1 comments about The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller.

1. This book was a finalist for the National Book Award and it is easy to see why. Although it is an enormous book--over 700 pages and still only the first volume of this biography--it is an engrossing and amazingly quick read. Rockefeller moved in so many great circles that the book feels more like one about 20th century America than just one man. The author's fascination with Rockefeller is infectious. The fact that Cary Reich died a sudden and untimely death last year, before he could complete volume two, means that readers will be deprived, even if the writer who completes volume two does an equally superb job.

No comments about The Courage to Lead: One Man's Journey in Public Service.

No comments about Leonard Arrington: A Historian's Life.

5 comments about Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile.

1. Pearce's biography of A.I. Solzhenitsyn may leave off the man's rougher edges, but manages to bring to the fore the centrality of Solzhenitsyn's religious convictions. This seems to be Pearce's forte and his mission in life. In today's cultural wasteland, when nearly no one looks past their momentary needs, it is very much needed. Very edifying.



2. Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile is a fascinating look at one of the most unusual and influential writers of the late 20th Century. Marvellously written, it treks through his tumultuous life from start to finish, focusing on the interchange between Solzhenitsyn's faith and his writing and how the lifelong shaping of his beliefs is reflected in his stories and poems. Engaging from start to finish, this biography also contains 10 previously unpublished poems and a collection of 24 photographs from various periods of his life.



3. There are lengthy biographies of Solzhenitsyn by Scammell and Thomas, and specialized studies (e.g. Ericson's). Pearce's book meets the need of public and undergraduate libraries for a very readable, concise, and up-to-date biography of this controversial Nobel Prize winner. Pearce's book includes some otherwise unavailable recent material by Solzhenitsyn -- the prose poems at the end of the book -- so graduate libraries ought to have it, also.

   Individuals who have read Solzhenitsyn's own autobiographical works and open letters might not need this book, but for most readers it will be a good introduction. It has the salutary effect of prompting one to go and (re)read works such as The First Circle. Pearce doesn't go into depth in discussion of Solzhenitsyn's books, but says enough to quicken interest in them.

   Pearce shows affinity between Solzhenitsyn's positive ideas and those of people such as E. F. Schumacher (Small Is Beautiful). The critique of Enlightenment progressivism and positivism isn't detailed, but there's enough to remind me of writers as otherwise diverse as Phillip Sherrard (The Eclipse of Man and Nature), Russell Kirk, and the author of Ideas Have Consequences. I was also reminded a little of C. S. Lewis's prophetic novel That Hideous Strength, where Lewis presents a distinction between Britain and Logres, as I read Solzhenitsyn as quoted by Pearce, on the souls of nations. Familiarity with these writers -- who are often not known, or well known, to persons who presume to speak of their ideas -- can help one to understand where Solzhenitsyn is coming from.




4. Alenandr Solzenitsyn is a man certainly worthy of full scale treatment by a biographer. DM Thomas' biography a couple of years ago was strangely unmoving,and barely mentioned Solzenitsyn's religious views, which are at the core of his beliefs. At one time.AI solzenitsyn was the darling of the right in America,a virulent anti-communist who scorned ANYTHING resembling a welfare state{his attacks on free-market capitalism was soft pedalded by these same people}.Slowly, though, he became more and more removed from the centre of attention, and his novels became more and more obscure{and ,truth be told,rambling and quite boring.The red wheel trilogy...}This Biography places solzenitsyn's religious beliefs front and centre and the core of his being{and the reason he was able to survive the hell of the gulag}. While these are quite interesting, and really have rarely been covered in the West, Solzenitsyn's disdain for the West, his dismissal of pope John Paul II during and audience,his Tsarist tendencies and his almost messianic xenonphobia are not touched{though all are of one piece.] Solzenitsyn in many ways reminds me of Gandhi{without the charm}: wanting Holy Mother Russia to rise again to her greatness without the taint of western Decadence through a spiritual revolution. While he is a moral giant and an extraordiany example of the resilience of the human spirit, he is not served well by fawning, uncritical praise. Alexandr I solzhenitsyn deserves a full ,massive critical biography covering all of his life{his return to Russia has been bittersweet,his tv show was canceled for LACK OF INTEREST.Amazing how short peoples memories are!} This is one small step in the process. Interesting,but...



5. Solzhenitsyn: A Soul In Exile is a new biography of Alexander Solzhenitsyn portraying a complex man of integrity and faith, and whose anti-materialist stance and call for a "moral revolution" are as relevant today as they were fifty years ago. Biographer Joseph Pearce reassess this influential Russian writer who gave voice to the more than sixty million victims of Soviet terror, and who won the Nobel Prize for "the ethical force" of his literary work. Even with the collapse of Communism, Solzhenitsyn continues to be an outspoken critic of Russian leadership's role in that country's economic collapse and consequent rise of lawlessness. This impressive, highly recommended biography showcases Solzhenitsyn's life and work as a courageous stand for truth rooted in Christian and moral beliefs as evidenced in his life, poetry, plays, novels, and pronouncements.

5 comments about Royal Russia: The Private Albums of the Russian Imperial Family.

1. If a reader of this book is already familiar with the images of the OTMA, and Maria in particular, then the mistaken identifications will not be a problem. There are many photographs that are not in many Romanov photocollections, and the information contained in the text seems spot on. However, I would not recommend this for anyone who does not have a familiarity with the Romanov family already.



2. i love to read anything i can find on the russian royal family,great book.great service,thanks.



3. In "Royal Russia", Lovell draws the reader into the amazing world of the last Imperial Family with their wonderful photographs. The photographs are excellent, however there are some misidentifictations of the Grand Duchesses. Nonetheless, the book is great.



4. Brief Summary:

   In the year 1881 church bells rung from the towers Alexander II is dead. His eldest son Nicholas was crowned czar of imperial Russia. With his wife Alexandra from England. Granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Their first child was born in 1895.Her name was The Grand Duchess Olga Romanov. She was the czars heir. Then in 1897 their second child was born. Her name was Tatiana Romanov. Then in 1899 Marie was born. Then in1901 Anastasia was born. Followed by their final child the new heir Alexei in 1904. Then problems came to Russia there were riots in Russia. The people started to hate the czar and czarina. People were starving in the streets. And Nicholas didn't know anything about it. Alexei was diagnosed with Hemophilia that meant if he bleeds he could bleed himself to death. The Russian Revolution started and the people hated the czar. They imprisoned him and his family. To a small village in Siberia. Then they transported them to a village near Moscow. Where one morning a soldier came to there room and told them to get dressed and get downstairs. The family was told to wait in the basement. A firing squad opened the door and started to fire on the family. The bullets cut their bodies down. There were screaming and lots of smoke. Not one Romanov lived that morning. They say that Anastasia escaped and lived. But that is another mystery.

   Critical Thinking:

   In the book Royal Russia the Romanov family had many fears. They were imprisoned to Siberia and they went from extremely rich to poor. The girls were the most scared because they did not know what was going on or what was going to happen to them. When they were shot in the basement they probably had a clue what was going on. When they were shot they were terrified on what happened to there family.

   Bottom Line:

   Good book to read and also has some good pictures to look at that best describes the Romanov family as they were not how they were preseved to be.




5. Hmmmm, I was decidedly disappointed in this book. Many of the pictures contained within were very poor quality and there were some blatant mistakes in identification of the family members. A good many of the photographs are not new to the collector of Romanov books. I would not recommend this book if one is expecting to see anything new. I dont think Mr. Blair Lovell would have been pleased!

5 comments about Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr.

1. With the exception of those victims of the Parson Weems School of Hagiography it is instructive to read the uncharacteristically wide and evenly divided range of criticism of this book and, I gotta say, almost all are correct. Although Burr was certainly not a "Founder" (Title Hyperbole!!) in the strict sense, he was certainly a "player" and truly one of the more fascinating and complex characters of the early Republic.
   
   The book is obviously well-researched although I'm not sure if it adds anything substantially new. The style is curiously bland and many of the arguments self-serving. After I read Isenberg, I reread my old copy of Gore Vidal's, "Burr". Written in 1973 when Burr's reputation probably could use some rehabilitation, I suspect now, that it was based on substantially the same scholarship. That having been said, those with little knowledge of the subject and an open mind would be well-served to read Isenberg for background and Vidal for style. Her praise for her subject being no more than Chernow for "Alexander Hamilton", she is not as good a writer.



2. I finished this interesting take on Aaron Burr which seems to contradict other biographies. Ms Isenberg portrays our "would be 3rd President" as a victim of smears by most politicians of the day. The VP is just an innocent man that is not only disliked everywhere he goes, but also a Republican from a Federalist state.
   
   After the selection of Clinton as VP of Jefferson's 2nd term Burr seems to disappear. The book explains that he was exploring and traveling like any other normal retired person. In fact, most historians agree that he was plotting to overthrow Mexico and then the United States for revenge the way his Government and Jefferson treated him. This is where the book starts throwing factual history out the window and starts making a lot of assumptions to make Burr appear to be the victim once again.
   
   Either Aaron Burr was the unluckiest guy in the world or this book is making a lot of false assumptions. It is sad in that similar to maybe Barry Goldwater, this was a brilliant guy with potential and we'll always wonder . . . what if? Had he been selected as the 3rd President how different, if at all, would America be? No Louisiana purchase, no Lewis & Clark expedition, no War of 1812, no University of Virginia, no James Madison as President . . . . we can only wonder had this unlucky man; Aaron Burr, been selected (he was elected and tied Jefferson) President of the United States.



3. I enjoyed this book and the new information I learned about one of history's great characters. Burr knew all the founders and played a part in our early history. The epilogue to the book was correct: All these men were simply men and they were not doing historical things all of their lives. Another point: The politics of 2008 is not much different from 1800.



4. A brief thought to add to the other many reviews.
   Isenberg has done a brilliant job of difficult research.
   Sadly, in the readability department, it is sorely lacking.
   And, as far as objectivity goes, it strives too hard to drive home the author's desired theme of lifting Burr's reputation - at the expense of the other players.
   One example: On page 93 when speaking of (Scty of Treasury) Hamilton's paying 6% interest on State Debt, the author neglects to mention that according to many other records, Hamilton himself did not gain personally, while other speculated on the expected results. Also lacking is any mention that Hamilton was driven by the need to get the States to support the Federal Government which was by no means solvent or on firm ground.



5. Why did I dislike this book? Let me count the ways.
   
   1) In her attempt to rehabilitate Aaron Burr, whom she clearly sees as an early supporter of feminism and a visionary reformer, Ms. Isenberg violates her own rules, She states that we must judge histroic figures against the standards of their times, not ours. She then analyzes Burr's career through the prism of the rampant self promotion of our era instead of the reticent standards of the federalist period.
   
   2) Isenberg puts herself inside the mind of Burr with sentences such as if Burr had known X he would not have done Y. This type of speculation belongs in the realm of romantic fiction, not scholarship.
   
   3) Making a case for Burr, Isenberg paints him in the best possible light while placing all of Burr's contemporary critics in the worst possible light. According to her, George Washington was easily mislead by his aides. Alexander Hamilton was insanely jealous. As for John Adams, Isenberg knows that when Adams wrote about the favorable actions of anonymous members of Congress, plural, Adams had to be writing about that paragon of virtue, Aaron Burr. Why the articulate and forthright second president could not praise Burr by name, had such praise been warranted, is not explained.
   
   The last straw was Isenberg's narrative about Burr and William Eaton. If all one knows of Eaton is from this book, he or she will come away with the impression that the Barbary Coast War immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn was a sordid private land grab conducted solely to enrich said Eaton. That's because Isenberg relates Eaton's life story without mentioning the reason for his expedition in North Africa was to stop the Barbary Coast rulers from sanctioning piracy against American ships and the taking of American hostages.
   
   4) Much of the book suffers from a near fatal lack of context. For example, Isenberg clearly thinks it is to Burr's favor that he and his wife were avid students of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. She fails to note, however, that during Burr's political career many of his contemporaries associated French political philosophy with the excesses of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon's empire. Thus she makes political opposition to Burr's ideas appear to be based entirely upon personal enmity instead of practical concerns that the new American Republic should not also fall into chaos and dictatorship.

5 comments about Napoleon: A Political Life.

1. Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life (available in paperback from Harvard) is a book that should satisfy both the interested lay reader and the professional historian.
   
   It will satisfy the lay person because it tells a fascinating story about one of history's most interesting and influential human beings, and it tells it exceptionally well. In the process, the reader will gain insights into how a topflight scholar advances his or her field of knowledge.
   
   It will please academics because Englund presents a nuanced revision of the current myths about Napoleon, who, after two hundred years, still stirs passions among his admirers and detractors as though he were living today. The author focuses on Napoleon's evolving political thought and strategy and how his contemporaries actually responded to him, not how we wished they had responded to him. A virtue is that Englund avoids smoothing out Napoleon's past choices and actions through hindsight: Englund emphasizes that actual history is messy; it doesn't come in tidy packages.
   
   The greatest of men, the very few like Napoleon, leave behind an altered world. Englund draws on Christian Meier's masterful biography of Caesar. He frequently compares Napoleon to Caesar, but Napoleon left behind many more permanent structures in France and across Europe thna Caesar did Rome: law code, a system to govern the localities from the center, the Legion of Honor, and in Paris, monuments and buildings and sewer system and roads.
   
   People who won't like the book will most likely object to two things.
   
   (1) It's not a history primer. Englund assumes the reader is conversant with eighteenth-century history history though not at the level of the professional historian.
   
   (2) Englund devotes almost as much time to wars and battles as he does to other issues, both domestic and international. But, especially when discussing Napoleon and his times, Clausewitz was right: war is an extension ofpolitics.
   
   Another objection may be that Englund doesn't condemn Napoleon roundly enough. He admires him but sees what disaster his overweening ambition led him to in the
   end.
   
   Highly recommended.



2. Simply put, an excellent read in content, wisdom and prose.



3. I came to this book thinking that it would focus entirely on the political dimension of Napoleon's life. This is not the case. Napoleon: A Political Life might exclude the word 'political' from its title and be just as fitting, for Englund spends a great deal of time on Napoleon's relations with Josephine, his brothers, the exiles, etc.. In fact, in the introduction (at the end of the book), Englund states that he almost subtitled the book "Empire of Circumstance."
   
   The great strength of the book is its writing style. Englund really captures the drama of the Little Corsican's life, and he sweeps the reader up in it. All of the politics of Napoleon's life is, as you would expect, well covered, but so is his personal and military life. Never did I feel overburdened with detail, and never was the text wanting for humour.
   
   There is, however, some merit in the argument posted by some of the other reviewers that the book assumes too much in the way of background knowledge. This is not an introduction to Napoleon for the novice. While I would not go so far as to say that you need have already read another book on Napoleon to enjoy Englund's work, you should certainly have a reasonable idea of the political zeitgeist he worked in, particularly the French revolution and the foreign (especially British) reaction to it. Ideally, you should also have taken a course in French at some point in your life (and not completely forgotten it). Englund has a somewhat irritating habit of dropping les mots francais at random, and often without translation (although most of the more important French phrases are translated, most of the minor ones are not). C'est la vie.
   
   One of my favourite parts of the book was the analysis of Napoleon's legacy: his admirers and detractors, whence he is glorified, and whence he is ignored. Englund is the most balanced Napoleonic author I have yet encountered, seeming to genuinely sympathize with (and synthesize from) those who love and those who hate the l'Empereur.
   
   Perhaps the highest compliment for a book, I plan to reread this one.



4. The key to understanding this book is its subtitle: A Political Life. Don't make this your first book on Napoleon. The author is standing on the shoulders of giants, and using the volumes of information that came before him as a starting point in the conversation. He doesn't attempt to provide details on Napoleon's military career, his personal life, The French Revolution, or the state of Europe before or after Napoleon. This is a decent book, as long as you understand it is not intended to be "Napoleon: The Compete Story".



5. Many of us in the U.S., Canada & Mexico, trace our genealogy, culture and religion to Europe. Yet, many Gen-Xers and younger cannot name more than 2 or 3 European capitols. We frustrate the Europeans as much as they frustrate us. To know European history is to understand current trans-Atlantic relations. How can we bridge this gap to our cousins across the pond? Steve Englund's "Napoleon" is a great place to start. No period has had a greater impact on European thought than the 1770's through 1815. Englund brings the reader into the eye of the hurricane.
   
   The author assumes that the reader has completed "Intro to European History 101" at the college level. Englund quickly moves the reader from the banal "Who and What" of history to the intriguing "Why?". Englund's facts and research are impeccable, yet he writes in the humanistic style of a novelist. The book portrays Napoleon not as the brooding figure on horseback, but as the driven immigrant-reformer, speaking accented French, who rises to become Emperor. Napoleon is seen as a tyrannical son of Mars, yet also enlightened governmental innovator. Start your own enlightment with Englund's book.

3 comments about The Presidencies of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore (American Presidency Series).

1. This is another in the American Presidency series. Elbert Smith examines two of the lesser known and lower rated chief executives--Zachary Taylor ("Old Rough and Ready") and Millard Fillmore. By the end of the book, the author had convinced me that these two deserve higher ratings than most historians are willing to grant them.
   
   The book begins by noting the ethos of the times when Taylor ascended to the presidency, with Millard Fillmore as his V-P. Smith says (page 1): "The United States in 1848 was a nation of many paradoxes. The prevailing mood of those who expressed themselves publicly was one of exuberant pride and optimism, but for many these feelings were tempered by bad conscience, hurt pride, and angry resentments." Taylor and Fillmore presided over a country badly divided by region and the issue of race, and there was talk of secession throughout much of their term. It was also a time of dramatic change, with the railroad beginning to change internal movement of people and goods, with newly invented farm tools making agriculture more productive, and with the telegraph presaging much more rapid communication.
   
   The book begins by providing historical context: the changing technology of the era, as already noted; the political climate; the increasingly touchy Southern defensiveness regarding slavery.
   
   Then, brief biographical sketches of both Taylor and Fillmore, giving the reader a sense of where they had come from and who they were when elected as President and Vice President.
   
   Taylor only served a year and a half until his untimely death. In that time, he actually developed a decent record, with one of the highlights being his effort to prevent civil war from breaking out in 1850. He worked publicly and behind the scenes to try to create a compromise over admission of free versus slave states and other intertwined issues. he showed steadiness and political courage in the process.
   
   After his death, Fillmore acceded to the presidency. This former Mayor of Buffalo also handled the threat of secession pretty well. While his position wasn't the same as Taylor's he continued the effort to work out a compromise. In the end, the Compromise of 1850 averted conflict and secession for another decade. Taylor and Fillmore appear to warrant some of the credit.
   
   The tale continues with coverage of the rest of his presidency, his being "dumped" by the party in 1852, his later run for that office as a "Know-Nothing," and the final years of his life.
   
   All in all, a nice volume. One clear index of the book's value. It sure changed my mind about two presidents and gave me a greater appreciation of their role in a turbulent time. Certainly, one would not rate them among the all-time greats. But they deserve better credit than what they have received.



2. Of all the presidents, Millard Fillmore may have the worst public perception. There is even a group spoofing him as the most forgettable president in history. I first learned of this group when Johnny Carson mentioned it during a monologue on an episode of the Tonight Show. It is of course absolutely false; Fillmore was a strong president with deeply held beliefs who acted in the best interests of the country. While he was a New Yorker and personally despised slavery, Fillmore upheld the great compromise of 1850 and continued the policies of Zachary Taylor.
   Taylor was the owner of many slaves, but all indications are that he was a very benevolent owner. He was also a pragmatist, understanding all too well that economic conditions dictated that slavery was not viable in the newly acquired western territories. Above all else, he was a unionist, stating in no uncertain terms that he would use federal troops against anyone who tried to break the union. As a former general, he was very credible when he threatened to personally lead federal troops in the potential battle between New Mexico and Texas. All through the years of the presidencies of Taylor and Fillmore, there is the clear movement towards the war that broke out ten years later.
   Both men have traditionally been ranked in the bottom level of presidents, largely due to the terrible events of the civil war. Smith is absolutely right in going beyond this simplistic view and explaining the tremendous successes that both men achieved as president. The circumstances were beginning to spiral out of control and three political giants; Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun all were passing from the scene. Even in retrospect, it is hard to see how they could have done more to preserve the union. Two great tragedies that helped lead to the civil war are explained in great detail. The death of Taylor after only sixteen months in office was a disaster. If he had survived and served two terms, it is very possible that the lurch toward sectional war could have been held in check. As a southern slaveholder and a strong unionist Taylor had credibility to oppose southern secessionists that few others had. His last complete year in office would have been 1956, and the Whig party would have survived. The demise of the Whig party was the key disaster, as it led to the rise of the Republican Party, which had trivial support in the slaveholding areas. While the Whig party had enormous internal problems, the fact that they could elect southern slaveholders to the presidency demonstrates that they were a national party.
   While the events that came after their term in office must be included in any historical analysis of a president, a sensible sense of perspective must be maintained. Other people rise to hold political offices and their actions have more effect on events than their predecessors do. Taylor and Fillmore have been maligned for events that were largely beyond their control. Yes, there were things that they could have done differently while in office that could have helped heal the growing sectional rifts. However, on balance their presidencies were more successful than they have traditionally been given credit for. Smith breaks with that tradition, by concentrating on what they did, he describes two men who held the rudder of state on as even a keel as was humanly possible. Those were times of great looming dangers; they fought them with great skill and determination. Unfortunately, they passed from the scene all too quickly.



3. This is the fourth text I have read in the American Presidency Series, and I also rate this one a 5 star. This series provides a detailed overview of what is happening in the country socially and culturally, in addition to politically. I like that I learn not only about the two presidents ; but also, I was given details on many of the other major political figures of the time. An extensive use of primary sources is used, and the author makes an effort to discuss how previous biographers have presented each president, how the presidents have been viewed at different points in history, and how this account sees the presidents. This is a sympathetic biography of both, but the author's assessment is solidly supported with evidence. I am not a historian, just a person reading a bio of each of our past presidents. Interesting, story-telling. I did not find this work boring and dry. It also sets the stage for the Civil War and explores the issues that help build toward war.

5 comments about Unveiled: How an American Woman Found Her Way Through Politics, Love, and Obedience in the Middle East.

1. To anyone who's actually lived in the region and knows some of the people referenced in the book, it is unlikely "Unveiled" will cast any light. The author lived in the region for only three years. She didn't learn Arabic, very much limiting her ability to understand the culture, the events, and the people she was exposed to and, thus, her ability to interpret them for those who haven't traveled to or lived in the region.
   
   It is difficult to have it both ways (i.e., to speak with authority on the people and the issues in the region without learning the language and without having been fully immersed long enough to pick up on enough of the nuances).
   
   I have to admit, I was put off by the "I could've been a princess" chapter. It seemed like something thrown in to enhance the marketability of the book to people who are impressed with but in the dark about such things. Jordan is a small country with a relatively large, accessible royal family. They are regularly out and about and meeting people, so it's difficult to know what really took place there--whether she was just exposed to a prince for a brief while or whether there was a seriousness to whatever relationship was there.
   
   Also, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine aren't countries where veiling is prescribed--some women cover, some don't. It would never be expected that an American woman would veil, unless she was trying to "pass." So I find the title of this book a bit sensational. Again, probably to help with the marketing, but it doesn't really help to understand the region.



2. I am an American Jew. I am also a member of a Middle East Peace Group, whose membership is made up of Israelis and Palestinians working side-by-side in an effort to effect peace in the Middle East for all people. Deborah Kanafani has written an enthralling memoir, and at times a harrowing tale. Deborah is a valiant, courageous, resilient, and trail-blazing American woman of Lebanese descent; her devotion to her two children is truly heart melting - she did everything she possibly could to protect them; sacrificing everything to be nearby and physically with them; breaking through barricades set up to thwart her from having any access to them due to unimaginable and terrifying circumstances; She bore the weight of her burden with her integrity and her personal values intact; for her childrens' own well-being Deborah braved and endured her chilling fate with a determined sense of calm in the eye of this Middle East maelstrom.
   
   My admiration for Deborah as a woman, a mother, a human rights advocate and a writer is boundless. And I extend this admiration to all the brave and notable women whose stories Deborah shares with us; they all embody an indomitable strength and an unwavering will to speak out against human rights violations, at the risk of their own lives. Deborah allows us to see in this beautiful memoir that each of us in our own ordinary way with all our foibles and human weaknesses has within us the extraordinary power to effect necessary change in the way humankind operates in the world.
   
   I applaud Deborah's valor; raising and carrying the torch of true freedom high above her own head, in an effort to guide us, we who share her desire and her vision of bringing a peaceful co-existence out of the darkness into the light of day, where this dream of peace, security and understanding can become a reality in the Middle East and the world over.



3. Deborah Kanafani writes a powerful and touching memoir about loss and identity; feminism and third world politics. With beauty and tenderness she explores her micro family dynamics and how they coincided with macro world politics. A true pleasure to read.



4. Ms. Kanafani is a wonderful storyteller. There are many pretentious and complex books that have been written about the Middle East. This is NOT one of them. But I think that this is not just a book about the Middle East. Ms. Kanafani uses her personal experience and her encounters with fascinating women to bring us a message that is constantly obscured by the media. The message: There are people in the Middle East (and all over the world) that do want PEACE. People from all sides need and want to live a peaceful live. At the end of Ms. Kanafani's book she gives a list of organizations that are actually working to bring peace to the Middle East. But does the media talk about these organizations? Not really. It's not something that networks can sell and can use to scare people on the evening news... Ms. Kanafani's book takes you on a fascinating and very personal trip. It's her unique story that makes this book a must read.



5. I found Deborah Kanafani's "Unveiled" to be not only a gripping personal life adventure, but a highly enlightening book, educating in the current and past realities of life in the Middle East. We tend to imagine all Middle Eastern women to be veiled and silenced in a world where their voices seem to mean very little, so it was interesting to hear the stories of all the brave women fighting for their families, societies, and their political and personal rights and values. It was also absolutely fascinating to see how many prominent political figures seemed to have chosen to marry women who were not at all subdued, but, rather, strong, intelligent, and outspoken. Ms. Kanafani's own personal journey was both intriguing and compelling, and a true testament to her courage and the human spirit in the face of challenge and adversity. It is cinematic in it's scope and begs to be translated to the big screen, which I certainly hope it will be. Kudos to Ms. Kanafani for both her book and her immense courage.

2 comments about The Life of John Milton: A Critical Biography (Blackwell Critical Biographies).

1. Incredibly interesting and really a good, hard look at the life of John Milton and what inspired him and what aroused his wrath. His poems are eternal and deal with things secular and spiritual. His words have come down to us through many centuries and they are still as powerful as the day he wrote them. What a true genius! What a stunningly beautiful biography...I couldn't put it down.



2. This is, indeed, the most exhaustive modern biography of John Milton. The renowned critic Barbara Lewalski, as usual, offers the students and scholars of Milton an enchanting biographical masterpiece that both narrates and captures Milton's story and history from his early childhood "The childhood Strews the Man" to his last breath "Teach the every Soul". Mocking Samuel Johnson's theory on writing a biography, Lewalski, without eating, drinking, or living in social intercourse with Milton, has succeed in writing an impressive biography of Milton through, as she mockingly asserts, living in intellectual and artistic intercourse with Milton. Reading this book, to the surprise of Johnson, one will find him/herself eating, drinking, and living social intercourse with john Milton thanks to the scholarly talent of Barbara Lewlaski.