5 comments about General John Buford: A Military Biography.

1. This is a nice, solid military biography. It was very readable, and I was happy to see it had a strong thesis (Buford was "a true dragoon). I came away from the book admiring Buford a great deal. True, there could have been more information in here, but isn't further information one of the purposes of an appendix?
   
   I highly recommend this book to U.S. Civil War buffs and anyone interested in learning about someone who achieve success without playing many political games.



2. as the author complains by lack of personal source material. Buford died during the war, had no surviving children, didn't write any kind of memoirs etc... Longacre did a solid job of discussing the union cavalry command but many aspects of the book like sections on Gettysburg and West Point seemed rushed. Certainly many other commanders had nice things to say about Buford unfortunately Longacre only found 1 or 2 of them.



3. John Buford is perhaps best known for his aggressive actions on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, he merits more consideration than for one day's worth of sound generalship. This book does a good, solid job of introducing readers to General Buford.
   
   Although born in Kentucky, he later moved to what was to become Rock Island, Illinois. In the late 1840s, he entered West Point and graduated in good standing. Some of those whom he came into contact with at "The Point" included Ambrose Burnside, George Stoneman, George Steuart, William Jones, John Tidball, and Hugh Ewing (William Tecumseh Sherman's foster brother). In the "old Army," he was a trooper, including serving in "Bleeding Kansas" and into the Valley of the Saints, as the United States aimed to chastise the Mormons.
   
   As the Civil War began, Buford was assigned to administration, although he wanted to be "in the saddle" as an active cavalry officer. After considerable frustration, he earned an active command. He did good service before Second Manassas/Bull Run, trying to alert General Pope of Longstreet's advance through Thoroughfare Pass, threatening Pope's flank. Alas! The significant intelligence never found its way to the right people. Indeed, this illustrates one of Buford's strength--gathering and passing on crisp intelligence (one function of the cavalry was to serve as "the eyes" of the army). However, later, he was consigned once more to administrative work.
   
   When Joe Hooker became commander of the Army of the Potomac, Buford's luck changed again, as he was given an active command. After the debacle at Chancellorsville, General Robert E. Lee began his raid northward. Here, Buford played a key role. First, in gathering intelligence. Second, for his role at Brandy Station, when his cavalry put great pressure on one wing of JEB Stuart's cavalry, beginning to tarnish the reputation of the irrepressible Stuart's command.
   
   Then, on to Gettysburg, where he arrived on June 30, assessed the land and the military features around the village, and decided to make a fight of it, fully realizing that his two cavalry brigades were facing Early's corps moving south toward Gettysburg from Carlisle and York and Hill's corps moving east along the Chambersburg Pike. As everyone knows, he held long enough for John Reynolds Union First and O. O. Howard's 11th Corps to arrive and join the battle.
   
   After, Buford continued his good work, although he would face reverses as he pursued Lee's retreating army. Once the Army of the Potomac re-entered Virginia, he continued to play a role. However, illness cut short his career.
   
   All in all, a useful biography of a figure who deserves to be better known. Indeed, the author originally refused the offer to write this book, because he did not think that there was enough information to do a competent biography. Readers ought to be appreciative that Longacre's assessment was wrong.



4. Edward Longacre's "General John Buford" is good summary of General Buford's career. It is written in straight forward language and is therefore an easy read. Anyone who has a strong interest in the American Civil War probably is familiar with Gen. Buford through such works as the book "Killer Angels" and the movie "Gettysburg". Longacre's book provides much desired pre-civil war and civil war background information. He does interpolate a certain amount of descriptive coloring, but as an attempt to get a feel for the subjective qualities of the man this is not necessarily a bad thing. One could always hope for more detail and information, but Longacre does an admirable job with the available resources.



5. Yes, thank goodness for the movie, Gettysburg since without that movie, this fine and very needed biography on General John Buford may never been written or published. The movie brought forward General Buford's finest day as a soldier and this biography bring forward the real man behind the Hollywood image.
   
   Its appears that writing a biography on Buford may have been a problem due to lack of first hand material. Its appears that Buford was not a writer or many of it did not survived. But what comes out from Longacre's book is story of a decent and highly motivated man who took the long road to Gettysburg. His premature death probably robbed him of greater Civil War fame since he have proved to be one of the best cavalry commanders within the Army of the Potomac by the time Gettysburg came about. What he could have done if he lived would be one of the great "what if" of Civil War trivia.
   
   Longacre's book is bit short on Buford's early life, lacking material would be my guess on this short coming. But the author was successful in bring out Buford's early military career, thus doing justice the subtitle of this book, "Military Biography".
   
   Only part I am not sure on Longacre's account was his take on where Buford and General John Reynold's initially met on that first day of Gettysburg. Most well known and movie take would be at the Lutheran Seminary Cupola where that most quote "The Devil's to Pay" came out. Although the actual words may be questioned, I don't exactly buy the author's contention that the first meeting came about in the town of Gettysburg. Why would Buford be there, away from a crucial battle? This was based on civilian eye witnesses, of course the same type of civilians even today who can't tell the difference between a new born 2nd LT and a three star general!!
   
   Other then that, this book proves to be quite readable, nicely researched and quite informative on the life of John Buford. This is the only biographical material I have read on Buford outside of that booklet I brought at Gettysburg back in 1995 written by Michael Phipps and John S. Peterson titled "The Devil's To Pay".

1 comments about "The Supply for Tomorrow Must Not Fail": The Civil War of Captain Simon Perkins, Jr., a Union Quartermaster.

1. This is a tremendous addition to a little studied area of Civil War military science - supply and movement of the wherewithal. A 1990 find still bound in government 'red tape', these records provided rich background on the incredible paperwork and labor needed to supply the hay, grain, horses and mules, ordinance, hospitals, quarters, and the myriad other items needed by a fighting force. We tend not to comprehend the millions of pounds of grain and hay required for just one campaign, for example, nor do we think of the civilian clerks, laborers, teamsters, and others that helped carry out the quartermaster function. This activity was replicated wherever Union soldiers served. All this plus fascinating background on the 23-year-old Captain Simon Perkins, Quartermaster in the Western Theater.

5 comments about Pure Goldwater.

1. I live here in AZ and allot of things here are named after Goldwater. Some streets, buildings and foundations. And living here 12 years I know nothing about him! Only that he was a senator. My curiosity got the best of me and I ordered this book (audio book so I can listen on my way to work). And in finishing this book I feel I have a very intimate, honest, and broad look in to Goldwater's life. From the lil notes that he jotted down that were discovered, to whole letters written to and from the president!... It really shook me at the core, very raw stuff. Goldwater really had some simple and firm beliefs that once I was exposed to it (this book), I am now a firm believer. To go a step further, I considered myself a Democrat. After exposure to Goldwater's thoughts on many issues I realized how dead wrong I was on my stance as a Dem. I actually think now that I am a Republican or even a Libertarian (can't believe I just said that). More to the point, I'm a Goldwater believer now. To think, I almost cast my vote down the wrong path, & I am glad that I read this book in time for the election.



2. Pure Goldwater is just what the title indicates, vintage, pure Goldwater. How good it was to read about my conservative, political hero once again. This book was a delight to read. Sen. Goldwater's character, honesty, and leadership traits shine throughout the book. You always knew where the good Senator stood on issues - he didn't waffle; the book does an excellent job bringing his noble traits out. There were few people in the 1960's his equal, and even fewer today. In your heart you know he was right then, and he is just as right today. Bravo for such a great book. Pure Goldwater should be mandatory reading for US History students.



3. For those of us of a certain age, Barry Goldwater was the prickly candidate for president in 1964, whose "extremism in defense of liberty" speech turned away millions of voters. But Goldwater stayed around long after that and it's a good thing he did. "Pure Goldwater", a neatly arranged compilation of his journal entries (along with some letters and speeches) reveals a much more complex and attractive man than the public got to know more than a generation ago.
   
   The title of the book could not have been more appropriate. Here we see Senator Goldwater in all of his frankness, lambasting presidents with whom he worked, yet revelling in the love of his family, photography, flying and service to his country. In reading "Pure Goldwater" it's not hard to be in agreement with him on one page and subsequently want to wring his neck on the next. He seemed always to be on the cutting edge of the day's events, even when he was doing some of the "cutting", himself. It's fascinating to see him comment on every president from FDR to Clinton and there was much about most of them he didn't like.
   
   Much of the book centers around his relationship with Richard Nixon and the trials and tribulations of Watergate and perhaps the most intriguing part of the book follows his recollections on summing up Nixon's chances in the Senate for impeachment survival. I remember that day well and how it changed my mind about Senator Goldwater. Here was a true statesman rising to the occasion in a most difficult time in our nation's history.
   
   Barry Goldwater's seeming drift to the left regarding such issues as women's choice and gay rights no doubt sent shivers up and down the collective spines of his conservative colleagues. But Goldwater reasoned well and was always practical and this will be a big part of his legacy...a conservative man ahead of his time. "Pure Goldwater" is a pure joy to read and I commend John Dean and Barry Goldwater, Jr. for allowing us this terrific look at the senator...as told through his own words. I highly recommend it.



4. What a Gem! Honest, thought-provoking, riveting and well-written. Pure Goldwater gives an insightful look at an important time in history. Entertaining and politically relevant during this election year. Conservatives will love it, and so will just about everyone else.



5. Let me state from the get go that I am a Senator Goldwater and President Reagan style Republican.
   
   What I think this books value is in 2008 is how it sheds alot of light on Senator Hillary Clinton who was a Goldwater girl as well as Senator John McCain who in his pre 2008 years was more Goldwater minded than most people know. But he has gone off course so badly and isnt the same open honest straight talking express man he once was.
   
   Also of interest to me was how Libertarian minded Senator Goldwater was and not the conservative Republican of recent years which is right wing Christian close minded mode. I say this as a Christian who is Goldwater mode.
   
   This is a book that anyone interested in sanity, smaller government, and Constitutional law should read. Sadly so many people probably see Goldwater as some right wing zealot. Thats President G. W. Bush, not Senator Goldwater.

1 comments about Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, and the Struggle for Racial Uplift (African American History Series (Wilmington, Del.), No. 1.).

1. Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, And The Struggle For Racial Uplift by Jacqueline M. Moore (Associate Professor of History at Austin College, Sherman, Texas) is an informed and informative depiction of two remarkable and quiet different men who helped shape Black American history. Placing each man's work in historical context, and studying the debate conflict of ideas that both had and alternatives to either one's point of view, Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, And The Struggle For Racial Uplift is an intelligently written, scholarly, evenhanded, and "reader friendly" analytical survey and presentation which is strongly recommended for students of Black Studies, as well as non-specialist general readers with an interest in the contributions of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois to American society and culture.

No comments about Arthur Carhart: Wilderness Prophet.

3 comments about Kovacsland: Biography Of Ernie Kovacs.

1. People use words like "off-beat" and "wacky" when it comes to Ernie Kovacs, but in truth the man had a real sense of humor. By this I mean he understood humor, could almost break it down to the atomic level in his head, and assemble wonderfully funny and original pieces from those atoms. Those of us who love humor love Ernie because he would create new forms of it instead of the trite and hackneyed ones that surround us to this day in bad sitcoms, awful sketch comedy shows, and terrible stand-up. Only when you look at Ernie's stuff do you recognize the stagnant brine most Americans call TV comedy and how ubiquitous it is.
   
   This bio would be best if there was more from Ernie himself on his process, but since tragedy has made that impossible Ms. Rico has stitched together an impressive Persian rug of a tale using those who knew him and worked with him. She also provides exhaustive background on the goings-on in his life to give an excellent sense of perspective and accomplishment. You learn more about Ernie the man than about how he was able to come up with all of that great stuff.
   
   Reading this book is like Ernie's life - funny, detailed, warm, intelligent, human, and over way too soon.



2. There have been three biographies of Ernie Kovacs in the last 25 years(well, one of the three is really Edie Adams' memoir); Diana Rico's is the best, and likely to remain so for some time-I wish I had written it myself! Ernie Kovacs was a fascinating, mercurial man with an eclectic and very strong appeal, and Rico manages to capture his personality, talent and tremendous charm without ever tipping over(as so many "star" biographies do)into bathos or hero-worship. Fair-minded, and with accuracy reflecting a lot of primary interviews and careful research, it's also just a plainly well-written, entertaining read. If you've a special interest in Kovacs, or are simply curious about who he was, and what the days of the roaring 50's rat-pack was like, this is a book to seek out.



3. I know, we're reviewing the book and not the man, but it's pretty hard not to enjoy anything dealing with such a brilliant comedian as Ernie Kovacs. Even if it were just a dry accounting of facts, it would be interesting, because he was. However, it is very well-written and engaging. I don't know why Edie Adams refused to be interviewed for this book, because it certainly appears to be a loving tribute to her late husband. Her contributions are about the only thing that could improve this book.

3 comments about May I Quote You, Stonewall Jackson: Observations and Utterances of the South's Great Generals (May I Quote You--?,).

1. If you like StoneWall Jackson, You'll love this book. There are so many famous quotes here. Many the Civil War buffs know, many they may not be aware of. From his most quoted lines to some very obscure ones.

   You can't go wrong with this book




2. So much has been written about Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson that at times it become hard to separate the reality from the myths. This isn't a criticism but rather just a fact - history is interpreted in so many ways and this applies to Stonewall as it can to any other historical figure.

   This little book of quotes, both by Jackson and by those who knew him give us a better understanding of Jackson - the man and the soldier. There are quotes by Lee and McClellan, Garnett and Ewell, but it is the words of Jackson himself, which come across with power and passion. Indeed, at times you can almost feel the piercing blueness of his gaze as he moved into battle.

   This is a good little book, it gives a depth of insight into Jackson without having to read longer biographies. I recommend it to you.




3. I love learning about the Stonewall Jackson. By reading this book you found out that everytime Jackson won a battle he did not take credit for the victory he would give it to God. Stonewall Jackson would do anything for his contury and God. When reading this you found out how religous he is. My favorite quote would be, "Our God was my shield. His protecting care is an additional cause for gratitude." This book really shows the true Stonewall Jackson. I learend a lot about how even his enemys love him. This is a great book for anyone to read that loves the Civil War or Stonewall Jackson.

4 comments about The Life of an Ordinary Woman.

1. Ann Ellis is the real deal! She's raw American...living, working, loving, and raising children in the gruelingly hard world of the mining towns of the Rocky Mountains, years before the amenities that we American women take for granted today...things like running water, ample heating, and doctors always available for very sick children.But Ann is tough and savvy, witty, and has a great sense of fun, even in the toughest of times. Her life is richly-laden with deep emotion.Her descriptive style is pure and simple, but takes us right to her heart. She never complains...only explains.You read the book with a great sense of admiration for these strong women who raised strong families,loved their men, had dreams and joyful aspirations, even in times when they were struggling to find their way in this sometimes brutal world of their husbands' lust for gold and silver.This lady was a true pioneer in every sense of the word. Her story should be shared with anyone who finds strength in true accounts of brave American men and women.



2. With ingenuous humility, Anne Ellis recounts the first phase of her difficult life as if it were a cakewalk. Several passages convey such emotional impact that I remember them months later. A great read for anyone wishing to understand how women really lived in mining towns of the American West around the turn of the century.



3. No matter what your own life experience has been you will find things in this great book that you identify with. This true life experience is from a woman who lived a heroic experience from penniless poverty to being elected to public office, rising above all her own expectations, A wonderful book full of comedy, tragedy, drama, supence, you won't be able to put this book down.



4. In an age when autobiographies are considered fascinating only if the writer survived abuse, rape, incest or murder, Ms. Ellis' account is refreshing because she survives life.

5 comments about Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History.

1. This biography and the one by Jeffrey Wert must be considered as one of the two best works on the life of General James Longstreet. William Piston's work came first so he get the credit for turning the tide for James Longstreet who have long been a goat and villain of the Lost Cause of Confederacy. Piston proves to be a good writer, fair and honest about Longstreet. The controversy that surround this general are treated with a sympathic outlook, realizing that perhaps, Longstreet was too honest and blunt for his own good during the time and period he was alive. Longstreet made many errors during the war and he did many great things as well. His major mistake was telling the south after the war that Lee did the same thing. I think if the reader read both Piston and Wert's biographies, he got Longstreet pretty well covered.



2. William Piston has written a fine, highly readable, and fair-minded but sympathetic biography of one of the most controversial leaders of the Civil War. While Lee himself held Longstreet in the highest regard and made the dependable Longstreet his senior subordinate and commander of his First Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia, the stubborn South Carolinian found his reputation tarnished after the war by jealous military rivals who disliked Longstreet's politics and resented his criticisms of some of Lee's command decisions.

   As a military biography, this work offers a fairly comprehensive and balanced treatment of Longstreet's career that effectively demolishes some of the more unfair criticisms of Longstreet as a commander, and in particular takes apart the myth (that emerged in post-war controversy) that Jackson, not Longstreet, had been the senior commander in whom Lee had placed his most reliance and trust (although for a more critical, but still balanced and highly useful analysis of Longstreet's military record, see Jeffrey Wert's biography of Longstreet).

   Reading Piston's book will demonstrate why Lee described Longstreet as "my Old War Horse," and why Longstreet was widely regarded on both sides as one of the very finest -- if not THE finest -- corps commanders of the war. Piston also does a nice job of disentangling the post-war Gettysburg controversy, which emerged out of polemics over Reconstruction politics and the bickering among former Confederate generals anxious to rescue their own reputations while putting Robert E. Lee above any criticism.

   Lee, of course, was a great commander, but he never pretended to be perfect, and Longstreet, in daring to criticize certain aspects of Lee's tactical operations, became a threat to a post-war mythology, the cult of Lee, that became so important in building a post-war, Solid Democratic South and white supremacist post-Confederate Southern identity. As Piston demonstrates, the post-war Lost Cause mythology, in deifying the defeated Lee, required a scapegoat, a "Judas", upon whom the blame for defeat and humiliation could be heaped. As both Jackson and Stuart had been killed during the war, and as most western Confederate commanders lacked the prominence to serve this function, Longstreet emerged for unreconstructed Confederates as the bete noir of Southern military history, both for his post-war Republican politics and his criticisms of Lee, his actual war record and relationship with Lee notwithstanding.

   And in this post-war Lost Cause narrative, Gettysburg became the critical key or turning point upon which all else hinged, as though the outcome of a thousand campaigns mobilizing millions of men, fought over five years across a vast continent, could be reduced to one afternoon on one bloody field in Pennsylvania, or as though (even if that had been true) Longstreet alone could be blamed for Lee's failure at Gettysburg. It is the politics of Reconstruction and Longstreet's place in that political struggle, that largely shaped what became the dominant Southern narrative about the battle of Gettysburg, and the meaning of that defeat in the larger destruction and humiliation of the Confederacy. Piston's treatment of this issue, and his discussion of the evolution of Lost Cause historiography, is brilliant, and deserves attention not only from those interested in the Civil War and Reconstruction, but from those interested in the relationship between politics, historical memory, the historical record, and the writing of history.




3. This is a very objective and informative book on General Longstreet who, had he died at the battle of the Wilderness instead of surviving his very severe wounds, may have had a monument on Monument Ave. in Richmond in spite of not being a Virginian. Longstreet fought all the major campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia from Manasas up to the Wilderness returning after a recovering from severe wounds to command the Richmond theater during the siege and the final stages of the war. Piston points out well that Longstreet was a steady hand for Lee as he called him my "Old War Horse". Enlightened in that he thought of the war in broad strategic fashion suggesting using the railroad and interior lines to reinforce the west with eastern soldiers and he even offered to go himself which he did in time for the battle of Chickamaugua. Longstreet's role in Gettysburg is well discussed particularly the Lost Cause syndrome led by Jubal Early who pins the entire war on Longstreet at Gettysburg. Ironically, Early's original memoirs make no mention of any criticisms of Longstreet until after Lee's death when Early finds a niche to match his abrasive leadership style. Often critics suggest that Longstreet failed in Suffolk, Knoxville and East Tennessee; however, Piston notes that in Suffolk and Knoxville he was laying siege to forces equal or larger than his own that stayed within their works. The attack at Fort Sanders was a severe failure and in the East Tennessee campaign Longstreet performs well but the low point was Longstreet's dealing with personnel in difficult circumstances. Piston demonstrates how Davis micromanaged when he writes of Davis' interference with Longstreet personnel issues. Impressive that after his wounding Longstreet returns for any command that Lee will give him. Piston quickly covers Longstreet's post war career as a businessman, a republican who enters Louisiana's controversial political scene, leads the Police on horseback against a mob only to be attacked himself, his Republican connections and maneuvering for political plum jobs and his final days as a hotel owner and vineyard grower in lovely Gainesville, Georgia. Longstreet's post war writings are covered which had Longstreet been more accurate in his views or memories, his legacy may have stood taller and less challenged.
   His criticisms of some of Lee's decisions and turning Republican cost him dearly in the south but he steadfastly refused to change to suit others. The most endearing part of the book is Piston's telling of Longstreet and Dan Sickles after a joyous round of spirits, they walk each other repeatedly back to each others door refusing to end the night of the two most controversial generals who were at Gettysburg.



4. Piston's book is the first modern account of the first soldier of the Confederacy. Controversial both during and after the war, James Longstreet is one of the most fascinating and forgotten figures in American history. Second in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, Longstreet was the only senior officer who was with that army from the first battle at Manassas to the surrender at Appomattox. He was in command of the most famous attack in American history, Pickett's Charge. His most notable victories included Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness. After the war, he did several things considered unpardonable sins by most Southerners, some of whom still cannot forgive him to this day. First, he dared to criticize Robert E. Lee and his conduct of the battle of Gettysburg. Second, he reconciled with his conquerors, became a Republican, and accepted appointive federal offices from four out of the next six presidents of the United States, including President Grant, to whom he was related by marriage. Even worse, he became a Catholic in a staunchly Protestant South. Most important of all, he promoted a doctrine of racial reconciliation that is as relevant today as it was 135 years ago.



5. "Longstreet is the one Rebel general who's memory hasn't been romanticized." Yikes. That "who's" deserves grammatical capital punishment.

5 comments about The Creation of Doctor B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim.

1. The Creation of Doctor B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim
   I read Bruno Bettelheim books when he was the guru of child psychiatry in the 50's and 60's and thought they were excellent. Now this book exposes the truth about him. It is quite interesting and anyone who still believes in his methods should really read it.
   Jane Gaschke



2. Pollak's book is a long-needed, well-written, thoroughly researched document that should be required reading for every psychology and psychiatry student.
   
   Bruno Bettelheim did not blight just one generation of families of autistic people. He hurt, and continues to hurt, hundreds of thousands of people through his misbegotten, arrogantly upheld, cruel, baseless theories that were far more widely publicized than the current scientific research. His book The Empty Fortress (published in 1962 with all the Freudian nonsense) is still in print, which means that there are even today, 2007, many people out there who believe or even revere him.
   
   Rare, indeed, is the family member of an autistic person who has not been assured by a confident Bettelheim reader that the child's mother caused his disease. Can you imagine the harm and heartbreak this causes? Even Bettelheim's own wife quarreled with him because he was so hard on mothers.
   
   Personally I believe that Bettelheim killed himself in part because it was more and more difficult for him to uphold his theories, his life work, in the face of mounting scientific evidence that autism has physical causes.
   
   The Bettelheim defenders have no facts to back them up. They fall back on "he was a brilliant man" or "follow-up studies would have gone against his method" or "he was a distinguished scholar." The facts are that Bettelheim's whole career as a "scholar" was based on lies and misrepresentations; that he hurt dozens of children directly and hundreds of thousands of families indirectly; and that Pollak's book is finally getting people to take a hard look at a very bad man.
   
   The University of Chicago should publicly apologize that it supported him for so long.



3. this is not biography, but libel with a good motive. For an unbiased overview of the polemic about dr. B. see the review "The Strange Case of Dr. B." in the New York Review of Books, Volume 50, Number 3 ? February 27, 2003. (i found it online)



4. Mr. Pollak has done families on the autism spectrum and, especially, mothers an enormous service by writing this book. The Bettelheim theory on autism -- that refrigerator moms caused autism in their children by unconsciously rejecting them -- ruled the medical and psychological community for decades. Based on little more than his own unresearched ideas, Bettelheim not only generated this theory, he made it his business to preach it from the popular media pulpit. Due to this, for decades worried mothers who turned to the medical community for help with their children who were slipping away into autism were blamed as being the cause of the disorder, shunned by doctors and nurses, and advised to institutionalize their autistic children so that they could not contaminate them further.
   
   With three children on the autism spectrum in my extended family, I know firsthand the difficulties, guilt, shame, and fear that parent's feel when figuring out how to help their kids with autism. I cannot and do not want to even imagine how destructive and cruel it must have been for mothers of autistic children to be told by the very people they went to for help -- in the medical and psychiatric community -- that they themselves were the cause of their kid's autism. Mr. Pollak has righted some very pervasive and poinsonous wrongs by exposing Bettelheim for the fraud that he was. It is also a cautionary tale that pat, unsubstantiated claims about any psychological theory should be viewed with caution.
   
   Now, could we look at Mr. Freud and all his many theories based on the psyches of middle-class Viennese ladies?
   
   Thanks, Mr. Pollak!



5. Pollak does a brilliant job of tearing away the deceptions and rationalizations that made Bettelheim's Orthogenic School seem like an outstanding, cutting edge School for emotionally troubled, mentally ill and autistic children.
   
   The chapter on Bettelheim's brutality against the children really made me wonder how did the staff working with him rationalize his behavior for so many years? I guess some staff were intimidated by him. And some were awestruck by his prestige.
   
   I think indirectly Pollak's book is an indictment against the University of Chicago for so carelessly supporting Bettelheim for so many years - 30 years. Pollak shows how Bettelheim was allowed to surround himself with whatever staff he pleased. And frequently, he chose impressionable, young people who had good reason to believe that Bettelheim's method's were rational since the U of C backed the school. I guess the U of C was so content with Bettelheim's national prestige and with the money he brought to the University that they weren't concerned about his cruel, sadistic side. And I'm sure that U of C officials must have known something about this side of Betttelheim, since he said outrageous things in public.
   
   Also, I guess Pollak's book shows how easy it can be for the ordinary person to witness terrible acts of brutality against a vulnerable population (and troubled children, some as young as 4, living away from their parents for several years is probably one of the more vulnerable populations in the world) yet do and say nothing.
   
   In the book, Bettelheim supporters seem to rationalize that because Bettelheim was so brilliant that he could somehow abuse children in an effective, therapeutic way. They decided that his role of the Big Bad Wolf would help sick children overcome the terror of their inner aggression. Now, unless you think mentally ill children are an alien species, what child is going to feel safer knowing that at any moment they might be beaten in the head, slapped repeatedly in the face or have their pants pulled down and be beaten on their behinds with a belt? What child is going to feel safer knowing that all this abuse would be dealt out entirely according to the discretion of one man. And that the staff would either ignore what he did or tell you to overlook the welts he created on your body and just listen to the wisdom of what he said to you. This type of thinking, which Pollak describes in his book, seems like a rationalization of the worst kind. It is extraordinarily simplistic to assume that Bettelheim can help children by beating and shaming them. And Pollak makes it clear that Bettelheim's cruelty towards the children was not an infrequent aberration, but an integral and consistant part of this therapeutic milieu. And, because he is dealing with children, often young children, they cannot stand up to his abuse. They need someone to depend on so much, that they can't resist his tyranny.
   
   And the person Bettelheim picked to be his successor, Jacqui Sanders, never reported his abuse to any authority. And she continued his legacy of hitting children for many years after her directorship. She even wrote a book rationalizing her behavior that was published by the U of C press.
   
   Many who worked at the Orthogenic School, including Jacqui, still rationalize their abusive behavior as superior to restraints or drugs. First of all, I think it's a horrid twist of logic to suggest that beating children is superior to these other methods. Also, at some point in her directorship Jacqui did stop hitting children...I think it's when she finally got licensed as a clinical psychologist. So I guess even she thought of other ways to contain a child who is acting chaotically, possibly when she actually studied the ideas of someone other than Bettelheim. Here's a suggestion for helping a child from me: try finding the child a compassionate therapist. Not a person who witnesses abuse of children and says nothing or a person who is trained to tell a child that getting beaten is okay. But a person who will listen to the child and who will try to help them understand their feelings and behavior.
   
   The sad legacy of the Orthogenic School is that for many years it forced children to accept that getting beaten and shamed was an acceptable form of "care". I personally think that's sick. And I appreciate Pollak for exposing the sadistic underbelly of Bettelheim's School. Many of the students who went there are still alive. Some have families. And some appreciate having a bit of truth exposed to try and understand how the cruelty might have affected us.