No comments about The Lincolns: Portrait of a Marriage.

5 comments about The Autobiography of Mark Twain (Perennial Classics).

1. I read a lot of autobiographies and biographies and they are often praised extensively and turn out to be very, very boring. This autobiography is great. Mark Twain writes it from the point of view that he is already dead and therefore can say whatever he likes. Of course it is funny but it is also very sensitive. His explanation of his feelings after the death of his daughter is gut wrenching.
   I am not being negitive here but I was delighted to find in this book that even the great Mark Twain can be boring at times. This fact truly impressed me and brought me to realize that even old Mark Twain was human. This was a wonderderful book and just the other day I took it out of mothballs to read for a second time. It is really too good for just a once over. It is too good man! Too too good!



2. American.
   Coinsidentially I finished the audio version of this autobiography the day he stopped writing: Christmas day. His daughter died Christmas Eve 1909. His wife had died a few years earlier. Another daughter died several years before that in chilhood. He had never recovered from those tragedies. His surviving daughter lived in Europe. He wrote of this in his diary & wrote no more. He was alone in a big house & died shorty after that. He knew that his autobiography would not be published until he died, long dead he hoped, so he didn't pull any punches. This editor Charles Neider was not as brave. He missed much of the insouciance that was Twain. He came out with a long linear, biography. Twain dictated a lot of it in his later years but just talked about whatever came into his head. Editing this disorganization admittedly was no mean feat. Mark Twain was not a disiplined writer. He could set down a novel he was writing & not return to it for several years. So it was with Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn. They were, by the way, populated with real people he knew in his youth. A gonzo writer of sorts, he wrote what he knew & had lived. He was one of the most travelled Americans of his time, spending long periods in Europe. He was a printer, a journalist, a riverboat pilot, lecturer & of course, novelist. He was a celebrity in his own time but a very poor investor & money manager. He had to go back to lecturing to recoup his loses. He hated that. It was too much like work & he admitted to being very lazy. He was very quotable & whole books have been devoted to his musings. Many of these concerned his atheism, his distaste for organized religion & he ridiculed the bibical god. These particular items were not to be seen in Neider's version which was the biggest disappointment.



3. It is one of the more interesting autobiographys that I have read. The author Charles Neider has taken a confusing pile of writings and has assembled them into a more streamline reading and a timeline of Samuel Clemen's (Mark Twain's) life.
   
   This book has given me a yearning to read more books by Neider on Mark Twain and reread some of Twain's classic's like Huckberry Finn.



4. Buy this book, kick back in your easy chair and be prepared to take a journey with the Master of American Literature himself as he lies near death. From the Mighty Mississippi to the latter days of the Gold Rush; to the lecture (lyceum) circuit of his thirties-forties; and on to a family life of tragedy after tragedy and finally triumph, Mr. Twain will take you, the reader, into his mind where you'll share his wit, wisdom, and secrets. A must buy for any Twain lover or anyone interested in the 19th Century from a man who lived it. Lived it indeed!



5. One of my favorite five books in the last five years, and I read a lot of books! I'm going to try to be brief, which will be a challenge, because I loved it.
   
   First, the concept behind this book is pure genius, especially for an autobiography. Because he didn't release his life story until he died, Twain was able to be completely honest. It's true- everyone on earth must restrain their tongue somewhat. But when we read about a great person from the past, we want to know the real deal.
   
   I won't go too much into how great Mark Twain was. I'm sure that subject has been covered quite well. But as a public speaker, writer, and fledgling humorist myself, I found many of the vignettes priceless. He tells us what the 'Lycium',the 19th American speaking circuit, was like, how one good writer failed miserably in front of an audience, how he (Twain) turned an old tired joke into a new exciting one... and on the subject of fame, he talks about how inconsequential was a particular woman who had become famous simply for having opinions (and because she happened to be the wife of a newspaper man). Indeed, except for Twain's ridicule, this woman has been utterly and appropriately neglected by history. We are thereby warned of the worthlessness of fame without substance or purpose.
   
   At times Twain sounds pompuous or narcissistic, but it fits his humorous style. We forgive him because we know he was great and because condescension is a great position from which to heap ridicule and satire. And you have to wonder- don't some great men know they're great even while they live?
   
   Twain had the fortune to be celebrated within his lifetime, and remains one of the most important Americans. He is the deep root from which modern humorists such as Garrison Keillor and Dave Barry spring forth. He is an example of the gruff and almost crotchety American intellect.
   
   His story also demonstrates how not to run your writing business (by letting suspicious character run it for you and steal your money).
   
   And he provides touching accounts of both his awkward courtship, and the exceptional character and intelligence of one of his daughters.
   
   What else? They say in public speaking: Begin with a laugh, end with a tear. Twain's autobiography does the latter - it's sad to see how quickly he went from the apex of life to lonely grief as most of his family died within little more than a year.
   
   Before we know it, before we want it, the book is over, and the great life is done. We are reminded of the temporary nature of life, and as this famous and delightful personality recedes again from our consciousness, perhaos at least for a little while, because of his example, we seize life with more vigor.

5 comments about The Dark Side of Camelot.

1. Seymour Hersh, the man according to whom we have to thank for the Church Commission (which led to idiotic government intelligence "reforms" that, in turn, contributed to the intelligence failures that permitted 9-11), presents his best shot in this book at smearing the Kennedy clan. John especially, but also Joe and even to a certain extent Bobby. In most of the book, he succeeds in this task only to the extent we can trust mobsters, convicted felons, former madams, self-professed ex-lovers, hustlers, disgruntled employees and bankrupt, disbarred attorneys to tell us the truth.
   
   However, Mr. Hersh does present some very compelling testimonies from JFK's secret service agents, who describe JFK's White House adolescent hijinks in rhyparographic detail. Believe me, that section alone (pp 226-246) is enough to take the shine off Camelot -- permanently.
   
   Hersh is perplexing. He has impeccable anti-American and Democratic Party credentials, yet he savages JFK, a fellow Democrat, in a way that no one had done before, or in the eleven years since the book was published. Why? I can only conclude that Hersh's anger stems from his view that JFK was responsible for Vietnam. Hersh addresses Vietnam in the last two chapters of the book, and although these chapters are better sourced than some of the more salacious sections, the chapters seem disjointed, meandering, and tied together only by rage towards JFK.



2. Normally I would not review an 11-year-old book, but as it presents a distorted view of JFK to say the least, and is still in print in 2008, here goes.
   
   Mr. Hersh has obliged his corporate and government sponsors with a double-barreled hit. First, he produced a best-seller, and second, he produced a JFK biography sure to please both the corporates and their government cronies.
   
   Mr. Hersh reveals JFK's sexual escapades in great length and detail. I estimate that at least 25% of the book is spent on this topic. This is fair enough, since JFK apparently spent the same percentage of his time pursuing sexual adventures. Mr. Hersh also presents much evidence backing claims of JFK's health problems, including frequent doses of various medications that kept him going. The early chapters tell some interesting stories about JFK's father, Joseph, and other family members including JFK's maternal grandfather, John F. "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald.
   
   Mr. Hersh presents some interesting insights into crucial moments in JFK's presidency. The Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crisis, the Cuba missile crisis, plots to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam are dealt with in detail. Mr. Hersh contradicts accounts of these events written by close Kennedy associates, Ted Sorensen in particular. Mr. Hersh reveals a secretive, inexperienced, power-hungry and vindictive President who trusted only one man other than himself, his brother Robert. There does seem to be some truth to Hersh's contradictory accounts, but there also seems to be an underlying motivation behind this book, and this is the promotion of an official version of JFK and his presidency that focuses on JFK's personal weaknesses, presents CIA in a favorable light, and either lies about important events, or omits them entirely.
   
   Did you know, for example, that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was entirely JFK's fault? Did you know that JFK and RFK micro-managed plots involving the Mafia to kill Castro, and that the Vietnam War is JFK's legacy, not something he would have ended? With that knowledge, surely you should also learn about JFK's firing of Allan Dulles (later appointed to the Warren Commission), General Cabell and Richard Bissell? Sorry, that's not in the official story. Furthermore, since JFK was obviously so much at odds with CIA, surely you should read about JFK's threats to disband CIA? Sorry again.
   
   I quote from the "Author's Note" at the beginning of the book:
   
   "It [this book] tells of otherwise strong and self-reliant men and women
   who were awed and seduced by Kennedy's magnetism, and who competed with
   one another to please the most charismatic leader in our nation's history.
   Many are still blinded today.
   
   In writing this book, my hope is that I have been able to help the nation
   reclaim some of its history."
   
   Some very select and well chosen bits of its history, perhaps, but nothing that really matters, like who was responsible for JFK's assassination. Mr. Hersh is not one to talk about being "blinded", as he still professes to believe the official Lee Harvey Oswald "lone nut assassin" myth. Among the few remaining adherents to the myth are mainstream corporate media types like Mr. Hersh, anyone in government, and current and former intelligence agency employees who don't want to lose their security clearances or be sentenced to "dine alone". John Loftus and Tennent H. "Pete" Bagley are two examples of the latter.
   
   Despite this best-selling book and others written with the same intent, most of the public continue to admire JFK despite knowing that he was a highly flawed human being. Most people also disbelieve the official lone-nut assassin myths about JFK and RFK. To remove the spell of Mr. Hersh's quote above, I'll close with a quote from St. John Hunt (source: a Rolling Stone article you can easily find), author of "The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt":
   
   "Actually, there were probably dozens of plots to kill Kennedy, because everybody hated Kennedy but the public."



3. Mr. Hersh paints a convincing picture of JFK as an extremely hard working, ambitious man who was party to a myriad of addictions including painkillers and sex. I actually found the early sections of the book which deal primarily with his father Joe Kennedy to be insightful into the kind of environment he grew up in and undoubtably led to his immoral nature. Where Hersh is on weaker ground is when he tries to psychoanalyze JFK. He attempts to connect all of Kennedy's personal issues to decisions made about international politics, a hazardous course. I think Hersh was too close to Kennedy and his sense of profound disappointment as well as his breathy, rumormonger style of writing sometimes hurts his credibility which is unforunate because I think the author wrote a thought provoking, intelligent book



4. Legend and hero are the words most of us learn in school to apply to John F. Kennedy. We usually tend to see him only in his media and photographic image, but Seymour Hersh portrays him here as being a man with an abundant set of flaws and characteristics. Most likely, although I grant that not everything the author says can be definitively proven, Hersh's depiction of JFK is far closer to that of the real person than the one we see gazing down upon us in posters. Of course, The Dark Side of Camelot is about a whole lot more than the 35th President. We find out all manner of fact and rumor concerning his grandfather, Honey Fitz, his father, and the rest of his family; not to mention Richard Nixon and an array of women who are too numerous to name here. Kennedy was the quintessential high status male, and, intrinsic to his status, were a great many politically incorrect features that are fun to read about (while still being informative in regards to the leader and his times).



5. If there is one election that was bougth,it was this one.
   Nixon would have won in a ,,regular,, election!!

5 comments about James Buchanan (The American Presidents).

1. James Buchanan possibly was one of the best qualified men to assume the office of President. Qualifications don't mean anything if you don't have backbone and belief in principles. Buchanan bent over backward to try to please his Southern friends and it didn't get him anywhere. He tried to be rigid on forcing the North to bend to the South's ways. This didn't help him in the North. He defied the will of the people of Kansas and made more enemies. Finally everybody was fed up with this man. The South suceeded and the North elected the Republicans. The Democrats became a wilderness party for the next twenty eight odd years. James Buchanan played an instrumental role in the downfall of the Democratic Party and the United States.
   
   This is a short quick read. However Baker makes it plain that leadership does not develop from experience. A better leader may have found a way to change and compromise so that the United States didn't not go through a horrible war. Poor leadership by James Buchanan.



2. James Buchanan came to the presidency with a wonderful resume. And he failed dismally. This brief biography, part of the well done "The American Presidents" series, tries to explain that disconnect. In the recurring introduction to each volume in the series that he edited, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. remarked that (Page xvii) "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." And "there's the rub" for Buchanan.
   
   His background was impeccable: Pennsylvania state legislature, U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and England. As Jean Baker, the author of this slim volume says (Page 7): "Critical times often summon forth our best presidents, and it is worth taking the measure of those presidents who, given the opportunity, failed to rise to greatness. James Buchanan was one of those."
   
   The Democratic nomination for president culminated at the Convention. Franklin Pierce (incumbent president), Stephen Douglas, Lewis Cass, and Buchanan. After some maneuvering, Buchanan's supporters helped get him the nomination.
   
   After his election, though, he ran into a buzz saw: a panic (depression), violence in Kansas, and the horrific "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision. Buchanan selected a Cabinet that was very much pro-Southern, some of his closest allies were from the South, and he alienated Democrats such as Stephen Douglas. He did not recognize the danger of the slavery issue and watched as his pro-Southern stance split the Democratic Party, enabling the one thing anathema to him to occur--the election of a Republican in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Why did he fail so miserably? Unreflective prosouthernism is one part of the explanation, according to Baker. Other factors--his arrogant and uncompromising use of power.
   
   So, an interesting essay on a failed president. I think that personality quirks might be overemphasized in this book. Overall, though, a useful volume for those who want a quick introduction to the presidents.



3. There are 72 reviews of this brief and simply-written biography of a President who came to office with superb qualifications and who bungled the job that perhaps no one could have done. I found the book quite adequate as an introduction to the decade of the 1850s. Causes have to precede effects; anyone interested in the causes of the Civil War ought to have a good look at the events that led to Buchanan's election, and the dismal decision Buchanan made in reaction to those events. Honestly, however, you needn't buy the book. Just read the 72 reviews herewith. It will take some patience, and some tolerance for bad syntax, but it will reveal just exactly how polarizing the Civil War was, and still is.
   
   This "American Presidents" series is surprisingly top notch. I also recommend the biography of US Grant, the most underrated and slandered chief exec of American history.



4. So Jean Baker judges James Buchanan. (5 points if you can name the other two members of the triumvirate.) For her, his presidency was a miserable failure. This was surprising because, at least on paper, no man was more qualified to be chief executive. Buchanan had personal contact with every president since James Madison. He'd served as a congressman, senator, cabinet officer, leader of his party (Democrats), and minister to England. Moreover, in a post-Jacksoninan period when the presidency was viewed as a primarily administrative (rather than executive) office (perhaps this goes some way toward accounting for the "feckless triumvirate"), Buchanan saw himself as a wielder of power and an initiator of policy.
   
   But Baker argues that Buchanan, for all his apparent qualifications, was too dogmatically pro-Southern in his views, and too unpragmatic in dealing with sectional crises, to be an effective president. He stacked his cabinet with pro-slavery yes men (a cabinet, by the way, which was notoriously corrupt). He pulled strings behind the scenes to persuade a fellow-Pennsylvanian on the Supreme Court to vote with Taney on Dred Scott. He totally fumbled the Kansas crisis, doggedly defending the Lecomptian slave constitution even when it became clear that the vast majority in Kansas were free-staters. And in the long lame duck period before Lincoln took office, when the states in the lower South pulled out of the Union, Buchanan completely lost his head and became paralyzed with indecision and panic, sometimes unable to get out of bed.
   
   Baker, unlike other more sympathetic biographers, doesn't see Buchanan as a peacemaker caught in a tide of unstoppable sectional conflict so much as a man largely unqualified by temperament (gloomy, pessimistic, fatalistic) and dogmatic partisanship to handle the crisis. Perhaps. I don't claim to know enough about Buchanan to evaluate her conclusion. But I do know two things. First, she's presented a convincing case for Buchanan's incompetence and downright shadiness when it comes to the Kansas crisis, and there's good reason to think that this example is representative of his entire presidency. Second, I'd have liked to have learned more about Buchanan the man in order to be satisfied that Baker's characterization of his temperament was accurate. I know that her volume is in a series that focuses on presidential administrations, and so a full-fledged biography would've been inappropriate. But nonetheless, I didn't actually get a feel for Buchanan the person in reading her book.



5. Over the years the occupier of the cellar of American presidents has changed. When I was growing up, Warren G. Harding held the title as "Worst President Ever", then Ulysses S. Grant seemed to vie for a tie. In more recent years and given a more thorough look, James Buchanan now resides there and Jean H. Baker's excellent short biography of President Buchanan goes into some reasons why that has happened.
   
   Far from being the domestic American Neville Chamberlain of his day, Baker argues that vacillation wasn't Buchanan's worst trait (although it was a pretty bad one) but his pro-Southern views were. As a seasoned politician and diplomat, our fifteenth president was arguably one of the best prepared to take over the presidency in 1857. But, as suggested, things began to heat up fast and Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, got the ball rolling. Buchanan seemed to be feckless at every turn, managing to alienate his own party politicians with decisions that pleased no one in the end. But her chapter on the lame-duck months of Buchanan's presidency is the best of the book, as it should be. This four-month transition is one of the most important in presidential turnovers and has been heavily scrutinized for decades with the author coming down hard on Buchanan. What might have been done to save the country had Buchanan actually moved swiftly and successfully to reinforce Fort Sumter, for instance? We'll never know, but Baker gives the reader some things about which to think.
   
   On the personal side, the author delves lightly into Buchanan's possible homosexuality and concludes, like everyone else, we'll never know. But she does make an interesting point toward the end of the book when she contemplates the reasons for Buchanan's pro-Southern tilt by suggesting that the president preferred the more genteel southern ways to the edginess of his northern counterparts.
   
   The American Presidents series is terrific and I've read several of the presidential mini-biographies. This is one of the best and I highly recommend it.

5 comments about Andy Warhol: Giant Size.

1. Bought as a gift for a 21st birthday. Will be a memory that he can keep for a long time with a personal message on the inside front cover.
   
   Great gift idea! Would highly recommend



2. This is a real great (and large ;-) ) book with beatiful reproductions of Andy Warhol. My children love to go through it. It was also for sale on the Warhol exhibition in the "Stedelijk Museum" in Amsterdam last year.



3. My daughter is 24 years old and she is an aspiring artist. Andy Warhol is her very favorite. I got her this book for Christmas and it is her most favorite thing. She says that the detail that it has is facinating and compelling. One word of advice though...it is one HEAVY book so make sure that you are in a comfortable place to support it while you are reading.



4. Definitely worth the money!
   
   I've recently got into andy warhol and this is the second book i have by him. The book has stunning portraits/photographs/art thats what i love about andy warhol everything is unique and different.I wasn't sure what to expect with this book however i'm glad that I purchased it.
   
   You also might want to check out "Men - Andy Warhol"



5. Fantastic pictorial book...worth every penny. If you are a fan of Warhol, this is the book to own. Great prints of Andy's work from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - including rare prints. You won't be disappointed - it is all here. The dimensions are impressive at 17" x 13" x 2 1/2", and it makes for a beautiful coffee table book that you will be proud to display. The pictures are sharp, both in color and b&w, and many are full-page, including pics of Andy and Edie. Outstanding!

5 comments about Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters.

1. Robert Edward Lee (1807-1870) has won immortal fame among the great military captains of all time. Thousands of articles and books have been written about him. His most notable biographer is Douglas Southall Freeman's adulatory multivolumed work by a Lee worshipper. In recent years several revisionary works have appeared by the likes of Alan Nolan
   who have castigated Lee for his white supremacist views Now it is the turn of Elizabeth Brown Pryor.
   Pryor has sifted through over 10,000 pages of letters from Lee, his wife Mary and the Lee family. She has almost 200 densely written pages in her book listing first and secondary sources. She has done her homework!
   Pryor has produced what is, in my opinion, a great book on the great Virginian. We see Lee as a great and good man but one who was not perfect. Pryor begins each chapter with a letter from Lee or family memory and then illuminates how that letter became an important mirror into the life of the Confederate hero.
   We see Lee as a brave man who defended his beloved South against the North. Among salient points we learn:
   a. Lee was a white supremecist who had trouble controlling the slaves on the Arlington estate he inherited from Washington Park Custis (Custis was the father of Lee's wife Mary and the grandson of George Washington_).
   b. Lee could harsh in his treatment of slaves. Several slaves ran away from Arlington. He was not adverse to having them whipped for infractions
   of his strict rules. There are reports that Lee was also kind to slaves.
   He was a racist and believed the white race was superior to the African-Americans with whom he interacted. In this belief he was consistent with the widely held belief of the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans.
   c. Lee was a great general as manifest in the brilliant Chancellorsville campaign but had trouble in supervision of his subordinates. Lee also kept inadequate leaders in positions of leadership in the Army of Northern Virginia who should have been replaced.
   d. Lee was Virginia-centric. Lee believed in states rights.
   e. Lee was an elitist who thought upper class white males should be the leaders of society.
   f. Lee was frustrated by his antebellum army career as a member of the engineering corp. He suffered from depression and had a violent temper.
   g. Lee was a good and faithful husband to his invalid wife Mary. The Lees had several children. He was an absentee father due to his military career.
   h. Lee hated the years he spent as supt. of West Point. Following the Civil War he became President of Washington College in Lexington Va. bust disliked the work
   i. Lee was often perceived as aloof and cold. Lee was able to unwind with famiily and close friends.
   j. Lee's ideas on religion varied throughout his life from a mild Deism to evangelical belief in his later years. He was an Episcopalian.
   Not everyone will like this biography of a Southern icon without peer who has been elevated to the ranks of Dixie sainthood along with Elvis!
   As one who has read all the important biographies of Lee I consider this book an essential in understanding the great but enigmatic man. Pryor's book will engender controversy but is a vital read for anyone wanting a good understanding of Lee that does not portray him as a Lost Cause saint.
   Essential and excellent!



2. "There is indeed a certain childish willfulness in the American mind that insists on chastising the people of the past for not being like them, or else pretending that they were. Which is a certain way NOT to learn anything from history." ---Dr. Clyde Wilson
   
   Put it this way - if you are the type of person Dr. Wilson is describing, you're going to love this book! If not, you'll be wishing you had paid for it in Confederate bills instead of U.S. dollars.
   
   The book itself contains roughly 175 pages of footnotes, bibliography and index. There are 50 pages of actual letters, some of which have already been published and others of which are not even by Lee, but by other people. If you're planning on seeing 500 pages of newly discovered letters, forget it. The fewer than 50 pages of new letters by Lee himself will leave you grossly disappointed. Finally, we have 425 pages of Ms. Pryor's perseverative and monotonous interpretations of those letters, which I suppose is the "meat" of the book.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee did not release the Custis slaves immediately. The terms of the will specified "within 5 years" of the elder Custis' death (in 1857). Lee fulfilled that mandate by manumitting them in 1862. This apparently wasn't satisfactory enough for Ms. Pryor as she repeatedly drones on about Lee's failure to understand how the slaves felt.
   
   Ms. Pryor is also critical of Lee for expecting the slaves to actually work!? Oh horror! Oh horror!
   
   Of course, there is the matter of several slaves being whipped by Lee, something which has never been conclusively proven. Like a second rate shyster, Ms. Brown does her best to drum up the case against him.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee had no appreciation of other cultures and saw nothing worthwhile in the Mexican culture when he was there during the Mexican war. I'm wondering what Pryor expected Lee, an educated, well-to-do man from one of Virginia's first families, to say when he was in Mexico? "Gee! What lovely mud huts!?" I'm pretty sure that Mexico didn't have Grand Melia and Paradisus or any other resorts at that time, so I can't figure out what Ms. Pryor expected him to see in the place? I suppose to understand her reasoning, or her expectations, one would have to refer back to Dr. Wilson's quote above.
   
   Also, according to Ms. Pryor, Lee had "poor cross cultural communications skills", a term apparently taken from today's lexicon of multicultural drivel. In this case she was referring to his "communication", or lack of it, with the Comanches. I ran this past a native American friend of mine and he almost fell over laughing. I'm not sure there were too many folks at the time who had good cross cultural communication skills with the Comanches of that era, as this particular group wasn't usually given to such things themselves. Would that it were possible to transport Ms. Pryor back in time to the 1850s and observe how her "skills" with the Comanches would fare? I would be taking bets on how long she kept her pretty blond hair.
   
   In sum, this book, touted though it is by most "contemporary" historians, is one more example of the sham that has become what we used to call, "the field of history".
   
   If you feel compelled somehow to read it, buy it used and pay as little as possible. When you're through with it, it will make for an excellent target at the firing range.



3. Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor has based her biography of Robert E. Lee on a huge collection of Lee family letters so that the reader sees Lee through his own words in repsonse to life situations. He comes through as a very complex person with a largely conflicted life. Lee of course was primariy a soldier (at one point he had been superintendent of West Point) and while Lincoln offered him the leadership of the Union army he followed his Southern background and in a few short weeks sided with the Confederacy. In this book we also see Lee as a husband and father. One example of Pryor's insight shows the reaction of Lee and his wife to the Union army taking over their Arlington estate which had been in his wife's family and their recognition that the house had been looted, and as the war progressed their land turned into a military cemetary for both Union and Confederate dead. Pryor says that that incident made the break complete and left the Lees embittered for the rest of their lives.
   This is a fine study of the man based on his own words and is a valuable addition to Civil War history. I would agree that Reading the Man will beocme a standard reference on Robert E. Lee.



4. When I first heard of this book, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. Now that I am finished reading it, I wish I would have spent my money elsewhere. Although this revisionist history does provide some compelling and dramatic insights into Lee as a person, the author is clearly no fan of Lee or his legacy. I found myself wondering if Elizabeth Brown Pryor had any sympathy for Lee "the man" whatsoever. The concept of the book is very good, but the writer's analysis is shallow in many areas. She breezes over several significant events in Lee's life and Civil War career, yet makes it a point to showcase Lee's "racism" throughout many chapters. She uses a surprisingly narrow scope of primary documents. The writing style in some passages is mediocre at best. If you want a book about Robert E. Lee that a Left wing Liberal could love, then this may be the book for you. If you want a true portrait of the man, I would recommend you look elsewhere.



5. Remember the character in Albert Camus' The Plague who's fixated on writing a book so perfect that the publisher, upon reading the manuscript, will jump from his chair and shout to his staff: "Hats off, gentlemen! We're in the presence of greatness!"?
   
   That's exactly my reaction on finishing Elizabeth Brown Pryor's 2008 Lincoln Prize-winning Reading the Man. The book is great: consummately researched (nearly one-third of the total, some 200 pages, are footnotes and bibliography), judiciously and courageously argued, and written in a lively, engaging style. But Lee, the book's subject, is great too, not despite but in part because of the complexity of his character and occasional failings. In Pryor's hands, Lee the man comes centerstage, eclipsing the "marble man" of romanticized myth. As Pryor says at the beginning of her study, her purpose isn't to debunk the myth so much as to "amplify our understanding of what constitutes heroism, and how as an ordinary person Lee faced the vagaries of the human condition" (p. xiii). Her book should be read in that spirit.
   
   And how much more fascinating the flesh-and-blood Lee is than the marble Lee! Disgraced by a scandal-creating father and brother, Lee early on developed a strong atoning sense of duty and rectitude (Chapters 1, 2, and 4) that made him a conscientious citizen, soldier, and father, but also, occasionally, a pedant (as during his leadership of West Point, recounted in Chapter 13) and a blue-nose (as in his tedious sermonizing to his children, recounted especially in Chapter 14). He was apparently ambivalent for years about his army career, unable to make a decision to leave but increasingly unwilling to tolerate long absences from his family and even longer spans between promotions (Chapter 11). He was a meticulous but not especially creative engineer (Chapter 7), and an equally meticulous college administrator in his post-war life (Chapter 24), although it's a job he didn't particularly like. And he was a devoted and playful father. His love and concern for his children unmistakably come through in his letters, and are even more remarkable given his own unhappy and care-ridden childhood (especially Chapter 6).
   
   Lee went to geat pains to cultivate a public persona as a man in control of himself and situations. And many times, both were true. But it is to Pryor's credit, although it's earned her a savaging from Lee-worshippers, that she points out three arenas in which the public persona and the private man differ.
   
   The first is Lee's attitude to blacks, which reflected the prejudices of his time and class. His lack of sympathy and understanding for them led to a mishandling of his father-in-law's slaves that fomented a minor revolt, and it also led Lee to turning a blind eye to attacks on blacks after the war (Chapters 8, 9, and 24).
   
   Moreover, also after the war, Lee appears to have fallen into the despairing fury that so many other defeated southerners experienced. His public pronouncements (except for one interview given only three days after Appomattox) stressed reconciliation. But his private papers seethed with rage and frustration (Chapter 25).
   
   Finally, Pryor points out what any student of the Civil War already knows (even though one hardly dares speak it): although Lee fought a few brilliant battles, he was also at times stubborn, unwilling to listen to advice from his generals, impetuous, and careless of life. His defeat at Gettysburg is, of course, the obvious example. But his conduct at the Seven Days Battle and Antietam also throw less than favorable light on the quality of his generalship (Chapters 19, 20, and 21). Lee remains a great general; but he's not a faultless one.
   
   And Pryor's frank discussion of Lee as he actually was is the book's greatest strength. In allowing us to look past the myth at the man, Pryor invites us to recognize that greatness doesn't require unassailable perfection. Great men and women are still, for all their gifts and accomplishments, human.
   
   And so I say, to both Pryor and Lee: "Hat's off!"

5 comments about Scars of Sweet Paradise: The Life and Times of Janis Joplin.

1. If you want to know the basic facts about Janis Joplin's life and the cultural context in which she rose to fame and self-destructed, this book is perfectly adequate to fill you in. In some respects the book is quite exhaustive, especially in documenting Janis's relationships with various musicians and her series of bands. The author did a reasonably good job of showing how Janis fit in -- or didn't - with the cultural and political context of her day, and also gives some fun general background on the birth of the San Francisco rock scene. Most compelling was the author's description of Janis's tormented family life, and it was those sympathetic attempts to piece together her psyche that seem the most genuine. My complaint with the book is that the writing and editing are far from graceful. It reads more like an academic thesis, often dry, lacking in momentum, and wordy. I read a lot of biographies and I am sure it is very hard to write a good one, but it can be done. Writing about musicians is a special challenge because to really do it well requires deep knowledge and appreciation of the genre and a gift for metaphor. I found the musical criticsm aspect of the book particularly lackluster and it often sounded like the author was parroting others' musical opinions. The editing was a puzzle, too -- sometimes you would want more information on someone, sometimes there was just too much information. Not a page-turner, but I'm glad I read it.



2. An interesting read, both sad and sweet, about an interesting woman who lived during an interesting time in history. It lay heavy on my heart that such a tremendous talent as Janis, could never see it herself. This book would mean much to those who remember her and the time period. It would not mean much of anything to those who weren't part of those years.



3. I was never a big fan and I'm still not, but this well written bio seems to do full justice to its mythic subject. You don't hear Joplin much these days. Her voice is so over the top and she only managed to eke out three albums before she od'd on junk, so there isn't that much to hear. She didn't make it past 27, and it's no wonder, according to this account. She was either drunk or high most of the time. She didn't fit in in Port Arthur, Tx., but she did more than most of her generation ever managed. Bisexual and straight, Janis was a mess. You wonder where she'd be today if she'd lived. Of course, she'd never have been a misfit if she had been born a little later. Her quirks would barely register today. For that, in today's culture. Janis Joplin is probably one of the ground-breakers responsible.



4. This is my fourth biography I've read of Janis' and by far the most well-written and informative. Instead of being filled with personal judgements and opinions it seems to document the happenings in Janis' life and the lives of those around her in a very easy to follow manner. Lots of history about other San Francisco bands and connections in the music world. Photos are great!!



5. „Oh Lord, won`t you buy me a Mercedes Benz, my friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends," Janis Joplin sang so outragedly, if it would be seriousness and not satire (knowing very well, that, occasionally, some wishes are not fulfilled). „Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends," - that does not matter anyway and applies to God (if there is one) not as an argument: Proof of it is clear to find. Janis Joplin has slaved away and lived, intensive as a lunatic -- this has not changed the mind of God to let her get 100 years old. Perhaps it was not God, however, who set forcefully a final stroke to this style of protesting impudently („Oh Lord, won`t you buy me a colour TV, ...I wait for delivery, each day until three"), it seems, that Janis arrived at the dead end, because she once took pure, separate heroin (her main dealer was just on holiday). „Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town, I'm counting on you Lord, please don't let me down, prove that you love me, and buy the next round..." There was not any next round, after she had taken this song ("Mercedes Benz") in the studio - a capella - the instruments should get mixed the next day. But in the night of October 4th 1970 Janis Joplin died. Eric Burdon commented: "Janis did not die of an overdose heroin. She died of an overdose Janis"

5 comments about The Good War: An Oral History of World War II.

1. I expected a history of the war through eyewitness accounts, but got a collection of cherry picked anecdotes selected to make an anti-war statement. Some of the stories are interesting and revealing of aspects of the time, but this is not a definitive history of WWII by any means.



2. If you have even the slightest interest in history in general, or just World War II specifically, you HAVE to read this book! The Good War is a national treasure containing a broad cross-cut of the generations of men and women who lived through a horrible and fascinating era. This is not a history as you've known history. This is history as a living, breathing entity. If you're skeptical of my enthusiasm, just try to get through the first chapter without wanting to read the rest of them.
   
   These interviews are guaranteed to affect you. This is the perspective that history so often overlooks: the views of the everyday man, woman, and child at ground zero--those who experience history first-hand.



3. No wonder he won the pullitzer for this book. WOW! This is an eye opening account of WWII and those who were around back then. The interviews tell 1st hand accounts of soldiers, wives, daughters, husbands sons who experienced life during this tumultuous time in history. Parts are disturbing but get down to the numbness of war and how in a time of crisis the grossness of war can seem normal. Also, very touching and poignant.



4. This is one of those books that will stay with you. Terkel interviews Americans of many social and ethnic backgrounds about how they thought and felt during World War II, and what they think of the experience now. I can't think of any other book that does this so successfully. As other reviewers have noted, the reality that emerges here should quash the childish pop fantasy that WWII was an exciting adventure with everyone pulling together, lots of singing, and victory assured. That was just not the case.
   
   What's more, "The 'Good War'" is almost impossible to put down.



5. In academia, a lot of people take swipes at oral histories for their inn accuracies, and the fact that they focus on one individuals view and not on the larger picture. This book with its continuous stream of world shaking personal stories shows why those critics are so full of hot air. It covers everything from the recoded of the 761st tank unit, which has a combat recoded that will likely never be eclipsed, to the stories of people at Pearl Harbor, people who lived through the nearly forgotten "Zoot Suit Riots" and more. Recommended reading for everyone. It's easy to read, but impossible to forget.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend.

1. This may be the best book I have ever read. It's detailed, thorough, yet very readable. You will know virtually everything there is to know about Stonewall Jackson by the time you finish reading this book.



2. I have several relatives who fought under Jackson and was a bit reluctant to read this book. Robertson is the premier historian of the Army of Northern Virginia and I thought this would be deification of Jackson. I was so wrong. Robertson has written THE definative work on Stonewall Jackson. Going back in his family history had my interest from the start.
   Robertson does a wonderful job of looking at Jackson-warts and all. He brings out all of Jackson and explains so many aspects of him and is certaintly not an apoligist. Without a doubt, Jackson was one of the most complex people to don an American uniform, next to Patton. When he was one his game he was briliant-such as The Valley Campaign, Second Bull Run or Chancellorsville. But When he was cold he was horrible-such was First Kernstown or the Pennicula Campaign. Robertson tells the story as it was, without excuses. If you want to really know the great Stonewall-read Robertsons book.



3. This is a great book that helps its readers understand how a poor orphan from Virginia became arguably the greatest general in American history.



4. It is clear that this book was a labor of love to its author. Robertson presents Jackson in a fair light that draws out all his eccentricities and quirks while also presenting his military genius and moral fortitude. The book is well written and thoroughly researched. Upon completion of reading this book you will feel that you knew the man.



5. If you want a thorough and highly readable book on Jackson, this is the one. The prose of its 700+ pages read like a good novel and keep you interested. My only comlaint is with the quality and quantity of maps. There are too few and those that exist lack details. Trying to follow Jackson's travels using the maps is well nigh impossible because most of the places mentioned in the text are not on the few maps present.

5 comments about Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This?.

1. This is a big book, and I took it everywhere with me for about a week until I finished it. I couldn't believe the depth of detail the author manages to pull off; the research must have taken years. Although I knew going in that it didn't have a happy ending, I was still upset when I got to the last chapter. What a fascinating story!



2. I liked the book, well written and I think it covered her life very completely and thorough-----but Dorothy Parker herself, I found to be a disgusting, awful, horrible and miserable person. I can't understand why everyone catered to her throughout her life so much. She was nothing! She didn't even appreciate anyone. She wasn't worth the powder to blow her to hell.



3. I had heard Dorothy Parker was a creative wit, but I found this bio to be about 200 pages too long, with little evidence of her writing. As Dorothy would say, "What Fresh Hell is This?!" As for Dorothy - didn't see much in the way of her 'talent', but as a person, she was a very negative, mean-spirited, self-absorbed, promiscuous drunk who sponged off anyone she could her entire life. What a pathetic existance. And poor Alan Campbell who was her devoted husband. It's a wonder all her excesses didn't do her in before her 77 years. I have 150 MORE pages to slug through. I will finish it but prefer to read about people who make positive contributions to humanity, not suck dry what they can from others.



4. I am a big fan and was excited to read this book. It was a good read on some days and eye-burningly boring on others. I DO suggest the book but don't feel bad about skipping over parts - you won't miss anything. It could have been 50-80 pages shorter with the same info.



5. this book is a great read and very imformative. it helped me with my project immensely.