. M does not come off well, yet he basically seems to have spawned Chris Matthews, another rather wildly pretentious churno-journo.
   
   I really didn't find any hatchet jobs in the reviews. I'd like to thing Germond commands this kind of respect. I guess I'm not giving the book 5 stars because this man has had a life that was terribly special. I think he needs to offer a little more perspective, be a little more grandly philosophical, at this point. You know, without being pretentious.



4. At a time when the term "liberal" has come to be a dirty word, and mass media punditry is dominated by corporate suits pushing a Big Business agenda, it is refreshing to see a blue-collar journalist dissect politics from the perspective of the old school of newspaper reporting.

   Drawing on his 40 years of experience covering everything from local mayoral races to national presidential campaigns, Jack W. Germond has written "Fat Man In A Middle Seat" as both a memoir of his encounters with some of the past generation's most interesting political personalities and an analysis of the news coverage the public gets of those candidates. In each case, Germond's observations are astute and fascinating, but ultimately discouraging for what they reveal about the men who hold or seek power, as well as how they are portrayed to the voters.

   Culminating in the farcical non-election results of 2000, and the atrocious reporting of the outcome, Germond reaches his inevitable conclusion that he no longer expects the system to ever "get it right" and produce real executive leadership or accurate press accounts of current events. Now semi-retired in West Virginia, he makes it depressingly clear that the failure of broadcast and print news to adequately explain what was at stake for the direction of the country (both during and after the 2000 presidential race) represented a new low in American journalism and politics.

   Maybe worst of all, Germond notes, too many modern journalists apparently never even tried to pierce the market-tested, micromanaged images that the Bush and Gore campaigns spoon-fed them. This did not serve the public interest and, Germond argues, it led directly to the situation in which we saw the travesty of a Supreme Court case determining control of the federal government. Without exaggerating, he says, the future of democracy itself may be at stake if this trend in superficial reporting continues.

   Surprisingly, however, Germond reserves his most scathing comments for former president Bill Clinton. Coming from the left, this savage indictment of the Big Creep's pathologically selfish character is more devastating and effective than anything the Republican attack dogs ever produced. Other descriptions of John and Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr., and many presidential wannabes are equally crisp and vivid.

   Perhaps the best thing about this work is Germond's impressive candor and modesty about his own accomplishments and mistakes. He is honest about his personal and professional errors in judgment, and does not seem to have an ax to grind against his ideological opponents. That alone sets "Fat Man In A Middle Seat" apart from the self-bronzing, unctuous autobiographies of most fourth estate superstars. Read this book if you want a breath of fresh air in the dry desert of what passes for media criticism and political commentary these days. With grace and grit, Germond makes his life ring true.




5. It's as if lightning struck twice. HLM the ultimate conservative curmudgeon, JWG much more the right, but not quite, and not consistently so. HLM the scholar, dealing with the big picture, JWG with personalities, up close and personal. A great book: no need to wonder what Jack really thinks about Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Jack was the only reason we watched The McLaughlin Report. He nails the pompous (call me Doctor) McLaughlin and candidly informs us how much he and the other participants were paid. It's also refreshing to read that he thought the Herald Trib under James Bellows was a much more entertaining and interesting paper than the Times. This is not a book for middle-of-the-roaders, and that's exactly why it's so refreshing to read it. You're one in a million, Jack.

5 comments about Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation.

1. This book concentrates on Washington's administration. It gave me a new appreciation for how instrumental he was in building the nation--not just freeing a collection of thirteen states from Britain.
   
   Except for what I felt was the author's ponderous style, this is a great book.



2. If you are looking to add to an existing collection of books on Washington, this would really help complement it. This book was not what I was looking for, however.
   
   What I was looking for was a book that (1) shed light on Washington as the man who presided over the creation of a new nation and (2) did not go over the head of someone who didn't take any American History class at the college level. It sorta met these criteria, but I think it would be more appreciated by someone who were familiar with the historical context and wanted to add to it. I felt like I read a lot of snippets which shed some light during this period in his life, but I didn't get a good feel of the significance or the context of his achievements.
   
   Biographies (which this really isn't, because it only covered his life in the 1790's) are difficult to write because you have to present the facts but make it appealing as a fictional story (narrative trajectory, character development, etc...). I felt that the author has an elegant style of writing, but I kept saying "So what?" to myself at the end of the chapters. The book describes many instances where Washington maintained the delicate balance between the "Hamilton" style vs. the "Jefferson" philosophies of the federal government, along with many other political maneuverings and actions which occurred, but my impressions are that this book is better suited for complementing someone's existing knowledge of his achievements than a layperson like me who is several years removed from AP History.



3. I bought Richard N. Smith's "Patriarch" at an airport gift shop because I was looking at two long boring flights and there wasn't any book that looked better. The situation was grim because I am no learned scholar or erudite student with 200 other books about Washington on the shelves.
   But once I started "Patriarch" I simply could barely put it down. Somehow, Richard Smith was coaxing that cheerless Washington out of that stodgy old painting we've all seen and bringing GW to life. The "Founding Father" was - surprise - a real life person and, truth is, as a person and a statesman, he was positively jam up!
   Before "Patriarch", it never occured to me what a real-time, online chore he had launchinig this country during his first Presidency. He, and mostly he alone, was the cool forge water that quenched Hamilton's fire and tempered Jefferson's steel to save the new country from a virtual "crib death". Washington's shepherding of the Constitution from damp and dangerous footing to solid ground was a feat nothing short of Incredible. And as the pages of "Patriarch" flew by for this jaded 60s-era non-Historian Washington's stature rose again like a Phoenix, and for the first time I understood why that glum old guy in that drab old picture was, and is, so venerated even 200 years after his death.
   This book, "Patriarch", is George Washinton - The Man - at his Best, and thanks to Richard Norton Smith, you will actually enjoy meeting him this time around.



4. I was fascinated with this book about Washington's Presidency, but I would be remiss in not mentioning that is not much concerned with anything outside his presidency. It is not dry or lacking in details, but I found myself becoming more interested in the fleeting, anectdotal passages, or some of the more personal interactions Washington had. For instance, I found it gripping to follow Washington's decision making process when he is presented with evidence that a close acquaintance may be a traitor. This story only goes on for about two pages and similar examinations are found only few and far between the long stretches on global situations and policies. However, I would guess this proves that one of the important things to note about Washington was that he was not as outwardly notable as some of the more flamboyant and boisterous of those founding fellows surrounding him.

   I feel very informed about Washington the president, but I would now like to learn a little bit more about the man.




5. I found Smith's biography of Washington educational, but at times dry. I certainly learned a lot in reference to Washington and the various trials he faced in holding together a fledgling government. However, I also found less enjoyment in this book than in others about Washington's contemporaries. Students of history and particularly government and diplomacy will find this book very informative. It is not however, for the average reader merely looking to become more familar with our first president.