No comments about The Astor Orphans: A Pride of Lions.

3 comments about Memories of the Great and the Good.

1. Prior to buying this volume of Alistair Cooke's writings, I knew him only as the former host of Masterpiece Theater, with his career as a journalist being only something I had heard about. The essays collected here are from various periods of Mr. Cooke writing career (1957 through 1999) and include a diverse group of people, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Irma Bombeck, Gary Cooper, Barry Goldwater and Eleanor Roosevelt . Each essay is rather short, averaging about ten pages. I read a comment by a reviewer that Mr. Cooke was excellent at creating a "portrait" of his subjects. While this is probably true, "Memoirs of the Great and Good" aims more at anecdotes and episodes, that Mr. Cooke elaborates upon, rather than having the detail and depth of a short biography. Many were written upon the death of the subject, so they are valedictory in tone. The essay about FDR relates an occurrence that happened to Mr. Cooke when he encountered the President as he was arriving to give a speech at Harvard. The last piece is a book review of "The Last Lion" by William Manchester, a biography of Winston Churchill, that gives us an insightful look into the early years of Churchill.

   In sum, I found these essays to be thoughtfully written and compulsive to read. It was surprising to realize how quickly I went through the book.




2. "Memories of the Great and the Good" is a collection of essays that, as much as introducing the more casual and less public sides of nearly two dozen luminaries, reveals the evolution of America and of Alistair Cooke. The pieces stretch from 1951 through 1999 and the most useful advice, repeated both in discussing Churchill's love of war and hatred of the idea of women's suffrage, and in dismissing the alleged racism of golfer Bobby Jones, is to beware the "shame of seeing a man out of his time." One reporter recently dubbed Cooke the Dorian Gray of journalism, perhaps both for having been silver-haired and apparently the same age for as many decades as not, and because it is difficult to tell to what time the man himself belongs.

   Even though he is my grandfather, I can be no help on that score; in recent years I have seen the replacement of a knee and an angioplasty (both of which he has mentioned in his weekly BBC "Letter from America") leave him as sprightly as I have ever known him.

   Each essay reflects the time of its creation, whether that was 1967 or 1999. The 1974 piece on Duke Ellington mentions a visit to the bandleader's flat "on the swagger side of Harlem," and comments, "There is such a place," the Duke being at the top of "the hierarchy of Negro social status." Yet the 1999 piece on FDR is most memorable for an account of the unexpected, unseen, and contemporarily unpublishable view of the president being carried out of a car and limping, assisted, into a giant hall. By urging the reader to look at his subjects in their times, he sometimes implicitly admonishes himself for failing to do so. "Wodehouse at Eighty," for one, shows the father of Jeeves unquestionably out of his time, an anachronism as viewed--and, to be honest, caricatured--by Cooke, in his early fifties at the time. In other essays he steps almost too much into the times and shoes of his subjects, for example when mirroring the outlook of Erma Bombeck, whose career "was that of her generation--brace yourselves!--mother and housewife." While many of the pieces attempt and succeed at portraying the individuals 'in their time,' a large number of the pieces were written far after 'their times' as obituaries, which should not be surprising as Cooke shares with every nonogenarian the fact of having seen an extraordinary number of players both step onto the stage and then take their bows and make their exits some time later.

   Combined with this historical span, what is truly worthy about this book is that, like his earlier "Six Men," it displays the extraordinary degree of access which he, as a foreign correspondent par excellence, enjoyed with a dizzying array of figures. George Bernard Shaw is in a behind-the-scenes committee discussing the pronunciation of proper "BBC English." "The General"--Eisenhower-- sits on his back porch, commenting on his golf and waiting for Cooke's t.v. crew to reposition themselves. And Duke Ellington is in his boxers and a towel, devouring breakfast at two p.m. These are the kind of stories that I've heard come out over drinks in his study, or on Christmas afternoon in Vermont, as if they were the most pedestrian, ordinary experiences.

   On October 2, 1999, a fascinating sixteen-minute interview about the book was broadcast on Weekend All Things Considered, recorded in that self-same study in New York. NPR's finest have come to call, just as Cooke did on Wodehouse or Ike; as Cooke thus becomes a living museum of the twentieth century, I wonder if his plea is partly that he himself not be viewed out of his time. In the interview, he posits that America and Americans have, in asserting our 'rights,' lost track of the collective societal duties to which they correspond. With this I must respectfully disagree; we must recognize that these courtesies, if they existed, were only accorded to a small, privileged establishment. Thus, I far prefer a society where anyone can enforce his rights, to one that relies on a collective sense of duty from which many could never benefit. In any case, "Memories of the Great and the Good" offers a rare look, at Cooke (long an icon of Britain to Americans and in icon of America to Britain) and at many of the most important actors on the stage of the twentieth century. I truly hope you will enjoy it.




3. I purchased this book for my 13 year old son for Christmas, and took the liberty of reading it. I read Cooke's sections on George C. Marshall, Winston Churchill,Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Bobby Jones because I was familiar with all of them from other works. Cooke writes in a breezy style, butI believe he captures the noble, transcendent charateristics of each man.I enjoyed each sketch thorougly. His vignettes are all perceptive. I hope that this might spark my son's interest in reading more about these figures. Overall an excellent, quick read.

5 comments about The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.

1. Kessler details the life of Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of Robert, Teddy and Jack Kennedy and the founder of one of the largest political dynasties in America. JPK is not given a very favorable look in this book. He is listed as an adulterer, a swindler, a crook, power hungry and unscrupulous. And that was just on the first side of the first tape. Because I don't know how much of this book is truly factual, I can't give it a proper review. Frankly, I bought it out of a discount bin for a long trip I was taking. However, it's a fascinating look at one of the people that isn't closely examined in history. It is an abridgement of the source work; it runs three hours and is read perfectly by Frank Langella.



2. Kessler does an excellent job writing, truly, about the sins of the father, Joseph P. Kennedy. I had heard many stories about the man, but I didn't realize to what extent these stories were myths or real. Kessler certainly dispels that these stories are myths. He tells us what a manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceitful man that Kennedy really was.
   
   We are treated to the stories of Kennedy's manipulation of the stock market for his own personal gain; his illegal importation of scotch to pad his growing millions; his manipulation and theft of Gloria Swanson's monies. It doesn't stop there. Kessler tells about how Joe wanted to avert war since he was afraid he would lose millions of dollars.
   
   Kessler tells us how much Joe manipulated and controlled his children so that they would conform to his standards; and how their political life was formed in order for Joe to pursue his own dreams via his children's lives.
   
   After reading of Joe's death, one has to wonder whether Joe's cruel and deceitful life was worth it in the end - two assassinated children; Rosemary's lobotomy; a family myth built on lies. A simply incredible book - first rate from start to finish.



3. A very fine book exposing the Kennedys. I am somewhat surprised that such immoral things could happen in free and democratic U.S. In any event, justice has been done. No Kennedy is likely to be President in the near future. Jo's manipulative and power-hungry character did not serve him well. The early and untimely deaths of his three sons gave him more sorrow and grief than anything else.



4. I have read a few books by Ronald Kessler. It is a recurring theme that I find myself irritated by how uncharitable Kessler is...unless Kessler honestly believes that The FBI ("the Bureau") did nothing right and that Joseph Kennedy was an absolute villain. Kessler has a tough time saying anthing good about Joseph Kennedy, The FBI or most of his other topics. I think Kessler's novels need balance and fairness. Maybe only the negative and scandalous is stimulating or salable but the novels leave me feeling annoyed.



5. It is a good and fair book, well written and researched. To read this book is so essential to know and understand - really - an important american family like the Kennedys, apart from the mith that this cool man, Joseph Kennedy, helped much more than anybody else in the family to create and foster. There are some dark sides, but the truth is one thing and the legend is another and of course if you prefer the latter leave this book on the shelf and go on dreaming.

5 comments about Lawyer: My Trials and Jubilations.

1. Having been in law practice for just over 15 years, I've always sought inspiration from my older, more experienced and [much more] wizened colleagues. I've often found such inspiration in the example of well known trial lawyers who seem "larger than life."
   I don't really compare myself to any of these great legal lions. However, I do draw from their gutsy manner and styles, their talent and inspiration. Joe Jamail is one fine example of a great trial lawyer -- whose enormous success almost speaks for itself. I for one am quite willing to overlook any personal flaws or quirks among such great colleagues, in favor of learning the wisdom of their experience and trememdous success.



2. I received this book (a signed copy) free from my law school upon graduation (within a year of publication). I suppose Joe had a few thousand lying around that he couldn't sell. I keep it in the bathroom in case my wife forgets to refill the toilet paper.
   
   All kidding aside, it's amusing and anecdotal, but he's largely full of himself, as would be expected from a billionaire lawyer's autobiography.



3. Law students who have just taken a course in professional repsonsibility may characterize Joe Jamail as a bad man, as unscrupulouas, as a jerk. That is probably true. But, argumentum ad hominem. Just because the man is bad, his work may not be. The facts are that Jamail is one of the most successful American lawyers of all time; that he fights a tremendous fight for his clients. Read this book for what it is, an account of an outstanding lawyer and his interesting cases; not as an intro to legal ethics.



4. Mr. Jamail's book is terrific. Yes he's a little full of himself but his results are real and he has accomplished a lot in his legal career. He's also had a few major financial scores that have put him in a very unique class of lawyer. This is a fun book with many stories about individual cases that made an impression on Joe and thus inspired him to fight for his client.



5. I found Joe's book entertaining and easy to read. His passion for his clients and job is a trait not held by most in the law profession.

3 comments about Finding Grace in Monaco.

1. Hard enough to believe, Cori Kirk is always in the right place at the right time to make her way into the princely family. To me she overstrains destiny a bit too much with her esoteric inputs, with which she tries to explain or even justify things that she does - and the effects they have. My impression after finishing the book was that Cori Kirk was on a mission to finding her way into the upper class - and does this so well she even dates Prince Albert (she shows pictures of herself with him). Sad enough, Cori Kirk can't keep him and ends up running after him - more than once finding only polite rejection, which makes one pity her due to the sympathy she manages to build with the reader.
   
   Never the less, a quite courageous and open-hearted book.



2. This book offer readers the rare chance to live inside and flirt with Monaco's Royalty. The opportunity is provided by the imagry of Cori's smooth, journal-type writing style. One can hear the music playing as she dances through each day with the monarchs and feel the passion of each affectionate royal embrace. Cori celebrates dreams, drama and intimacy with the publishing of her charmed-life story in "Finding Grace in Monaco".



3. In the beginning, Ms. kirk's book was harder to believe than a Hollywood fantasy but as you race towards finding out what happens you know the wildest things are possible and do happen.

   Pure Serendipity, and a wealth/health of succinct wisdom.

   Written for women but strong enough for a man. Suspend your doubts and read it!

No comments about Bombay to Bloomsbury: A Biography of the Strachey Family.

No comments about Complete Works of Oscar Wilde (Collins Classics).

No comments about The House That Jack Built.

No comments about Robert Dunsmuir: Laird of the Mines (The Quest Library).

5 comments about Diana Mosley: A biography of the glamorous Mitford sister who became Hitler's friend and married the leader of Britain's fascists.

1. I disagree with the reviews that complain that the subject is not atacked for her political views. It is a obvious that anyone tied who can be directly tied to this view during this period and is established as an anti-semite is morally reprehensible. The author does not and should not even try to attack those views as that is not the purpose of the book. The purpose is to follow the journey of Mosley from aristocratic child to spouse of an anti-Semitic fascist leader and beyond. As to post-war discussions, of course, any normal person would be disgusted by much of Mosley's conduct. Still, that is part of the story.
   
   As is obvious, this is one of those biographies devoted to the life of someone who one might assume to be a secondary or even a minor, if any, influence on history. As the wife of the leader of the consolidated fascist union in the years proceeding world war two, one might view Diana Mosley as someone simply in the shadow of her husband. The author surprised me with an extremely well written insight into the significant role of this woman, not in relationship to others, but as to her conduct and accomplishments, for right or wrong, throughout her life. Instead of explaining her in the context of other people, the author discusses events and other people in the context of Mosley.
   
   As pointed out above, this book goes against the usual approach of biographies of "secondary" personalities on the world stage. I have frequently found such books give very little attention to the person's life before whatever significant event or events they are tied to. Here the author not only explores Mosley's childhood in depth, but also all the member of her immediate family. Far more impressively, the author somehow manages to seamlessly maintain the family backdrop throughout Mosley's life. To me, I greatly appreciate a book that has, for lack of a better term, an even approach throughout. I do not care for books, particularly biographies, that start almost abruptly with a short chapter on childhood, then devotes the huge majority on the primary issues of history involved, and finally again almost abruptly ends with a short chapter about death and/or retirement. The greatest strength of this book in my humble opinion is that common flaw is absent here.
   
   Finally, the author had took an unusual approach to her sources, both primary and secondary. She relied a great deal on books written by Mosley's sisters and other contemporaries. Likewise, she also relied a great deal on information she acquired directly from Mosley. An academic might have some problems with her approach, as she did not bury the manuscript in footnotes, but it is effective. Where relevant, the author simply cites the materials as the basis of the information in the text. This approach is perhaps a result of the author being a journalist and not an historian. However, that certainly should not be held against her, as William Shirer has demonstrated.
   
   Again, I do not hold myself out as an expert of the period. Still, I have read a number of books dealing with the extension of both the fascist and communist movements in a number of democracies including the United States, England, France and South Africa. Based on my previous readings, I had an almost myopic view of fascism in England embodied solely in the person of Oswald Mosley. Besides giving me an excellent insight into the British young aristocratic society in the pre-war years, this book also gave me a new view of the specific workings of the British fascist movement. If you are interested in such things, I would strongly suggest you give this book a read.



2. Though I had heard of the Mitford sisters, this was my first foray into a biography about one of them (to be followed by more!). They do have a way of sparking curiosity with their unconventionality and downright bizarreness!

   I echo some of the other readers' concerns: Dalley does not address how the Mosleys' despicable views were reacted to later on in life, nor how the unveiling of the true evils of the Third Reich after the war affected them and their thinking (from the question's absence, it appears not to have affected them at all, which is even more ghoulish than ever having those extremist views in the first place). Perhaps if these abhorrent opinions would have been placed in context within a panorama of the public at large at the time, it would have presented a more understandable portrait of why these people believed such nonsensical and evil things.

   While Dalley makes it clear that she was under considerable constraint because he subject is still alive (and while Diana Mosley `cooperated,' she would not permit quoting of previously unpublished letters or diaries, hamstringing attempts at insight), the timid minimal pursuit of the farther-reaching implications of their bigotry and racism makes the book appear two-dimensional and sycophantic. Ms. Dalley should have posed the hard (and most interesting) questions, and shown the faces of the Mitford children's virulent views for what they are: hateful-and all the ensuing questions of how? why? etc. Instead, she is charmed by the cosmetic trappings and glittering society. These aspects of Diana are interesting as well, but the underlying theme of how she and the others evolved into people who willingly embraced evil (and apparently never disavowed it or apologized for it) remains effectively untapped here. One feels one has read through Diana's daybook-whom she had lunch with, the litany of residences, where she traveled-but without truly touching the heart of who this woman really is and what she is all about. It gives the sense of reporting rather than biography. Again, perhaps that was the result of the subject's stonewalling, who knows?

   Despite these difficulties, I found the book to be well-written and immensely readable (I would have actually preferred more detail, especially toward the end where time is compressed and everyone's endings are tidied up much too summarily) and consider it, if you have an interest in the Mitfords, better read than unread.




3. Of the many new biographies that I have read recently, barring a few of Prince Charles, this is one of the most sycophantic and subjective. The views that Diana and Oswald Mosley spouted were deplorable then as any fascist/racist views now. The terror and horror fascism caused between 1933 and 1945 in Germany alone, Ms Dalley seems to feel was not realised by the Moseleys. They were not apparently aware of the sinister connotations of their beliefs! They were innocents, merely trying to find a better life for the British! While the Moseleys didn't institute such atrocities as Hitler did, Oswald did spread racial hatred, and caused persecution in England, although Jan Dalley seems to feel that this was a mere by-product, caused by a few unreasonable fanatics.

   I could go on and on. My other gripe about this book was Ms Dalley's blanket 'condemnation' of the autobiographical writings of Nancy and Jessica Mitford. While exaggeration may have occured it was no more that would occur in any family autobiography. . .who can look at their family objectively????? Indeed, this exaggeration was true of their general characters, and the manner in which they were brought up, and the conventions of their time and class. At least they didn't preach hatred and bigotry.

   I digress. The duty of a biographer, IMHO, is to provide an objective and informative view of the subject, so that the reader can make a decision for themselves.

   Ms Dalley professes to offer reasons, not excuses, and seems to think that it is reasonable to defend the deplorable views of this possible intelligent, possibly beautiful, possibly wronged woman with the reasoning that D. Mosely didn't know about the full horror of fascism pre 1945, and hers was an innocent form, as I have said. I feel myself being incoherent in my indignation, so I shall cease. My objective view of this book is that I can only suspect that Ms Dalley is herself a 'drawing room fascist'.




4. The Mitford sisters were power-groupies of various stripes. Nancy liked historical tyrants (Louis XIV and Frederick the Great); Jessica liked Stalin; Unity and Diana liked Hitler; and Debo liked the Duke of Devonshire (she was a piker).

   But at least Nancy and Jessica had some talent. Unity was a rabidly unstable anti-semite, who committed suicide in an extraordinarily florid way. Diana was a rabidly stable anti-semite. Period. So why should we care about this moon-faced woman in a succession of horridly unflattering hairstyles? The author hasn't a clue. She keeps telling us that Diana is gorgeous, but at least understands that it isn't obvious from the photos in the book. She keeps telling us that Diana was brilliant, but you sure couldn't tell from her behaviour. When she was twenty-three, she hooked up with Oswald Mosley, and he is far more interesting than Diana, mainly because he is almost rivetingly despicable. The behaviour of Diana and his sister-in-law toward him (and his behaviour towards them) beggars belief. That this ridiculous creature dominated Diana's life is all you need to say about her. It could be contained in a paragraph. The author appears mightily constrained by the fact that her subject is still alive. Without that fact, she might have had some pithy things to say; but still, Diana is an irrelevant footnote.




5. In the years preceding the second World War, Diana Mitford left her wealthy young husband, with whom she had two small children, to take up with Sir Oswald Mosley, the maximum leader of the British Fascist party. She found him and his cause far more exciting and engrossing than the regular upper-class art and society crowd she had previously ornamented, which was populated with dreary "parlour pinks". Now she split her time between a love nest in London and Berlin, where she and her sister Unity spent their days sucking up to Hitler and his inner circle. Diana tried to get Hitler to cough up money for Mosley. Mosley himself concentrated more successfully on Musselini, who did indeed secretly provide funds for the care and feeding of British brownshirts.

   At some point Mosley's wife (yes, he was married too, and on his second marriage) conveniently died. Mosley was faced with a dilemna. Should he marry Diana? Or his other lover, his dead wife's sister. I guess he procrastinated as long as he could, until finally sweeping Diana off her feet for the ultimate in romantic weddings. A small gathering in Nazi Germany: just the happy couple, the Goebbels and, of course, Adolf Hitler. Then they returned to England to continue the good fight at home.

   Not surprisingly, when was broke out, Diana and her knight in shining armor were incarcerated. The Mosleys' regarded this as dreadfully unfair, since he had given lip service to patriotic concerns by announcing that his brownshirts should join up. The Mosleys' regarded their captors as foolish and dim. But it was clear to even the dullest mind that Mosley would be Hitler's man in England if the was started going poorly, and if Mosley had his way compromise with Hitler would be the next step in the war.

   After the war the Mosleys' returned to a much quieter lifestyle--raising some of the numerous children they had spawned in their various marriages (those that they were allowed custody of) to become good fascists. They eventually turned their energies to the Neo Nazi movement in England, and Diana used her keen mind to help these thugs, bigots and nuts try to mask their vicious, malignant motives with pseudo-intectual political sophistry.

   The book is very informative and interesting, but disturbing. The author points out how inconsistent and appalling some of the political philosophy Diana embraced was, most notably with respect to anti-semitism. But the author does not seem to challenge some of their more dreadful sophistries: such as the popular neo-nazi notion that the Jews would not actually have been GASSED if England hadn't come into the war. (with its corollary that England and those other mean countries wouldn't have picked on poor Germany if those nasty Jews hadn't made such a fuss about being persecuted, beated, robbed and murdered!)

   The author at times seems to be writing a standard Society bio, full of cameos of the rich and famous, and boasts of their devotion to Diana. The author also seems quite sympathetic to Diana's distaste for parlour pinks and "pinkos" (I'm quoting the author here), and to the notion that fascism and even collusion with Hitler is more acceptable than any truck with communism or the Labour Party.

   Nevertheless, I'd recommend reading it. It is definitely food for thought in a lot of ways.