5 comments about Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made.

1. This book not only offers the most incisive portrait of Jordan, the Bulls championship years, and the NBA of that era, but is also wonderful Halberstam, who tells the story with an epic sweep. Simply a beautiful work from cover to cover.



2. Nike turned Michael Jordan into a dream. Nike funneled in 1984 all of Nike's advertising resources in one player instead of in several teams. Nike made Michal Jordan a cultural icon and featured him as a star amidst other entertainment stars. And in the beginning Jordan didn't even like Nike sneakers. He preferred Adidas. Ultimately Nike paid Jordan in roughly 1 million dollars a year for five years. In 1984 no one realized that Nike was getting one of the great bargains of the time. Nike was a shoe company in great trouble. Michael Jordan saved Nike by his appeal to the youth. In the mean time basketball benefited from satellite reception that was just opening the world of cable television. Satellite reception facilitated cheap broadcasting. Bill Rasmussen obtained channel space on a communications satellite. His ESPN opened new broadcasting opportunities for basketball. In Playing for Keeps David Halberstam tells the tale of Michael Jordan in the broader cultural context. In this book Halberstam displays his usual journalistic skills. But somehow I missed the emotional involvement of his other books. The Summer of 49 and The Breaks of the Game learned me more about the relevance of sports.
   
   Luuk Oost



3. As someone very familiar with Michael Jordan's career I was startled by all the new bits of information crammed in this book. Its clear Halbertstam did his homework. He employed an exhaustive interview process that yields so many new anecdotes and perspectives of Michael Jordans career. I particulary enjoyed all the stories of Jordan showing flashes of greatness early on while being recruited by North Carolina. The book makes it clear that even at those early stages while no one could predict what was to come, those around Michael had never seen anything like him.
   
   Halbertstam also reveals the background story for many of those surrounding Jordan during his run with the Bulls. Namely Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Jerry Krause, Jerry Reinsdorf, and others. He delves into their lives, paints a picture of their character, and allows you to understand what motivated all these contrasting personalities along the way.
   
   It must be noted that the writing of David Halbertstam is just incredible. If you're a fan of Michael Jordan or just basketball this book is a must read. The subject could not be approached by a more accomplished author.



4. 
   I'm not a big Halberstam fan, and this book didn't change that opinion.
   
   The subtitular "world that he [Jordan] made" is never really explored in any depth, and this is a surface-skimming bio of Jordan with the addition of some mini-bios on major figures in his life (David Falk, Dean Smith, Phil Jackson, etc.).
   
   The research is limited and insight is scant as Halberstam leans heavily on material already published, pulling entire sections of the book (e.g., his thumbnail bio of Jackson) from the subject's own earlier book. He returns to quote the same two or three sports writers time and again (Sam Smith - Chicago Trib and Jordan biographer - OK, but Bob Ryan - Boston Globe - a dozen quotes???).
   
   "Playing for Keeps" is a fast-reading Jordan sketch, a 400 page magazine article, during which Halberstam defers to Jordan too frequently: no real examination of the gambling, glossed over recount of James Jordan's murder, no meaningful exploration of Jordan the global commercial icon.
   
   For my taste, this book is another disppointment from Halberstam.



5. Halberstam does it again. With a keen eye and a knack for pulling the reader in, David Halberstam is one of our great modern writers. Just when you thought you knew Jordan, "Playing for Keeps" shades new light (not all of it flattering) on our greatest modern basketball player.
   
   Well worth it.

5 comments about The Pirates Laffite: The Treacherous World of the Corsairs of the Gulf.

1. Here's the bottom line on this book: If you're looking for a colorful folk tale of these characters, with all the atmospheric (and largely fictional) accoutrements, you're going to think that it's an "unreadable, tedious, overly detailed" bore.
   
   If you want a well-researched narrative, one in which the author leaves no stone unturned in his search for authenticity, you'll like this book with all its warts.
   
   This is a history book. It reads like a history book, with its emphasis on details, which brings our attention to facts that seek the more mundane truth of the matter. The life of the Laffites is so distorted by folklore that Dr. Davis has taken a hard line on archival detail and ambiguity.
   
   He won't give you the answers to the questions he can't solve, and he won't give you the romantic picture of the setting he can't control.
   
   This is a book for people more interested in history than pre-conceived imagery. Dr. Davis is a prolific author, and we know he has a tendency to crank out the words. That makes him subject to a few grammatical blunders from time to time, as he immerses himself in the subject matter. I will never criticize an historian for getting into his subject at the MINOR expense of a few mis-chosen conjunctions and misplaced commas.
   
   For portraits of early American New Orleans and colonial Galveston, this book is a valuable contribution to the literature. I should mention that its annotation is extensive, as is its bibliography.



2. Pirates offers an interesting perspective of the period and the Gulf of Mexico. Most history is written about the winners. The Laffites are not winners, they are simply pirates operating under the ruse of being privateers. Davis portrays them as quintessentially fluid in their ability to change allegiances on a whim, or rather an utter lack of allegiance to anything other than their next deal. The smuggling of captured goods up into the bayou country is fascinating as is the acceptance of the brothers, their ilk and their trade by the citizenry of New Orleans (and the lower Mississippi River) for the inexpensive goods (and slaves)they provided.
   
   Anyone interested in the early history of the US, anyone who liked David Niven's War of 1812, the intrigues of Aaron Burr and Col. James Williamson, Andrew Jackson's efforts in the west of the early 1800s, or the numerous plots to wrest Texas from the Spanish during this period, will find this a must read. (Ditto for all who live or are interested in southern Louisiana.)



3. This is a shockingly poorly done book. Unreadably tedious, drowning in meanningless detail, of a high school level of scholarship. Offensive misspellings in French ("La Diligent", "San Domingue" and other horrors), especially bothersome since this is about French characters. One would think that the author would have troubled to check how words are spelled in French, a language of which he is clearly ignorant.



4. Several years ago as a guest at Jean Lafitte National Park in New Orleans, the park ranger informed our group, "Unfortunately, little is known about the Laffites." Thanks to Mr. Davis, that statement is no longer accurate.
   
   Jean and Pierre Laffite's lives have always been intertwined with New Orleans, Andy Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans but there is much more to their amazing story than any of us ever realized. Their influence spanned not only New Orleans but the entire Gulf of Mexico from Cuba and Mexico to Jamaica, Panama, the Windward Islands, the Bahamas and Cartagena, Columbia. More amazingly, their influence was directly felt by Spain, Mexico, Washington, New York, the Carolinas, Florida and Texas. Yes, they were so early in Texas history that they are credited with founding Galveston after they were forced from Barataria Bay.
   
   As opposed to the mythical bit players most of us are aware of, Jean and Pierre dominated piracy and intrigue throughout the Gulf of Mexico for over 20 years. Labeled as corsairs and buccaneers for their methods, these brothers ran a privateering cooperative that provided contraband goods to a hungry market and made life hell for the Spanish merchants of the Gulf. Piracy was a growth business and these boys were very serious entrepreneurs. Later, as piracy as an approved economic endeavor waned, they became critical members of a New Orleans syndicate that included lawyers, bankers, merchants and corrupt US officials.
   
   This is their story, exceedingly well researched and superbly written, an unvarnished tale of national intrigue and foreign spying that defined and redefined not only piracy throughout the Gulf of Mexico, but the wars and population movements of the time.



5. As a physician graduate of Tulane, a former Naval Officer, a sailor, and a resident of the area. I found this book to be a treasure of information. Mr. Davis has done a remarkable piece of research, and his work reads like a textbook , done as seriously as any textbook of Surgery,and should stand as a reference for those interested in the area, the time, and its violent,colorful history and future, which persists into our century. I have given copies to others who study the history of that period. I have walked all those roads he names, and Mr. Davis is historically accurate, in my opinion. Enjoy the details of Gulf life.
   Fair winds and following seas to you, Mr. Davis.
   "Local knowledge prevails".

5 comments about Story of Cole Younger: By Himself (Borealis Books).

1. THIS IS A MUST READ FOR HISTORIANS. ALTHOUGH COLE OMITS SOME OF THE UNLAWFUL EVENTS. IT'S A GREAT AND EASY READ.



2. interesting -- although need to keep in mind that Cole Younger was as big a liar as he was an outlaw.



3. Inside the mind of a Missouri guerrilla, that alone is reason to pick up and read this wonderful first-hand account of a sad and violent time on the Missouri-Kansas border. The events are real and the tempers do not quickly disappear. Both sides considered themselves in the right and some Confederates never truly surrendered though the cause was clearly lost. What happened to those men and women when the fighting was ended by officials? Read and find yourself drawn in to relate to those you may have previously despised.



4. I must recommend this first hand account of Cole's own story. It is not the only story but must always be the most important source and story of someone's life. I would have given this book a 5 as I would have several other books of this time period were it not for the "out-of-place" intro. Someone must have decided that it was important to censor and disclaim Cole's first hand account at the very front of the book. As I have done in the past, I taped these pages of attempted censorship together and noted to subsequent readers my advice on just skipping this questionable intro. Since my books usually get passed around a great deal I felt this was necessary to preserve the great and rare first hand account that Cole provided us of his life.



5. Cole was a cousin of my grandfather and I remember him talking of Cole visiting them after he was released from prison. Therefore, this was a very interesting insite into the person that was Cole Younger. It also gave some information of his background that I did not know before. An interesting look in to the thinking of a person who most people know as a name but not as a person.

5 comments about Benjamin Franklin (Yale Nota Bene).

1. While this biography of Franklin may not be for everyone I found it highly readable (except for a few sections on Pennsylvania politics), authoritative, and very interesting in the path in takes as the historian seeks to understand this remarkable man. It couldn't have been easy being a genius living in a time of superstiution, ignorance and enormous intolerance. Franklin not only navigated successfully but was able to quietly effect great change be it starting militias, hospitals, fire departments,and libraries or gently guiding his fellow colonists toward independence. He said he wanted to be remembered as a man who 'lived usefully' a suitable goal for us all I think.



2. I purchased this book because the author was a professor from the respectable Yale Univ and it was not too thick of a volume. I find the content is excellent and engaging. Morgan does not dwell too much on trivial details but seems to cover the important aspects of Franklin's life.
   
   One thing I am not happy about is the difficulty in reading this book. I can understand it overall, but there are sentenses here and there that are confusing to me. A good editor should have made some corrections to confusing sentenses. The Yale professor might be a good historian and scholar, but not necessarily well versed in composition.
   
   Am I the only one complaining about the rhetoric? Strangly, I don't read such comments/reviews from others here...



3. Edmund Morgan presents a very different approach to analyzing Ben Franklin's life. He does not go day by day or even year by year but instead looks at the overall legacy. While I think this is an interesting way to look at Franklin's life it is not as useful as Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson. It is still possible to learn a lot about his cultural legacy and intellectual legacy. I did learn things about Ben Franklin that I had not from other biographies because this does stick to the large picture. This book does cover the essentials as others have noted but I think it also sets a new and exciting trend for biographies. To get the place of a person in history it is worth looking at how they fit in to larger events as opposed to just their life. Morgan's writing is very engaging and this is a valuable addition to the literature on Benjamin Franklin.



4. I was sorely disappointed by Edmund Morgan's biography of Benjamin Franklin. Despite having America's most creative, funny, and interesting Founding Father, perhaps second only to George Washington in importance, Ben comes across boring and leaden in Morgan's account. I found little of Ben's humor and warmth in this book. While it covered Franklin's scientific and diplomatic efforts in great detail, it spoke little of how Ben helped make America...indeed, I found little to prove him a Founding Father. I persisted through the interminable treatment of pre-Revolutionary Franklin, hoping for a solid treatment of the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention, only to be completely disappointed. In sum, I feel that I know only marginally more about Ben after reading this book; I hope Issacson's account illuminates Ben better.



5. I am interested in comparing the 5 best biographies of Benjamin Franklin that have been written (thus far) in the new millennia, emphasizing Morgan's account.
   
   THE BEST 5 BIOGRAPHIES ARE (in order of publication date)
   Edmund S. Morgan's Benjamin Franklin (Yale Nota Bene S.)
   H. W. Brands's The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
   Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life
   Gordon S. Wood's The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin
   Jerry Weinberger's Benjamin Franklin Unmasked: On the Unity of His Moral, Religious, and Political Thought (American Political Thought)
   
   
   The first 4 of these biographies are presented as in the typical historically (and chronologically) biographical approach. Morgan's biography was the first written and all the later biographers mention his work and try to build (and critique) Morgan's interpretation of Franklin.
   
   There are 24 pictures in Morgan's book, no pictures in Brands's book, 32 pictures in Isaacson's book, 25 pictures in Wood's book, and no pictures in Weinberger's book.
   I am not going to write about how great Franklin was or what he did (he was great and he did so much). I want to write primarily about how each of these authors portrays Franklin's character differently by highlighting different aspects of his life.
   
   In London (1725) Franklin wrote "A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain," which seemed to show that Franklin was a young radical Deist. Later, when the pamphlet was reprinted in Boston, Franklin became a social outcast of sorts and he wrote that he was "inclined to leave Boston" because people were calling him "an infidel or atheist." When Franklin fled Boston he was 17 years old. He later wrote about that pamphlet that Ï began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful."
   Later, after becoming rich from his printing presses, writings, and scientific discoveries, Franklin became a statesman, diplomat, Founding Father, and icon.
   At the end of his life he wrote his "Autobiography," where Franklin said that he "never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service to God was the doing of good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter; these I esteemed the essentials of every religion".
   
   Morgan affirms what is in Franklin's "Autobiography" by writing, "Franklin seems never to have doubted...etc" (pg. 16). All the other biographers affirm Morgan's interpretation except Weinberger. Weinberger thinks that Franklin is purposely contradicting himself to play with his readers...to reveal a Franklin that would have possibly be called again an "infidel or atheist" if he had not cloaked his message. Morgan, however, highlights the phrase in the "Autobiography" where Franklin says "that the most acceptable service to God was the doing of good to man." After describing the 13 virtues listed Franklin's "Autobiography" Morgan notes, "What is totally missing from the list is charity, love of one's fellow man. And charity, it will become evident, was actually the guiding principle of Franklin's life" (pg. 24). Morgan says that charity brought Franklin to be a public servant; Brands agrees but says that Franklin was a skeptic and a pragmatist; Isaacson focuses on the Franklin who, it's argued, helped found American pragmatism, Wood focuses on the political Franklin who had to be "Americanized" because Franklin too often wanted to be part of the old gentry class and this was evident in some of his politicking, Weinberger calls Franklin a "radical skeptic" and says he was a political "Baconian."
   
   Morgan's work on Franklin is most like Brands's biography. Brands's work is much longer and often recounts extraneous things in accomplishing the most contextually based Franklin written so far.

5 comments about The Spirit of St. Louis.

1. I think the book is wonderful. I wanted to attain a better sense of Charles A Lindbergh and what better
   way then to read something he wrote. He is a good writer and his character comes through. It is also very
   enterntaining and down to the practically of having real substance of history in the book. I am greatful to have read it and attained a glimps of a cherished individual in our aviation history.



2. Lindbergh took some risks with this book. He wrote it out first person, present tense. (A big "no no".) And he broke up the storyline with frequent flashbacks. Somehow it all works anyway, in spite of or because of these risks.
   
   But, then again, Lindbergh was a risk taker. He put his life on the line with his Paris flight and succeeded gloriously. He does the same thing here, in the literary world, winning the Pulitzer prize.
   
   We should all stop to reflect a moment on how great a coup this was. And how improbable. Lindbergh published this book in the decade following his ill-fated attempt to prevent America's entry into World War II. In many ways his star had fallen with the American public, politically and otherwise. Yet, he was able to resurrect himself through this first-hand story of his great experimental flight. You can't keep a good man (or woman) down.
   
   My favorite part of this book is the section where he refers to his metaphysical experiences during his flight over the Atlantic. He recounts these experiences in more depth in Autobiography of Values, but it is here that they first see the light of day.
   
   This is an enthralling saga of a great moment in the history of aviation, told by the flier himself. It is a unique contribution to world literature, and as such, scarcely needs me to recommend it. Yet, I do so, unreservedly.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



3. Great account of an adventure. Includes all the early stages, including conception, financing, building, testing, and monitoring the competition. Especially relevant these days with all the X prize comparisons.
   
   The writing of the actual flight is exhaustive, and sprinkled with autobiographical anecdotes to give context and color. His accounts of growing up on a Minnesota farm surely add to the American mythos of self-determination. And his days spent learning to fly through barnstorming and the Army are notable for being enchanting, yet completely straightforward and accurate.
   
   Lindbergh says accuracy is one of his major aims. This adds to the substance of the book, since he examines his mistakes at least as much as his successes. The writing sometimes waxes poetic, as when he says "The dull blade of skill is sharpened on the stone of experience."
   
   Overall, this is a valuable book on many levels. For the historical record of a groundbreaking flight. For the description of the early days of flight, and the adventure and pioneering spirit it embodied. And for the tale of a man who conceived a great project, found the friendly cooperation of others to help him achieve it, worked through many obstacles and setbacks to prepare for it, and then finally executed it well, despite his own human imperfections and mistakes along the way.



4. Lindbergh's flight solo New York to Paris is still hard to repeat with a small, prop driven, aircraft. It is hard to summarize or constuct a methaphor to measure the impact of Lindbergh's historic flight in today's setting, it was such a great leap forward for mankind.

   The flight inspired my father, 14 years old and living on a farm in Wisconsin in 1927, to become a graduate aerospace engineer, and later to work on the design of the P-38, X-15, and the Apollo capsule, among others, many of which he could not even tell me about. It had similar effects and results for thousands of others.

   This book is well written and documents not only the flight, but the life of Lindbergh, and the logistics of pulling off this incredible event. After reading this book, I came to the opinion that the planning and logistics (including fundraising and sponsorship) may have been more difficult than the actual flight. We owe much for this leap forward to a group of individuals from St. Louis, who told Lindbergh, "you worry about the design, building, and flying of the aircraft, we will take care of the money". Reading about this portion of the effort alone, provides much food for thought about current corporate management and government projects. A case study in delegation! I found this book interesting, fascinating, well written, and inspiring. The event and the book are timeless. Reading it makes you realize the difference one person can make when perseverance is applied in a large dose.




5. This book got a little dry at times but it is a great 1-stop shop for anyone who wants to know everything about the famous flight.

5 comments about America's Constitution: A Biography.

1. This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.



2. For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.
   
   Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.
   
   That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...



3. Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.



4. Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.



5. What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.

5 comments about Calvin Coolidge.

1. The auther is functionally illiterate in economics or at least so blinded by his contemporary liberalism that he ignores the plain reading of US history. While the author considers the prosperity of the 20's the effect of preceeding Wilsonian "investment" (ie deficit spending) he ignores the effect of tax cuts under Harding and Coolidge. Is it just coincident that the economy prospers after the Harding/Coolidge, the Kennedy, the Reagan, and the Bush tax cuts? He also ignores the general productivity enhancements of the automobile, radio, and electricity, all products of private enterprise rather than government intervention
   
   The author is also inconsistent in that he repeatedly notes the broadly rising prosperity of an expanding middle class during the 20's then claims the Great Depression was caused, in part, by income inequalities. Nothing about the huge tax increases of Herbert "Wonder Boy" Hoover and FDR as well as the erroneous policies of the Fed that collapsed the money supply. While the relative stagnation of the farming sector is noted, the author doesn't correlate that with increased yields from tractors, rural electrification, and fertilizer. We just didn't need as many farmers in 1929 as we did in 1919 to feed a growing population.
   
   The stock market bubble is discussed repeatedly too and Coolidge critized for not taking the steps of Federal market intervention that would have surpressed the speculation. Yet the author notes the general opinion that the stock market crash had little to do with the general depression.
   
   The author is on firmer ground covering Coolidge's relationship with and use of mass media, especially radio and photography. Given the author's professorship in media studies at Rutgers, this should not surprise. Unfortunately, he also claims to be a professor of history. If true, woe be our college students!
   
   What saves the book from being a total waste of money is the character sketches of Coolidge and his wife. He does seem a genuinely admirable person. Even the author likes him.
   
   In summary, the book is prime example of the decadence of American academia. So immersed in their own liberal claptrap, how they can cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks is beyond my moral comprehension.



2. My understanding of Calvin Coolidge was based on the conventional wisdom, and thus not that positive. David Greenberg presents a balanced view of Coolidge. Most importantly, he expains the environment and prevailing political philosophy and the personal values that combined to shape many of Coolidge's decisions and actions. That perspective paints a bit more sympathetic picture of a man who appears to have been judged based on a future, post-depression perspective.



3. Usually, when I think of the obscure Presidents, I think of the one-term (or less) wonders of the 1800s: folks like Van Buren, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Garfield, Arthur and both Harrisons. These were men who are rarely remembered for any great acts, if they are even recognized at all. Perhaps because it was more recent, or maybe because the Presidency was a more powerful institution in the Twentieth Century, but there are fewer forgettable Presidents in that era. Harding, maybe Ford, and maybe Calvin Coolidge.
   
   Coolidge, known as "Silent Cal", often seemed like a man from a different era, which both worked for him and against him. To many people, his blandness had an appeal; it seemed to promise normality. It also kept him from being very forward thinking. In David Greenberg's brief biography of Coolidge (part of the American Presidents series), we learn that there was actually some substance behind that stoic exterior; not a lot, but some.
   
   Coolidge rose to power quickly enough, eventually becoming governor of Massachusetts, where he made his mark with his tough handling of a policeman's strike. In 1920, when the Republicans met at their convention to choose a candidate (back when conventions had more of a purpose than merely partisan rah-rah sessions), Coolidge was mentioned but it was Harding who got the nod. Coolidge got the second spot, and would rise to the Presidency upon Harding's 1923 death.
   
   Coolidge's tenure in office was more notable for his lack of action than any real deeds. Besides being a man who liked to delegate many of his responsibilities, he also believed in a very limited role for both him and the federal government. Fortunately for Coolidge, his six years in office were essentially crisis-free. Not so lucky was his successor, the philosophically similar (but temperamentally different) Herbert Hoover. Had the market crash and subsequent Great Depression happened on Coolidge's watch, he would no doubt have been as vilified as Hoover often was.
   
   Though Greenberg tries to make the argument that Coolidge wasn't that bad of a President, he only partially succeeds. Certainly, at best, Coolidge is merely average, not worthy of the respect paid to him by later admirers such as Ronald Reagan. Yes, things were prosperous during Coolidge's term, but his role in this was rather small (and he did nothing to avert the impending financial crisis). Greenberg's book is engaging and informative and relatively balanced; if you want to learn about Silent Cal, this is a good introduction to him.



4. As many small "r" republicans and libertarians have noted, Coolidge is truly underrated. Unfortunately this biography will not do overly much to boost his image or reputation.
   
   Mr. Greenberg's political beliefs get in the way of a non-partisan review of Calvin Coolidge. He does not much like his hands off philosophy nor very obviously, his small government/non intereference beliefs. This gets in the way of real examination of the man and his accomplishments. Though he admits to admiring aspects of the man's personal life, he cannot extend that admiration to Coolidge's lack of ambition or vision as president.
   
   From the begining of his national notice as governor of Taxachusetts, Coolidge is portrayed as a man who dithers from indecision rather than a man who refuses to overstep his potical boundaries (police strike of 1919). Greenberg labels Coolidege's propensity to delegate rather than do things himself as weakness rather than sound executive ability.
   
   He does note Coolidge's accomplishments in the use of radio (the new media then)to actually contact the people in lareg numbers. His ability to use the medium let him avoid the Congress and go direct to the people, something few presidents have forgotten since. With this use of radio and regularly scheduled presss conferences, he was the first 'modern' president.
   
   Greenberg's personal political philosophy gets in the way too many times of the process of looking into Coolidge. From the falsehood of tax cuts "costing the Treasury money better spent on infrastructure" (how about what taxpayers would have done with it?) to his deploring of Coolidge's decision to let the ICC languish rather than up its choking of the American railroads (FDR reversed that quickly enough, look at that result),Greenberg fails to keep his personal views from is often a pleasurable read. He does note very astutely that Coolidge was no true laissez faire man but rather on tariffs at least, a traditional Republican out for big protective tariffs.
   
   He does grudgingly though note that Coolidge was a true believer in the limits of political power. It would be this belief that would cause him to declare that he would not run for reelection. As Coolidge himself said, "the office has lost its attraction for me..."
   
   Perhaps its Coolidge's style, concern for the taxpayer, and overall simplicity that many Americans long for. For sure, many of us would love to see someone in office who did not have to pronounce on every event in the nation like our last few decades of leaders have gotten into the habit of doing...



5. The author does a good job of explaining a little known president. I am always intrigued by the story behind the story and the author of this book does it well.

5 comments about A Clearing In The Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the 19th Century.

1. A Clearing in the Distance is a great biography about a man who had great strength and deep sorrows. The first half of the book covers Olmsted's life before becoming a Landscape Architect. He was basically a very talented man who could not find his calling. Once he found it, he pursued his passion with commitment and daring that changed the way that subsequent generations have thought about their environment and surroundings.
   
   The book provides valuable insights into both Olmsted the man and the world in which he lives. There are musings that are the author's thoughts and are obviously not historical, but they are interesting too in that they give us insight into the author's biases and interests.
   
   Overall, A Clearing in the Distance is well worth reading.



2. Olmsted's life is fascinating and Rybczynski does an adequate job of presenting the highlights, but the writing style is something less than engaging. In addition, the author spends too much time on trivial matters while neglecting more important things. For example, he writes page after page about Olmsted's failures to connect with a romantic mate. Goodness, he wasn't much of looker or a lady schmoozer and this plagued him for years. There, I said it in one sentence. Had the author done likewise we might have learned more about the details of some of Olmsted's projects. If the author wanted to play up relationships to give the reader a fuller appreciation of Olmsted's psychological make-up, he would have done better to delve deeper into the parent-child relationship.



3. Olmsted and Rybcznski seem somehow destined together, and this book is a thoroughly readable and engaging introduction to both of them. If they had been contemporaries, they probably would have somehow connected as friends or collaborators or both. Through his work, Olmsted came to define the American public space as distinct from the English or French styles. Early on he was influenced by farming, the English countryside, naturalism, notables such as Carlyle and Ruskin, and by the American pursuit of happiness: our need for recreation and spectacle. In his works, he combined "economics, nature, aesthetics, moral and intellectual improvement, and salvation." He spoke of throwing "a garment of beauty around our homes."

   Author Rybczynski doesn't limit his chronicle to Olmsted the Designer, though. Rather, he devotes ample space to covering Olmsted as a man of letters, Olmsted's brushes with politics and social reform, his travels to the West, his marvelous mind for engineering (everything from pumps to drainage systems and pipes), and his varied and important organizational and administrative accomplishments. Of particular interest are the chapters in the book devoted to the slavery issue and Olmsted's voice in the anti-slavery movement; Olmsted was an idealist who felt that slavery corrupted society. He once leaned once toward joining a group of German settlers in Texas who did not recognize nor condone slavery.

   Olmsted is best remembered though as a designer who brought us the seeds of a national park system through a lifetime of projects, public and private: Stanford and Berkeley, Belle Isle (Mi), Prospect Park (Brooklyn), Central Park, park systems in Boston and Chicago, huge projects in Washington, DC, and many more. Olmsted also deserves credit as the creator of the parkway. The reader will find many familiar names mentioned here, evidence that Olmsted was an extraordinary man who lived in extraordinary times. James Hamilton (the son of Alexander), Charles Dana, William Cullen Bryant, Frederic Church, the Vanderbilts, and others all played a role in his life and work.

   Turf, trees, and lakes -- or grass, woods, and water -- to put it a different way, are the hallmarks of an Olmsted space. He abhorred clear distinctions and separations, flowerbeds and botanic beauty or decorative gardening. Instead, Olmsted embraced illusion and worked to "accommodate chaos and order." He incorporated science, theory, and art; accident and achievement. Architectural dwellings were minimized or hidden. There was careful composition of groups of trees against expanses of lawn. For us, we should be careful when visiting Olmsted's projects, for in the case of several, he lost interest due to squabbles and bickering with clients. Stanford University certainly stands out in this regard--to what degree is it considered a work of Olmsted's? Worn down by periodic bouts of depression and debt, Olmsted did not live an easy live and died from what is almost stated by the author as Alzheimer's disease. But for those that bear his mark, we can delight in the fact that they continue to survive.




4. This book strikes a lovely balance between describing Olmsted's life and personal history and his creations, parks that span the United States.

   You may be surprised to learn, as I was, the vast number of projects he undertook. How Central Park was really his first significant project. How he had to fight political and economic battles to keep it from being ruined. How he was able to truly "get it right" with Brooklyn's Prospect Park.

   Through the fascinating descriptions of the landscapes, the author also provides great insight into Olmsted's life. What struck me the most was how Olmsted, as with many of his contemporaries (U.S. Grant, Mark Twain) worried for most of his life about his finances and his career.

   This is a first rate work, told in a clear and compelling fashion.




5. One has the impression when reading Rybczynski's biographic sketch of the life of Law Olmstead there exist three problems for landscape architecture (or garden design in Europe) in America: 1) It is underappreciated; 2) It is underappreciated; and, 3) Something like the first two. Olmstead, who is best known for his developments upon Central Park, part of the Stanford campus and part of the immediate area near or around the Capitol grounds, is here shown in detail in a study which marks a departure from his earlier works: whereas the author's studies in the past centered around elements and observations of the minutae that went in making up the entirety (the part to the whole), here he focuses more broadly upon the designer himself and the varied phases of his life. Olmstead as a monumental (pun nonintended) historic American figure whose works were to influence lanscape in such a way as to mesmerize, even propheticly figure prominently in urban design and display (cf., Panama-Calif exhibitions 1900-1913 or the several Worlds Fairs); Here, it were as if a fortune teller took an enormous tea cup, spilled its contents onto the landscape and let all see the wonderous result and dream of still greater possibilities.

   One had hoped there would have been far more illustrations, composites, sketches (even if by the author), documentary photos (Perhaps he could even have shown a series of transparent overlays detailing the before/after result of the development of Central Park in the way one recalls from childhood those spooky human diagrams in ancient Encyclopeda Britanicas). There are few illustrations, yet the whole holds up well. Recommend as a getaway book subsectional to American history.

5 comments about American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy.

1. So much has been written about the Kennedys that it's getting a little ridiculous. I guess they make lots of money for the writers who keep rehashing the same old stories. Will this country EVER get over the Kennedys?! Geez, give it a rest.



2. I'm answering my own question by saying, "I don't know." I certainly enjoyed the time I spent on this book. I admired Jackie's dedication to her children, and to teaching them how to deal with their with their legacy. It was neat to see each sibling's unique personality unfold. But I'm not sure if I enjoyed it because John and Caroline are such compelling figures, or because Heyman did a good job. He waffles so much -- in the Schlossberg marriage, either Ed or Caroline is aloof, and either Ed or Caroline is friendly. Carolyn Bessette was either highly demonstrative, or she wasn't. And the passages about JFK Jr's sexual experimentation (which either did or didn't happen) seemed to come out of left field. So while I enjoyed this book, I can't honestly recommend it.



3. 
   the Billy Way interview about John & Carolyn's marriage let me
   
   question everything. Billy Way died eleven years ago.



4. C. David Heymann, John Hankey.
   Both have written about JFK Jr. Now why has Heymann's item come out now? So soon after Hankey's? After so many words written about the Kennedy's?
   
   Perhaps for the same reason Gerald Posner wrote "Case Closed", assuring us that JFK Sr. was killed by LHO, and nobody else? Heymann wants this case closed, too. Good and closed. He'll accuse the quite responsible JFK Jr. of abusing alcohol, as well as being a bad pilot, if that is what it takes.
   
   John Hankey's DVD, The Assassination of JFK Jr. was promoted on Amazon with the following words I couldn't express better, "Overwhelming, jaw-dropping evidence of foul play in the death of John Kennedy Jr., all based on official government documents:"
   
   Heymann barks on cue. Why the heavy handed affirmation of John Jr.'s culpability in the downing of his plane? Even bringing up "alcohol" something no one else has done? This author is some sort of friend? The testimony is very strong that irresponsible behavior was uncharacteristic of John (no--I'm no JFK Jr. fan; I just hate liars and smearers). Publishing companies are carefully chosen by the powers of today, and then they choose their authors carefully. Posner admitted he wrote "Case Closed" because that was the point of view desired by the publishing company who hired him.
   From all accounts, John Jr. was extremely careful, never flew without a flight instructor, and had let the FAA know his plane was approaching. When it did not land in a few minutes, the FAA was bound by law to IMMEDIATELY start a search. They did not do so for an incredible 15 HOURS. Even the Kennedy family could not get them to search until they finally placed a call to the Coast Guard who then called the FAA, who then directed a search many miles away from where the plane went down...
   and that, boys and girls, is only the beginning and it's all on record. As usual, they trust that the public will be a: indifferent, b: forgetful of original news reports, c: gullible, d: fearful of repercussions should they question the officially sanctioned story.
   Even a hard-boiled detective would jerk up and take notice; yet a supposed "sympathetic biographer", Heymann, ignores this glaring misdeed and even invents (?) a new fault for John Jr. of which, he speculates, the departed one may be guilty. How low can we go? The past few years have been instructive on that question, in many different areas of public discourse. But back to John Jr.
   Beware anything Heymann writes. As far as his hauling out the many stories we already know, the only reason this man wrote this book is to get the bloodhounds away from the culprits, who are very, very powerful.
   
   Oh that word, that word--conspiracy--that word which means to "breath together". Dear readers, do you really think there are no plotters of coups and murders who do not "breath together"? JFK Jr. was never the brainiest, but, hey, with what we've got in the Office now, brains are not what it takes. JFK Jr. could have beaten hands down, anyone they put against him. Can't have that, when you're getting ready to do the great take over. Smart or average, JFK Jr. wanted to get to the bottom of certain political crimes, and had published in his magazine, an interview with the mother of the man who killed Rabin in 1995. She said her son was a "manuchurian candidate" and the assassination had been allowed to happen--an inside job, so to speak. JFK Jr. also wanted to get to the bottom of who killed his father. And they couldn't have that, could they?
   btw, check out Hankey on the JFK Sr. murder.



5. this was five hundred pages or so of more than i ever wanted to know about the kennedy family. in my humble opinion, they talked that poor family to death. no one can come out looking good under that kind of scrutiny.

5 comments about Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick.

1. I have mixed feelings about this book. Sutin gives the impression that he interviewed me extensively, but he actually used quotes from other interviews and never met me, although I did briefly answer three of his questions by letter. Furthermore, I must disagree with most of his conclusions. Since I spent ten years with Phil, and those were the last ten years of his life, I believe that I know more about him than a biographer who never met him and simply read about him.



2. Philip K Dick (PKD) was one of the most prolific and seminal science fiction writers of the sixties and seventies. Though like many writers, respect didn't come until just before and after his death (in 1982), those who spent a lot of those decades reading and writing SF, knew and respected his work. He is also the mentor of many of todays SF writers who take on SF from an internal point of view. But PKD was the first to explore the two questions of PsychSF-What is Reality? What is God?.
   
   Through four decades of writing he never gave up his quest to write the 'big' mainstream novel. Why? More for the recognition of his place in the pantheon of American writers, but for sure for the money and notoriery (which go hand in hand). Here was a many of great talent who wanted to be Nora Robb or James Patterson. PKD felt that mainstream acceptance would allow him the ability to write what he wanted, not just what he thought would sell. Dick began as a 'hack' pulp writer in the fifties and never lost that edge or need to prove his worth in the 'normal' world.
   
   He was immensely popular in both Japan and France (but then they also love Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen) where his novels were considered classics of man's struggle against "THE SYSTEM". They were also seen as strongly socialistic and anti-fascist in nature. His 'breakthought' book "The Man in the High Castle" is his most popular and moving of the genre.
   
   As his got older and his life evolved or devolved (depending on your per- spective) his novels became more and more his musing on 'Reality'. Anyone who has read "A Scanner Darkly" will see how he always tried to analyze a thought down to it's infinite reality. Any idea you could have could be the flip side of another, and even those would be the flip side of some other question. Think of two yin-yangs painted on mirrors facing each other, giving the feeling of an infinity of images and you have PKD's insight into life and reality.
   
   Was PKD crazy or schizophrenic? Well he was a man who had lots of demons not to mention gods but he saw life in his own reality (don't we all) and refused to have it pushed aside by others. His five marriages all ended in divorce and he had three children (two daughters and one son) by three of them. But his writings and musings have been left to us all to ponder as we wait for our next rebirth.



3. Phil Dick was a difficult person. Sutin's book takes great pains to point out Dick's flaws as a human being but also his strong qualities as a person and writer. Dick was amazingly prolific because he had to be to survive. During his most prolific period he wrote novels that could be both unsatisfactory but with piercing, brilliant themes. At his best Dick tackled a number of questions that had profound personal meaning (the issue of identity, how we define human, the subjective nature of our sense of reality)but were universal enough to communicate to other artists. Dick like the best genre writers struggled to be accepted as a mainstream writer. The irony is that he is more influential than ever 25 years after his death having reached an entire generation of writers (including Jonathan Lethem, K.T. Jeter among others)and achieved financial success because of the films made from his short stories and novels (the best "Minority Report", "A Scanner Darkly", "Blade Runner" and a foreign film of "Confessions of a Crap Artist"--the worst "Paycheck", "Next" of which are at least moderately entertaining).
   
   Sutin documents Dick's personal life interweaving the themes from his novels and how the two were related throughout his life. Dick was a surviving twin. His sister Jane died in infancy and Dick's unstable family life and his own bouts of depression with mental instability. A mercurical writer and individual when he was at the top of his game, Dick later believed that he had been visited by some essence of God and struggled to fit this visitation into some sort of rational perspective. Sutin treats Dick's statements mattter of factly without passing judgement but does relate comments both from Dick's friends and doctors in discussing how this impacted his art and personal life.
   
   Well written, Sutin interviews family, friends, former friends (Dick and Harlan Ellison had a major falling out in the 70's as did Dick and Stanislaw Lem), Dick's therapists, former lovers, wives, enemies and uses Dick's journals to get at the heart of the author himself providing a well rounded, often disturbing picture of this talented artist. Evidently Dick was not an easy person to love but those that cared for him recognized his profound importance as a writer. Sutin also goes through Dick's novels and short story collections ranking them (from 1-10 in quality and importance)and providing fans an idea of his best and worst works.
   
   DIVINE INVASIONS does need to be updated since Dick continues to be critically reappraised and recognized for his importance as a writer outside of the science fiction/fantasy genre. It would also allow Sutin to examine the films made from Dick's novels comparing the themes in both. Still, this is a thoughtful, comprehensive and intelligent biography. Phil Dick deserved nothing less.
   
   A Scanner DarklyConfessions of a Crap ArtistValisFlow My Tears, the Policeman SaidThe Transmigration of Timothy ArcherBest of Philip K DickDr. BloodmoneyPhilip K. Dick: Four Novels of the 1960s: The Man in the High Castle / The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? / Ubik



4. Sutin's sometimes sarcastic style might surprise the reader at first, but this is a very insightful look at the life and work of Philip K. Dick - it's also the most substantial book of its kind we have yet. Sutin does a good job of inserting his comments about the works while sharing with us their genesis at the same time; the analysis aspect of `Divine Invasions' is fairly limited, but since it's not a scholarly book, it doesn't disappoint. It reads somewhat like PKD's own novels and short stories, with Dick himself as the central character. The extracts from the Exegesis show PKD at his speculative best and made me want to read more. One more note: in the last section, Sutin offers a `guide' in which he rates PKD's books on a 1-10 internal scale, also providing capsule reviews of the works he didn't write about in the main narrative; it's sure to provoke arguments, as he thought it would. Serious PKD readers should definitely read this.



5. By the time of his premature death in 1982, Philip K. Dick had shrewdly submitted and withdrawn so many hypothetical explanations for his chaotic life and unusual experiences that it made rational judgement and objective analysis impossible for those who were paying attention. Many people were paying attention, and waiting a little too passively for his every next pronouncement on the divine. What is amazing today isn't the great number of fans his science fiction work has generated globally, but the increasing deification of Dick as an illuminated cyberpunk guru and Fortean poster boy of the first order. Certainly Dick documented his experiences more thoroughly, if not more clearly, than most; but since millions of people experience paranormal or metaphysical phenomena every year, and some year after year as Dick did, exactly how and why does Dick stand out from the rest?

   Lawrence Sutin's book, Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick, doesn't attempt to answer this question, taking for granted as it does that Dick was a unique case and a genius; but it does given the general reader a broader overview of Dick's life than has thus far been available. Sutin states that he has respectfully declined to psychoanalyze or diagnose Dick; fair enough; but, considering the events of Dick's life, why not have given the finished text to a reputable psychiatrist for an opinion? Because Sutin, obviously an admirer of his subject, 'wants to believe,' as Dick did. Clearly, Dick, who believed his traumas at the hands of others began while still in the womb, had many legitimate physical, emotional and mental problems of a severe, documentable nature. While no psychiatrist's opinion is verity, in light of Dick's chronic drug addiction, institutionalizations, suicide attempts, and diagnoses of schizophrenia (his aunt was a catatonic schizophrenic), an objective analysis of the facts of Dick's life as it is currently understood would be helpful to fans, Forteans, and general readers alike. For those genuinely interested, separating the various facets of Dick's existence as carefully, cautiously, and sensitively as possible is a must, and the only proper route to an accurate understanding.

   Dick had been paranoid, emotionally infantile, co-dependent, and narcissistic all of his adult life when he suffered his first 'Valis' ('Valid?' 'Validation?') experience in 1972. He was also too blinded by his own unconscious egotism-which was everywhere in evidence--to consider that what he-an avowed Gnostic--had experienced may simply have been a miraculous manifestation of the divine. Mystifier Dick spent the next 9 years anguishing over his experiences in private and public, often sounding like the madman he may have irregularly been and alienating friends and colleagues.

   Though Dick claimed to be well-versed in Jung, he seems never to have applied himself to Jung's The Psychology of The Transference, a book which concisely offers an explanation for Dick's visionary, archetypal experiences without in the least flattening them into dusty meaninglessness (Jung states: "The unconscious manifests itself in a sudden incomprehensible invasion.") Considering the hatred Dick harbored for his parents throughout his lifetime, it's unfortunate he didn't stringently apply himself to Freud as well. For backward-looking, Oroborous-like Dick never tired of habitually swallowing his own tail. His vision of an immense evil face in the clouds-which he readily identified with his father--and his 'Valis' experiences--whatever else they may have been---point directly to both a highly charged and constellated father complex and a gaping maw of family romance. Dick consciously recognized his morbid ties to his family, but blithely moved beyond these, favoring KGB agents, CIA mind control, beams from distant planets, orbiting satellites and shadowy conspiracies as the more likely culprits. Like a 1970s Richard Shaver, Dick went out on some very long, thin, and unsupportable limbs to attempt to justify his experiences, as if Plato's allegory of the cave had never entered the historical record.

   When the Christian god eventually manifests in a prolonged vision and establishes itself to Dick as the true force generating 'Valis,' Dick decides to accept this deity--for a few months anyway--but not before suggesting to 'God' that the two of them are one and equivalent. Dick completed over a million words of nonfiction speculation on the nature of these experiences, and Sutin writes that Dick's final estimation of 'Valis' was that "knowledge-not mere faith-as to the true 'hyper-structure' of the universe is possible." Funny, that's something any intelligent person knows just out of the gate. Astronomy, physics, the Neoplatonists, anyone?

   Dick also seems to have conveniently failed to make the conspicuously obvious jump concerning psychic contamination. Before the 'Valis' incidents, he had written two novels (one, UBIK = 'Ubiquitous?') which dealt with strange amorphorous godlike entities who intrude unexpectedly on mortal men with devastating results. Why then didn't he draw the more reasonable conclusion that the explanation for 'Valis' could be found within his imagination and himself? Dick was not the first creative personality to experience seemingly divine inspiration; from Blake, Rilke, and Yeats to Robert Frost, Keith Richards and Tori Amos, the phenomena is universally experienced but little understood.

   Clearly an ardent fan, author Sutin occasionally presents his material in too subjective a fashion. Readers may also reject Sutin's following claims: that modern science fiction does not stem from the early work of Wells, Verne, Huxley and others; that Dick was the first novelist ever to mention the I-Ching in an American work of fiction (Sutin must have read several hundred thousand books to verify this); and, perhaps mistaking a publishing house for an audience, that William Burroughs is a 'mainstream' American writer. Most glaringly, Sutin repeats the global error of stating that 'Fred' in 'A Scanner Darkly' does not realize he is also Robert Arctor, the person Fred has been assigned to surveil.

   Fans of Dick's work, and especially those who share his seedy if prescient sensibilities, will find the book fascinating. With all the new information concerning Dick's life coming to light, the book is deservingly in need of a careful revision.