3 comments about Ferber: Edna Ferber and Her Circle: Paperback Book.

1. This is a biography of an unusually successful and an unusual woman. Though some of her more well remembered works survive through countless productions of Showboat and viewings of the several versions of the movies made from her plays and books like Giant, Cimarron and Stage Door and the endless productions of her plays, she herself is less well-remembered than other groundbreaking female writers like Edith Wharton. Yet, as we learn from this biography, she was probably one of the most successful American writers portraying the grandeur of this vast country. And as she was able to portray the role of women in creating the patterns of American families, she herself was a powerful and independent woman. This biography tells her story from a point of view of an insider. Julie Gilbert writes of her grand-aunt in a way that describes her through the author's personal vision and then goes back to review Ferber's earlier years with outside research and access to intimate personal information that would be otherwise unavailable. Ferber's story is as fascinating as her stories and this biography is fun and informative. It is a must read.



2. Biography written by a family member or friend so often is mere hagiography, not good biography. But the book by Julie Gilbert, Edna Ferber's great-niece, was the only Ferber biography I could find, so I decided I would start there to learn about Ferber, and I'm really glad I did. Is the Gilbert book objective? Of course not. No one writes objective biography.
   
   I applaud Gilbert for her courage in presenting Ferber as a real person, exposing the extremes of her personality. Ferber was outsized-she had a benevolent heart coupled with colossal rage: "When Ferber got worked up over an issue, there was nobody who could touch her. She was a dervish of indignation. When she was calm she exuded power; when she was upset she exuded great power." Katherine Hepburn, twenty years Ferber's junior, says: "We were dangerous women. There aren't any more of us around."
   
   I give the book only four stars for two reasons: One, because I wish Gilbert had included photos. I love the image that Gilbert writes of Ferber and her sister Fan looking together like a Diane Arbus photo: "visually similar and visually sour." A picture of these two together would have added a lot to the book; and two, because Gilbert doesn't include sources. Perhaps most of Ferber's papers are still in the family's control; regardless, I would like to have known where Gilbert found her information.
   
   That being said, I would recommend this book for anyone interested in Edna Ferber, and also in New York, theater, and party life of the 1930s. Whee, Ferb! Wot a girl!



3. Is there a renaissance of interest in the writings of Edna Ferber? Stamps were minted honoring her this past summer [2002], and now the reissuance of this biography, written by Ferber's greatniece and originally published about 1978. I hope this indicates a resurgence of interest in her writings -- but you would be better served to read Ferber's writings themselves, than this biography.

   I've been in love with the writings of Edna Ferber since I was 12 and someone gave me a used edition of "Amreican Beauty". I realize that she won't go down in the annals of the classics of American literature, such as Faulkner or even Carson McCullers: her writing lacks the quality of universality, and I suppose, self-discovery [on the reader's part]. But she is great at the sociology of America, at giving the reader an intuitive feel or understanding of an era or people. I even did my first term paper in high school on her: "The Effects of Minority Races on the Writing of Edna Ferber" -- and I still remember with pleasure the note the instructor wrote, to the effect that my love for Ferber's writings was apparent.

   So although I had read reviews to the effect that Ms. Gilbert did not let her closeness to her aunt affect her objectivity, I couldn't resist reading it. I was prepared for her to be critical. I was not prepared for her to be vindictive and viperish. She related Ferber's life backwards: 1960 to 1968, 1952 to 1960, 1938 to 1950, 1916 to 1938, etc. -- so you begin by seeing her as a crochety old lady [and indeed, this was the bulk of the book, rather than the period in which Ferber was writing -- although I suppose it is understandable, as that is when Ms. Gilbert would have known her] without having any idea what made her that way.

   What did come out was that Miss Ferber took over of the support of her extended family [besides her mother: her sister, her sister's 2 children, and their children] -- and that the family felt some guilt at this, and I felt Ms. Gilbert's book was an attempt to whitewash the family's guilt, saying in effect, "See, it wasn't easy for us, we had to put up with this disagreeable old lady." When she sticks to facts, it isn't too bad; but she's always jumping to pseudo-freudian conclusions, or attaching a moralistic interpretation to the actions of others. For example, although she quotes letters of praise from Noel Coward [who was not a person to suffer fools gladly] fairly frequently, she usually adds that the work "wasn't Ferber's best" [I wonder what she did feel was her best?] and that he undoubtedly did it out of friendship. She makes numerous allusions to a freudian problem which Miss Ferber had in her relationship with her mother, but during her tale of the early part of Ferber's life, never mentions anything to provide support or justification for such comments. If someone outside the family had written it, I'm sure they would be subject to a lawsuit for libel and inneundo.

   The biography is entitled "Ferber and her Circle", but is only tangentially about her "circle".

No comments about Victoria: The Young Queen.

5 comments about Grace.

1. Everyone remembers his first screen love.
   
   Grace Kelly was mine, and I can still remember her clear Teutonic skin, lugubrious soft hair, her casual sophistication, all completely new fascinations to my mundane childhood. Years later, the only thing that's changed is I've grown older and she's still impossibly perfect.
   
   What Robert Lacey has done in Grace is bring us all a little bit closer to that Snow Princess whom we all would have made our Princess were we a Prince. Behind the camera, behind bedroom doors, behind the veneer of an idyllic fairy tale that proves that fairy tales are exactly that, each anecdote is like a stitch in a grand painting that is sometimes bleak (Grace ages and somewhat pathetically begins to fool around with younger men), sometimes inspiring (her persistence at overcoming her natural dramatic flaws), and always sensual (her intimate fashion shows for her boyfriend Don Richardson).
   
   Unlike many biographies of screen legends, Lacey largely eschews extended back lot stories that might involve but not support the basic image of Grace that he believes must be told. So while we learn High Noon's screenwriter Carl Foreman meant his film as an allegory about Communist witch hunts, we are spared a complete A-Z on the Hollywood Blacklist and its artistic implications. A great biography of a great person must not necessarily take on the great issues of his day. Of which Lacey understands.
   
   Grace is a woman of terrific sexual energies and ambitions but just as importantly, sports a marvelous capacity to mask those penchants. So instead of becoming Jenna Jameson, she turns into Princess Grace, a woman who sleeps her way to the top but seems so inevitably suited for the position that no one can possibly begrudge her it.
   
   As Lacey says "She managed to be naughty while appearing very nice."
   
   It's become axiomatic that the greatest personalities are deeply contradictory. Nearly every biographer, when faced with the compelling weight of his research, is forced to concede that mankind is a very complex being (thank you, Mr. Stevenson). And Grace was no different. Lacey talks of Grace's growing conservatism, her disputes with her daughters over their flagrant ways, all while engaging in her own illicit love affairs as Princess Grace. And what of her devoted Catholicism? How to resolve her piety with her philandering?
   
   Questions which can only be answered by Hitchcock's own. This is a snow covered volcano we're dealing with here.
   
   And sometimes, you can't guess; you can only watch.



2. The media reviewers quoted here harp on Grace Kelly's supposed "promiscous" behavior, the main point of the book, as far as they are concerned. Anyone who actually reads the book will find someone who had a few discreet affairs before she was married, who took her marriage vows and commitment to her family and role as princess seriously, who worked very hard throughout her life to meet her commitments, and who had a comforting relationship with a kind younger man when her marriage turned lonely as she got older. If she wasn't quite the cold, virginal image presented by Hollywood, good for her.
   
   It's a very good book about a real woman of extraordinary beauty who could have settled for a society matron's life in Philadelphia but who made an extraordinary life for herself through her own efforts. Read it for that and not the sensationalism.



3. I picked up "Grace" about a year ago when I found it in my mom's old book closet. Although I am relatively young, something about the stars of yesteryear attracts me more than the glitz surrounding contemporary celebrities. Grace Kelly is no exception. I knew nothing about this icon, except that she was an American princess and a Hitchcockian heroine. Mr. Lacey certainly did his share in informing me about this classic movie star. I enjoyed how he provides us with immense background on the Kelly's, a prominent family in their own right. Mr. Lacey also does a fine job in giving us the "low-down" on Monaco and its interesting history.
   Also of note would be the fact that Lacey attempts (and succeeds) at presenting the seemingly ethereal Grace as a person, not the sex symbol or ice queen she is usually remembered as. He does give a lot of insight into her love life and various affairs, but you never lose sight that Grace had this innocence about her. It seemed as if she could do no wrong.
   Aside from being a talented actress, Grace was a true beauty and a dedicated mother and wife. She will always be remembered as our very own princess.



4. This book has a great deal of detail. I feel as if there was too much emphasis on her sex life versus her screen image, and frankly that was her business, not important in the book. Otherwise a good book.



5. I wanted to know all about the men in Grace Kelley's life, both before and after her marriage. This book told me everything, but in a classy, well-researched way. I learned a lot about Monaco, and just the things I would have wanted to know about her family members, too. After reading this excellent book, I plan to read more of Robert Lacey's works.

3 comments about Henry Plantagenet.

1. Richard Barber published his first book at the age of 20, followed by this title in 1964 when he was 23. That may be why "Henry Plantagenet" reads and moves well, as if narrated rather than written, with the youthful enthusiasm of a young scholar not yet burdened by the need to justify every fact to academics. Barber released his current edition in 2003.
   
   He does a fine job of breathing life into Henry II's 34-year reign, which needs his touch because Henry II may be the most under-appreciated king in English history. This formidable, life-long warrior is eclipsed by his son Richard Lionheart's military feats. A decisive man with extraordinary energy, Henry is upstaged for glamor and charisma by his consort through 36 years of love and hate, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Even as a villain - women by the score, anger-management problems to rival Zeus, a tirade that may have ended Thomas Becket's life and a rampage that exiled Eleanor to England for fifteen years - even as a villain, Henry II is upstaged by his youngest, King John.
   
   What did Henry do well? Apart from winning wars and battling prelates, he made major, enduring changes to English law and jurisprudence, including property and contract law, moves that stimulated commerce. But that makes poor press. Barber captures the moods and actions of the young king and his maturing reign of constancy amidst constant strife and domestic chaos. He integrates Henry and a large supporting cast into their turbulent times very well.
   
   In addition to writing about Arthurian legend and medieval history, Barber has been a publisher of medieval studies for almost four decades. His breadth of knowledge shows. "Henry Plantagenet" makes subtle links across time and dynasties that might escape a lesser historian's art.
   
   Robert Fripp, author of
   "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine"



2. This is a average summary of this great King of England. It summarizes the challenges Henry Plangagenet faced when he assumed control of the Kingdom and his consolidation of his holdings in France. Henry II was one of the true great rulers
   of his time, defying the Church and France to lead his realm. Since Barber wrote this book back in the sixties, it is not up to date on new research into Plantagenet rulers. Also Barber confuses the reader with the names of many people that were not a central theme of the King's time. The names are the most confusing aspect of this book, and thus the rating of three stars.



3. In Henry Plantagenet, Richard Barber has produced a short, lively, commendably readable account of Henry Plantagenet's life and reign. The book never drags and is related in a novel-like narrative that keeps one's interest through every page. Henry II was one of Englands most intriguing rulers at battle with France and family. The husband of Eleanor of Aquitane, the father of Richard the Lion Heart and John Lackland, his story is one to behold and Barber's effort is a top notch resource with which to do so.

5 comments about Queen Victoria.

1. lytton strachey is my favorite non-fiction writer. he writes non-fiction that is flawless and beautiful. some of the writing in this book is as good as any writing i've seen anywhere. but who cares? who cares? what a shameful culture has been fashioned that has no room for this.



2. This life of Queen Victoria set a new standard for biographies when it was written and it still reads very well today. To the modern ear some of Strachey's language may at times be a bit dry. That aside this is an excellent study of the development of Victoria from infancy to old age. The entanglement's of family and the influence of key ministers is well covered and documented . Especially interesting is the treatment of Prince Albert and the Queen's relationship.
   I found this to be quite an informative book and would highly recommend it to anyone with a curiosity regarding this period of British history.



3. I purchased this book at a library sale and it has no copywrit date other then the 1921 date published by Harcourt, Grace & World,Inc and renewed by Jame Strachey, with no renewal date. The copy I have has 434 pages which include an index of subject matter. The only other used books mentioned for sale have a copywrit of 1981 and have 100 less pages. This book is in very good condition and has the original cover jacket. It begins its historic tale in 1817 and includes footnotes at the bottom of the page.



4. strachey became famous for his 'eminent victorians' which has the reputation for being a hatchet job-but he was looking at the previous generation from the disillusioned, post-WWI perspective, and he treats florence nightingale et al more like prodigies than monsters. when he undertook to write about the eponymous queen herself, people expected it would be another exercise in target practice-even his mother tried to discourage him, saying that 'if she was stupid, it was not her fault.' But in the event what he produced is one of the most sympathetic, if slightly condescending, biographies ever written-and absolutely one of the most accomplished. it is a chronicle of victoria's 60+-year-long political career and emotional life, a series of portraits of all the personalities in her life-including albert, his curious replacement john brown, disraeli-him, it is true, strachey clearly did not like-a completely non-pedantic reflection on the growth and eventual shrinkage of the british empire during her reign-and the whole thing is done so subtly, so gracefully-and, at the same time, so forcefully-that you may find yourself talking about nothing else but this book and queen victoria for days afterward. one of the most successful marriages of rigorous scholarship and beautiful style in english literature.



5. A readable and fairly brief account of Victoria. Frequent passages from Victoria's girlhood diary and letters make Victoria's early life particularly vivid reading. Also fascinating is Victoria's relationship with her government, and her tendency to cling to the current prime minister and despise the Opposition, whoever they might be.

   The enigmatic Prince Albert, and his evolving relationship with Victoria, is presented well. Strachey makes some startling suggestions about what Britain might have turned into, had Albert lived longer (answer: Prussia).

   This book is elegantly written, and free of the psychobabble one might expect from a more modern book.

   The book is not boring. Although Victoria is always proper, there is plenty of adultery and dysfunctional family behavior among her many adult children.

No comments about Queen Elizabeth I (British History Makers).

5 comments about Documents of Lady Jane Grey: Nine Days Queen of England 1553.

1. When I first purchased this book I thought I was getting something legitimate, but after going through it I found myself asking over and over, "Is this for real?" The answer is no. I don't know if Jane Grey ever had a cousin named Anne, but if she did they wouldn't have written to each other in flowery 18th century sentences such as "Fly to your Anne" or "Adieu, hasten to your Jane Grey". All of Jane's letters are written in 16th century English and most of them are religious in tone and theme. The only people she would have flown to would have been her governess Mrs. Ellen and her teacher John Aylmer, to escape her abusive parents. Jane supposedly being distracted from her studies by falling for dashing young Guilford Dudley is ludicrous. Nothing could keep her from her daily lessons except marriage to Guilford, which her parents had to beat her into accepting. She disliked him for being spoiled and demanding while he very likely thought her a prudish little bookworm. My advice is to skip this book and go with Hester W. Chapman's "Lady Jane Grey", Alison Plowden's "Lady Jane Grey and the House of Suffolk", or even Alison Weir's novel "Innocent Traitor".



2. I have read much more reader friendly books that incorporate primary source documents. The book was dull and did not provide any new insights or information about an interesting character in the Tudor era.



3. I will admit that I was skeptical about this book after reading the contrasting feedback left by other readers but after completing the book I feel that Mr. Taylor should be commended for several reasons. First and perhaps that most important to a retired professor of European history as myself is that Mr. Taylor did not follow the same format as many "historians" do by using colorful embellishments to retell a few known facts. The second being that Mr. Taylor also refrained from criticizing other author's lack of information or misuse of. It is clear that Mr. Taylor only recites the sources that he felt were the most accurate. I have learned in 30 years of teaching college level classes that if you present 10 people with 10 primary and secondary sources that you will have 14 different opinions about them. I feel that Taylor's use of the Lane Letters is questionable and after contacting the author, he explained that the publisher omitted a sentence in the introduction indicating the use and source of letters. Nevertheless, the Lane Letters should have been placed in a separate chapter away from the main body of the book, but when they are read as the author intended, they are entertaining. Ill regardless of the rather harsh criticism left by another reader, I would have used the book in my classes if I were still teaching. Publishing Weekly left an accurate feedback and I do feel that there is a fresh approach here that does belong in a library. From what I can see, Mr. Taylor is the first to present all known information about this young lady. I look forward to a revision



4. Mr Taylor has clearly spent a great deal of time and effort in producing this volume. Unfortunately the result is useless for anything other than entertainment. It cannot in any way be called legitimate "history." The book is replete with flaws, errors and omissions. Mr Taylor relies very heavily on a late-eigtheenth century collection of "letters" published by William Lane through Minerva Press. The collection is tellingly entitled "Lady Jane Grey: An Histoircal TALE"..."tale" being the operative word. Mr Taylor notes that the Lane collection had been "lost" to historians for over 200 years until he "re-discovered" it. There is a good reason why the "letters" were "lost": any trained historian would immediately recognize them as complete fiction. The "letter" from Henry Grey to "Lord Protector" Northumberland, for example, reveals the fiction (p. 18-20, Lane Letter 86). Northumberland was never titled "Lord Protector," and Henry Grey would never have addressed him as such. Any trained historian familiar with the Tudor era would have known this. But Mr Taylor is apparently not a trained historian. This is evident from his bibliography. He has "primary" and "secondary" sources utterly confused. Further, he cites works such as Jane's prayerbook by using a secondary source (a later Harley Manuscript). The original prayerbook is Harley MS 2342, and has been microfilmed. That microfilm is available in many US libraries. Why not look at a microfilm of the original rather than a printed transcription of a later manuscript that simply describes the original? A serious error. And finally, in his bibliography he lists a work as having been written by Guglielmo Facciotti. In actuality, Facciotti was a PRINTER, not an author. He was active in Rome ca. 1592-1637. The AUTHOR of the work cited is actually Giovannni Raviglio-Rosso. Read this book for what it is: a compilation of factual AND FICTIONAL documents that take Jane Grey as their subject. But for legitimate ("real") history, look elsewhere. This book is a perfect example of why amateur historians and sloppy publishers should never be brought together. The result is a complete mess, and leaves readers completely misinformed and confused...and legitimate history teachers scrambling to pick up the pieces.



5. If the book is used as the author indicates it's only purpose is to be, which is for reference, then Mr. Taylor has done a great job of bringing all the literary remains of Lady Jane Grey together in one edition for others to use. Though I do not believe that the "Lane Letters" should have been included, I will commend Mr. Taylor on not following the format that some recent authors have chosen of embellishing a few facts and sensationalizing them to appeal to the masses. I have used this book in my classes and the book is a time saver for my students who often research Tudor history.

No comments about Peter the Great Transforms Russia (Problems in European Civilization).

5 comments about Nine Days Queen: A Portrait of Lady Jane Grey.

1. 
   This is simply one of the best historical biographies that I have ever read. Well-researched, the book tells the story of Lady Jane Grey, the daughter of Francis Brandon Grey, the Duchess of Suffolk, who was the daughter of Henry VIII's younger sister, Mary. As one of royal blood, Jane was in the royal line of succession. Her highly ambitious parents, together with the avaricious and manipulative John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland, concocted a scheme by which Jane would be named Queen of England, usurping the succession rights of Mary, daughter of King Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon, as well as that of Elizabeth, daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
   
   Jane was forced by her parents to wed John Dudley's son, Guildford. Then, dominated as she was by her cruel and overreaching parents, when King Edward VI died, Jane was declared to be Queen of England. Although it was clearly against her will that she usurped her cousin Mary's throne and was not yet sixteen at the time, she would pay dearly for her nine days reign,
   
   The author writes a historical biography that brings Lady Jane Grey to life. Grounded in the political strifes, religious tumult, and social mores and events that shaped sixteenth century England, the author paints a portrait of a young, intelligent woman who ultimately acquiesced to the demands of those more ambitious than she. This is a well-written historical biography that is positively riveting. Bravo!



2. The story of lady jane grey begins with a plot of selfishness and greed between the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk and the Duke of Northumberland.The Duchess is Jane's mother and the Duke is her future husband's Father.After King Edward died the dukes and the Duchess plotted to have Mary Tudor's, next heir after edwrad,claim set aside to put Jane on the thrown. To keep both families happy Jane is forced to marry Guilford Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland's son. Jane had to be literally beat to inch of her life to agree.Mary Luke goes into the in depth trials and tribulations of torttured youth used for parental gain. Lady Jane who is not quite sixteen is forced to excepot the crown, the Orb, and the Sceptre of England fully acknowledging her right of queenship.Sadly Jane only wears the crwon for nine days before country rose for Mary Tudor and is convicted of treason is executed.Nine Days Queen is the most detailed and accurate biography of the Tudor Family so I highly recommend it.



3. Mary M. Luke's basic facts are correct, and personally I enjoyed the book. But unfortunately I feel she had to resort to some novelizing as she couldn't possibly know what was going on inside Jane's head in between her daily lessons, other people's letters to and about her, and her own letter writing. She also wasn't there to personally observe Jane's interactions with others or question her about them, always a dilemma for historians and historical fiction writers. Ms. Luke's writing style is clear and fluid; she's excellent at creating mental images with her words, so you have no problem following her narrative. However, I feel that in this case this book should have been a historical novel instead of an attempt at non-fiction. She would have then been forgiven for whatever embellishments or speculations she had to come up with to fill out the book and hold her readers' interest.



4. Very colorful if this was a fiction format. This book is not for anyone who wishes to review the literay remains of Lady Jane Grey or relevant information. Several pieces of information are inaccurate. A great use of embellishments nonetheless.



5. Wonderful storytelling embellishing a few well known facts. No new material. More questions arise as a result of this book than are answered.

5 comments about Diana and Jackie: Maidens, Mothers, Myths.

1. The premise of this book was intriguing and so promising. Sadly, the research appears to be very poor indeed....inconsistencies, light weight and superficial. I was surprised that it wasn't better.



2. This is a duel biography of Princess Diana and Jackie Kennedy Onaissis.
   
   The book goes into detail about their lives from their early lives in NYC and London, to their parents divorces and remarriages, to their school days, to their time about time, to the men they married, motherhood and after leading up to their deaths.
   
   A very interesting book about The Peoples Princess and the Queen of Camalot



3. "Diana and Jackie" is perfect for light reading, but this book reveals nothing new about either lady, nor does it delve very deeply into either's personality.
   While there were certain characteristics that Diana and Jackie both shared (married to powerful men; media princesses; overcoming personal tragedy; mothers to children in the spotlight) there seem to be more differences than similarities. Jackie never aired her dirty laundry in public, while Diana elevated it to an art form. Jackie was well educated and definitely a lady of the world, before marrying Jack Kennedy, while Diana never graduated beyond basic high school education and married Prince Charles before ever truly venturing out in the world on her own. Jackie was brought up to be self-reliant, while Diana depended heavily on a man for her own self-worth. (The story that Diana always felt unwanted, as she was not born a son and an heir simply don't ring true, as her brother was born when she was three years old)
   True, the deaths of both ladies hit the public hard. Jackie's was expected, but didn't lessen the sadness. Diana's was unexpected and a shock. Both were stellar mothers, who brought their children up to be independent, sensitive and understanding of the massive media attention placed on them. And their children have been their greatest legacies, so far.
   If you want more in-depth looks at their amazing lives, look elsewhere. But for light, easy to digest information, this isn't a bad source.



4. Good for light bedtime reading, but pretty much re-hashed.
   
   I have to admit I have always been partial to Jacqueline Kennedy: she was intelligent, witty, a natural beauty and had a sense of self. She was well-read, and took an interest in art, music and history. She did not wash her dirty laundry in public.
   
   I was impressed with Diana at first. She seemed fresh, natural and although not really beautiful, certainly made the most of her looks. But, unlike Jackie, who I'm sure had just as many, if not more, difficulties in her life, Diana left no stones unturned to try and draw sympathy to herself and make all who did not kow tow to her wishes look bad. I'll never forget seeing her (on tv) in Australia with Charles. They were at his former school, and he had been asked to play the cello, I think it was. As he played, she got up, crossed right in front of him and sat down at the piano. She started trying to play Rachmaninov, rudely interrupting his little recital. After that, I had no use for her.
   
   Jackie was gracious, Diana was not. So comparisons really are not in order here!



5. Dear Publishing Industry,

   I have not read the book nor do I intend to. I came across it recently through one of your book clubs(to which I belong). It seems that every month you make a point of investing a great deal of time and money into marketing a book about overrated celebrities by star-struck authors.

   In this time of soaring unemployment, downsizing and corporate fraud that befall the majority of the population, you choose to release a book which praises two individuals who had never experienced the above injustices but whose families instigated them and themselves contributed nothing to the progress of humanity.

   Both Diana and Jackie were born into privilege. Both had the fortune of living in the best neighbourhoods, attending the best schools, socializing with the rich and famous, and not working at all to survive. Both passed on the same experiences to their children.

   Paparazzi, constitutional obligations and in-laws who bestow multimillion dollar trust funds on their grandchildren are thankfully not the misfortunes that many single mothers deal with. They are blessed. For they deal with gang leaders who harass kids in low income areas, dumb-downed education system, dead-end jobs to pay for food and apartments smaller than Diana and Jackie's bathtubs, apathetic fathers, humiliation and gender discrimination. Certainly such trivial worries do not merit hundrends of books.

   It seems that many talented struggling writers from all cultures, fields and walks of life also do not merit to be published to educate the semi-illiterate public about the many accomplishments of the world. Why not publish books every year about such groundbreaking women as Marie Curie, Susan B. Anthony, Golda Meir, Sofia Kovalevskaya, Billie Jean King, Evita Peron, Simone de Beauvoir, Oriana Fallaci ... (unfortunately the space provided does not allow for all of them to be listed)?

   It is also unfortunate that there is not enough space for them in your budget.