5 comments about Blood: Stories of Life and Death from the Civil War (Adrenaline Series).

1. I listened to the audio version of this book and found it wonderful. The stories are read by excellent actors. General Pickett's letters to his wife during the Gettysburg campaign were particularly moving. My attention was strained a bit by the length of the excerpts from Walt Whitman, but don't get me wrong, they were interesting.
   
   The topics covered by this book are varied, which I found helpful to understanding the Civil War years. Lincoln's words on slavery tell us how challenging it was for him to try to move the country forward on that issue. From another writer we hear how a slave family struggled during the war. We hear orders written by General Sherman, and a report on the difficult life of prisoners.
   
   I found this excellent for listening to while driving.



2. This review is going to be heavily shaded by the fact that the book turned out to be nothing like what the title, dust jacket and series name implied. My impressions of what I was going to get with the book was down and dirty hard core descriptions of fighting. Real meaty descriptions that would really provide me an insight to what it was like in the thick of the battle. What were the Calvary charges like, what were the conditions in the POW camps, what was the battle field medical care like, almost an Ambrose on the Civil War. If this book tried to document what I just described then the editor must be found and prevented from ever committing this kind of crime again. I will give the editor some credit and think that maybe the Marketing department got a little ahead of themselves in describing this book as the "Saving Private Ryan" of Civil War books.

   The book was made up of an assortment of chapters from many different authors. Some of the authors are historians and some are historical figures. The chapters were not in and of themselves that bad, it was just that it seams that they were the sale items of the literary world. They just did not flow together that well, were not particularly well written or exciting and covered far more issues then just combat. There were even some fictionalized accounts, did the editor forget this was a non-fiction book? There are no twos ways about it, I was disappointed in the book from about page 5 on. I am going to cut it a little slack in my rating just because I do not read a lot on the Civil War thus do not know how this book stacks up with others.




3. I think this would have been a better anthology if the editor had spent more time finding sources. It doesn't really seem like he searched lesser-known documents; just about everything here is pretty well known. The quality ranges from excellent to somewhat pointless.



4. I purchased this book without having any firsthand knowledge of it as a background source and I haven't been minutely disappointed. Kadzis assembled both primary and secondary sources either from the time of the Civil War or from more modern secondary source writings about aspects of that war. In any case the extracts were singularly well chosen and are valuable for my purposes. I would recommend Kadzis' compilation to any person searching for a single source of Civil War rememberances written at the time or of modern fiction writers using the events of that war around which to build their longer story. The writings he has selected are very useful and interesting.



5. This book is in a series put out by Adrenaline books and each book contains certain selections chosen by the editor. The selections are generally either excerpts from books, excerpts from diaries and journals, short stories, or an occasional essay. I look at how good the writing is, and how good the stories are.

   This is a strong anthology in many ways. It had a variety of civil war literature that helps to give a fuller picture of the civil war experience. There are many letters, stories, and diary entries and even a copy of orders given by a General. We get a picture of the inner workings of the war by people directly involved, as well as a picture of the world outside the war and how it was effected. We hear aspects of the war from multiple points of view. A soldier's fighting experience, a General's commanding view, letters to loved ones back home, the viewpoint of a young southern girl, life in a military prison. The reader gets to see not just the war, but the world it encompassed.

   The anthology is made even stronger by the selections of famous people's writings. We get to read the words of General Ulysses S. Grant, Stephen Crane, Generals Pickett and Sherman, Abraham Lincoln, and even Walt Whitman (who worked in the hospitals treating wounded soldiers from both sides).

   The only negative thing about this book is that it has no amazing powerful pieces. Almost all the selections are good (with two or three exceptions), but none are outstanding, in terms of either the writing or the story. There are no exceptionally well written pieces and no really incredible stories. This is unfortunate, but does not detract too much from the overall book. And also this volume includes some fiction, which generally does not exist in these series of books. Other than that the book is good and worth reading.

No comments about Through Five Administrations: Reminiscences of Colonel William H. Crook Body Guard to President Lincoln.

5 comments about Birdman of Alcatraz: The Story of Robert Stroud.

1. ... but perhaps not an accurate one.
   
   All biography is nothing but lies. Even a biography based entirely upon facts will have to suffer for the interpretations that lie between them and the motivations that are used to frame them. As such, those who call this book compelling or farcical have missed the point.
   
   We will never know with real accuracy who Stroud was any more than we will who Jesus was. As a dead man who did not have the advantage of having his entire life transcribed by witnesses and whose thoughts were not captured for posterity, with the exception of his own writings which seem to portray a man who felt victimized and who was likely a bit of a hypochondriac, we have little to go on.
   
   Moreover, the inclinations and purposes of Mr. Gaddis are also mysterious. Based on his other works, we can fairly, I think, assume that Mr. Gaddis was a proponent of change in the American penal system. It shouldn't surprise me overly if he had spent time within it himself, although I have no proof, of course.
   
   It is automatically clear upon a careful reading that the book is not accurate (in case the disclaimer in the front was not enough). This is clear from the ever changing and growing list of people permitted to exchange letters with him, despite the claim that he was only permitted to exchange letters with three people (it actually became entertaining to watch the list grow throughout the novel, sometimes approaching hundreds).
   
   One interesting thing about the book, however, can be noted on pg. 207 of the 1989 Comstock edition, wherein it cites the forces that caused convicts to slowly, inexorably go mad. Insightfully, it mentions that these same forces were operating on the guards. This, if present in the original edition, significantly predated the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Lucifer Effect (both by Philip Zimbardo) which elucidated the role of these forces on the guards.
   
   Despite these problems, it was an interesting book. To those who would like a clearly biased book describing one inmate's time in the prison system in the early 20th century, pick this up. Otherwise, feel free to read something else.
   
   Harkius



2. This book is nothing but a lie. Robert Stroud was an anti
   social misfit would could not function in either the outside
   world or within a prison. It was never a question of
   rehabiliatation. Stroud was a smart, capable man who made
   choices that put him where he was. He killed a man and went
   to Jail. He would have got out of Jail but for his decision
   to kill a guard.
   
   And for killing the guard, he would have been executed but for
   the intervention of a president (Wilson) who saved him. Out
   of "gratitude", he made repeated threats to kill the federal
   prosecuter who had prosecuted him for the murder of the guard.
   
   At a time of brutal treatment in prisons and strict laws,
   Stroud was given every chance imaginable. But rehabiliation
   requires that a man be willing to change first. And Stroud
   was never interested in changing.
   
   If you can't function in the outside and you can't even function
   in prison, you end up where Stroud did. Rehabiliation would
   have started with Stroud being able to function within prison,
   but he never even managed that first step.
   
   What his interest in birds showed was that he was an
   extremely gifted man in some respects, but he was also a
   viciously anti-social killer. The one could not be seperated
   from the other. And that makes it worse.
   
   Stroud never became a productive member of anything. Even
   with the birds, he could only function "productively" in
   total isolation from other people.
   
   Thomas E. Gaddis motivations for writing this book as he did
   have never been clear. But he has created an enduring myth
   and made a victim out of Stroud.
   



3. Can a man who committed 2 murders be rehabilitated in prison? Robert Stroud, aka "The Birdman of Alcatraz" could. He transformed himself into a leader in the field of ornithology, a scientist and an expert on prison reform. Through his work with birds he taught himself not only to cure their diseases, but to heal himself. This man became a productive member of society under the most stringent, unfair conditions, and I believe should have been paroled long before his death 54 years after he first set foot in prison. A very moving book.



4. I am a former National Park Service volunteer, U.S. Penitentiary Alcatraz Island. I had access to many original records regarding the prison and its inhabitants as well as former guards and inmates. This book is an (almost) complete work of fiction. Robert Stroud did not keep birds at Alcatraz, he kept them at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas but Gaddis knew it would sound better to call him the "Birdman of Alcatraz" than the "Birdman of Leavenworth." He was not mistreated by the guards at Alcatraz and he was not the touchy-feely guy portrayed in the book and movie. Because of this book, many people believed he was a great and sympathic man who should have been released from prison. Many wrote letters on his behalf and supported his release. But the real Stroud was a brutal murderer, a psychopath who married a woman (despite being gay) to use her to assist him in getting his books published. By the way, much of his book was plagiarized and much of it was simply incorrect. This book does a disservice to history and readers should not waste their time on it. If you want the true story of Stroud visit Alcatraz or contact one of the National Park Service Rangers for truthful information.



5. Depicted in this book, not as the bizarre "Birdman" of legend, but as a real man with great courage, fortitude, and intelligence, Robert Stroud is seen as a man who, despite his 54 years of incarceration (43 of which were in isolation of one form or another) maintained a dignity rarely equaled. Even with the enormous obstacles in his way, Gaddisis was able to unveil many of the injustices shown to Stroud throughout his life in prison, the ways he struggled to keep his sanity, to go from a third-grade dropout to a world-renowned expert in the health and care of canaries to an old man who was not even allowed many of the sparse comforts afforded fellow inmates. Gaddis does not try to hide the violence in Stroud's past, yet he also makes it possible to view glimpses of the man that Stroud could have been. With the last words written only one year before Stroud's death, this book was able to lay open for public view not only one man's life but also many of the injustices and atrocities with which the history of the American prison system is riddled. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

No comments about Growing Up With Featherbeds, Kerosene Lamps, and Potbelly Stoves.

No comments about The Papers of Henry Clay. Volume 6: Secretary of State, 1827 (Papers of Henry Clay, Vol 6).

3 comments about George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee (American Presidents).

1. To me as a non-American it has always been a puzzle why George Bush is generally regarded as mediocre and after reading the thoughtful and very complete biography by mr. Parmet I have not found the answer.

   Bush has been a succesful businessman after a distinguisged service in the Air Force during the war. He has served as a Senator, as head of the CIA, as the Ambassador to China in an extremely interesting period in Sino-American relations and, finally, as a Vice-President to a very succesful President. What more can you ask as preparation for the most powerful job on earth? It is true that he failed to get elected twice, but is it not a credit to any man when he overcomes defeat to embark on such an interesting career?

   The view which I get from this biography is on a balanced man who understood politics very well and also had the gift of personal integrity unmatched by most of his predecessors and certainly not by his successor.

   It is true that he was not the greatest of communicators and PR guys, but there one should not forget that he had a very difficult, if not impossible act to follow. It is to his credit that he did not even try to imitate Reagan, but that he led the country in his own personal style.

   One should forgive for being biased, as a European, to his Foreign Policy, since my understanding for and interest in the domestic scene is limited.

   Bush Presidency can be characterised by formidable leadership in two distinguished events. His conduct of the events of the Gulf War was exemplary. Powell get's a lot of the credit, but I feel that is, partly, undeserved. It was the President's deciding leadership which effectively stopped Saddam's adventure in Kuwait. Of all the wars in which the US got involved after 1945 the handling of the Gulf War was the most succesful. It has been an act of extraordinary diplomacy and brinkmanship to get e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel on one line. Haven't we all been worried about the Tel Aviv reaction after the first scud missiles hit the country? Personnaly I will not forget the relief I felt when, in the middle of the night in Europe, I saw and listened to Bush anouncing the invasion. This was clearly a leader who believed in what he was doing and who felt to be in full control, aware of the risks of his venture.

   A second event has been the unification of Germany. After all the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, it was under Bush that this extraordinary process was done swiftly and with great succes and, most astonishing, without bloodshed. I am aware that the prime players were Kohl and Gorbachov, but it could never have been done without the full support and the tacit agreement of the US. Indeed, by taking a silent and , overtly, modest role Bush did exactly the right thing. I don't think under Reagan, it would have been as smooth.

   All this is reconted in this book in fine scholarly detail, which distinguishes this author from the many, more sensational, political writings one sees so often these days.

   I think this is a fine book about a succesful Presidency and a man of integrity one could only wish would emerge more on the political scene.




2. George Bush was a paradox. Prep school- and Ivy League-educated son of an aristocratic, rich Connecticut US Senator, he transplanted himself to Texas and (with a resounding lack of success) tried to re-invent himself as an old-school Texan. He lost two consecutive attempts to become a US Senator himself, and would have been a completely forgotten political wannabe had it not been for the charitable help of Presidents Nixon and Ford, who appointed the "wimp" to some key positions, which obviously made Bush think he was competent enough to become president, because he then ran in 1980. After being destroyed by Reagan in the primaries (and denouncing Reaganomics as "voodoo"), he then received some more remarkable charity when Reagan picked him for his running mate. After eight years as Vice President, Bush finally won the presidency (although he never would have won if he hadn't have been Reagan veep) and soon proved as incompetent at that job as Dan Quayle at a spelling bee. In short, Bush was a politically unsuccessful, rich New Englander who happened to have been picked for the right jobs by a couple of America's other worst presidents, and was then able to become President himself. An uninspiring, dull story and an OK book at best.



3. The biographer was a distinguished scholar at the Conference on the Bush Presidency at Hofstra University in April 1997. Although this book was essentially finished by the time of the Conference, there is at least one footnote (Steven Burgess) referring to a paper presented at Hofstra. This reviewer suggested that Parmet look at the critical books by Jack Matlock on Bush's foreign policy and Monica Crowley's book on Nixon's devastating appraisal of Bush, but there is no evidence that this occurred. P More importantly, Parmet is weak when it comes to explaining the Bush stagnation. Despite the Persian Gulf War, there ensued the slowest four-year growth period in the postwar years. Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to the Bush stagnation rather than the Bush recession. P Whereas it is possible to describe Reagan's supply-side economics as a version of "commercial Keynesianism," there would seem to be no Keynesian bones in George Bush. Bush raised taxes in 1990, in collaboration with Tom Foley, as the economy headed downward. Later he refused to sign a reasonable tax cut coming out of Congress in March 1992. Instead he relied primarily on a change in withholding of income taxes which produced a brief upturn in the fourth quarter followed by sluggish growth in early 1993 when the tax rebates were smaller due to the previous tax cuts in 1992. P Readers interested in a critique of Bush's economic policy may want to read the contribution of Timothy Canova after the publication of the proceedings by Greenwood. 92. P

1 comments about Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

1. Franz Boas was one of the founders of American anthropology. Born in Germany, he first studied geography. After an expedition to Baffin Island and encountering Eskimos, he became interested in the Indians of the Northwest Coast. He came to America, studied the Central Eskimos and NW Coast Indians, and was hired by the Museum of Natural History in NYC. His relationship with the Museum was stormy and didn't last all that long. A second volume was planned by Cole, but he died before he could get to it. The most interesting sections of the book are the ones dealing with Boas's field work in British Columbia along with other giants in anthropology such as Teit and George Hunt. Cole does not deal a whole lot with Boas's work specifically. A good biography, though incomplete.

2 comments about Pay Dirt: Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Alaskan Gold Miner.

1. This book details Otis Hahn's experience of following his dreams to mine for gold in the interior of Alaska. After leaving his Minnesota farm to one of his sons, Hahn and his wife Audrey travel to bush Alaska, where he purchases the Bear Creek mine located about 100 miles north of McGrath. At Bear Creek they not only face the challenges of the backcountry, but also face the back breaking work of operating a mine in a remote area. They face encounters with bears, transportation and equipment problems, the wicked Alaskan winter, and uncertainties about the existence of gold in this mine. A highly readable book and an inspiring story.



2. I live in interior Alaska and have lived at a gold mine myself, and the story told here is not only interesting, but very true to life. I found it an easy read, an enjoyable story, and a book I know I will keep on my shelf and read again. Otis shares his first-hand view of the life of a miner, and tells his story with all the ups and downs he encounters with a sense of humor. Buy two copies, you'll want to share this one with a friend.

5 comments about A Hero Among Heroes: Jimmie Dyess and the 4th Marine Division.

1. You've got to be kidding! I have not read the book, only the reviews; but I saved a dog once and no one is writing a book about me.
   Alyce Holden



2. Hero is a term used all too casually in our contemporary American society. Sports figures, entertainers, and political leaders are often referred to as 'heroes,' in the popular media. However, the title of 'hero' is earned only by an exceptional display of courage and often is accompanied by great personal sacrifice. Perry Smith delivers a powerful story of why Jimmie Dyess should be remembered as "A Hero Among Heroes." As Samuel Johnson wrote, "It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives." "A Hero Among Heroes," is the story of how Jimmie Dyess lived and what led this man to accomplish such extraordinary feats of heroism.

   Perry Smith dissects the life of his father-in-law to deliver an insightful chronical of the life of an exceptional man. What compelled Jimmie Dyess to risk his life, again and again, first as a college student and then later as a U.S. Marine?

   No one could definitively answer that question, but Perry Smith allows us to look deeply into the life of Dyess and provides us with ample clues as to why he behaved so heroically. The qualities he developed in the crucible of the Great Depression growing up in Augusta, Georgia, and the leadership skills he was to hone in military service almost seem to have compelled Dyess to exhibit exceptional gallantry.

   Perry Smith vividly tells the story of why Jimmie Dyess was a true hero; a man whose deeds are worthy of being honored and more importantly, being remembered.




3. A warm family story of a real hero with a rich context that lets the reader look at America before and during WW II. Both action and insight. Also a nice exploration of the essence of courage. Too bad there aren't more of such writings to remind us of past extraordinary sacrifice and its relevance to 1999 America. A great book for 4th of July reading!



4. A Hero Among Heroes is a "must read". The story of Jimmie Dyess is truly facinating. General Smith's latest book is sure to appeal to a very wide range of readers' interests. Background information on the Carnegie Medal and the Medal of Honor is well presented and most informative. Those interested in the history of Augusta, Georgia will find Smith's view of Augusta, during the two decades leading up to World War II, well worth reading.



5. Sadly, America today seems completely bereft of heroes. Perry Smith has undertaken a labor of love to bring to the public eye the story of his father-in-law, Jimmie Dyess, a man he never met. Written primarily for his mother-in-law and his wife, Smith tells the story of a true hero, the only person ever to win both the Carnegie Medal and the Congressional Medal of Honor. Clearly, Jimmie Dyess was a man of honor, courage, and conviction.

   In telling the Dyess story, Smith also provides background and history of Andrew Carnegie and the Carnegia Medal. This medal is only awarded to "one, who at the risk of his own life, saves or attempts to save the life of a fellow man. There must be conclusive evidence that the person perfoming the act voluntarily risked his own life to an extraordinary degree in saving or attempting to save the life of another person, or voluntarily scarificed himself in a heroic manner for the benefit of others. The act of rescue must be one in which no direct family relationship or other full measure of responsibility exists between the rescuer and the recued. The act must have been performed in the United States, Canada or the waters thereof and must be brought to the attention of the Commission within two years of the date of the rescue."

   Dyess received the Carnegie Medal in 1929 for saving two women on July 13, 1928, who would have surely drowned in the Atlantic ocean. Sixteen years after saving those two women, Dyess's widow, Connor Cleckley Dyess, received the Medal of Honor posthumously for the heroic actions of her husband for his actions in leading fellow Marines in combat in February 1944 during the Roi Namur campaign against well-trained, entrenched Japanese forces.

   By telling the Dyess story, Smith also weaves the history of the times. The Depression Years are described, as well as the history of the Marine Corps. Moreover, he also provides a perspective and comparison of the two awards for heroism. The historical value of the book alone is worth the cost of the book.

   Should all Americans, both young and old, read this book? Absolutely! It describes the deep-seated values of a man who epitomized courage in the face of danger, honesty, integrity, and natural leadership. Parents would do well to have their children emulate the personal and professional characteristics of Jimmie Dyess. He is a true American hero!

5 comments about Edward Albee: A Singular Journey: A Biography.

1. I have not finished, but am completely enjoying the life story of one of America's finest playwrights. I became intrigued by something on the internet and then purchased this book. Before long I needed to read some
   of his plays. I began with his Pulitzer Prize winning "Who's Afraid of
   Virginia Woolf?" I am really getting a deep picture of Edward Albee and
   highly recommend "A Singular Journey" for anyone who loves the whole process of writing and sharing our life stories. This book was written by
   Mel Gussow, thanks to him and the wonderful Edward Albee, readers will
   travel for a time through the life and mind of one incredibly brilliant
   individual.



2. I received this book as a gift from the author's son and daughter-in-law. It's simply an amazing story, perhaps the only thing more amazing than Gussow's writing is the man that he writes about. Gussow captures Albee's natural speaking wit and amazing story in an absolutely brilliant way.



3. Gussow admires and likes Albee and one supposes that is a good thing, but one wonders if that is enough to recommend this author for the job of writing Edward Albee's biography. Many will say so, of course, because of Gussow's credentials as a theater buff. If you see playwriting as a branch of the show biz trade, then surely Gussow is your man, but if prefer to speak of Ibsen and Chekhov in the same breath as Zola and Turgenev, that is, if one sees plays as part of literature, and wishes to speak of the theater beyond box office receipts and stardom, then maybe this star-gazing journalist could be bettered. I got tired of Gussow's praise for Albee's so-called political consciousness coupled with his admiration for Albee's talent for making real estate deals. Hypocritical radical chic seems so very yesterday. Albee's career follows more or less the course of Tennessee Williams and Noel Coward; early fame was followed by years of critical scorn and popular indifference. Unlike them, Albee has had a late-term come back. Revivals open annually as do new works. Yet, what somebody has to do is evaluate their worth. Saying it is all wonderful simply will not do.



4. Albee is without doubt my favorite living playwright, so I'm a little biased, but I read and enjoyed this book, and felt like I got to know Albee a lot better in the process, without losing any of my respect for him.
   Since his plays are so much about family and the pursuit of "success", it's worthwhile to know about how Albee--who was adopted--grew up. I recommend this to anyone who admires Albee's plays, and also to sceptics who want more insight on the ideas and the man behind them.



5. This is a very good biography of Albee, and the best book available on the great playwright, but for those who consider 'The Zoo Story' and 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' to be his sole significant works should look for lighter reading. The book refuses to be salacious, sticks to the facts and offers very to-the-point criticism on Albee's plays. Albee emerges as a figure of some mystery and extraordinary talent. The book does not find any powerful new insight as in, for example, Tom: The Unknown Tennessee Williams, but the book does move along nicely and is highly informative.
   Overall, a good read for Albee's fans.
   (By the way, what's up with all of the short 1-star reviews of the book, does someone have a personal vendetta against the author?)