3 comments about Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA.

1. This very well-documented book tells you in precise and unnerving detail how C.I.A.operatives work and what they knew about Oswald in Mexico before the Kennedy assassination -- a lot more than you knew befoe. It is particularly convincing because it's personal, the real story of a man who lived his life inside that system of power, accountable to no one. It's a page-turner with unrecognized spies (everyone?), double agents, stolen loves, a son wants to know his father, a loyal secretary, a dangerous wedding, enough destroyed documents to make you weep and an ending that sets up for a sequel we hope can come from further investigation by this diligent author. Highly recommended for everyone, not just specialists, but there is plenty here for them as well.



2. 
   
   ...peeling off layer after layer, we (well, those who still care, but I understand there are quite numerous around the world...) can now forty five years after the facts have a much better, much clearer understanding of what took place in Dallas.
   
   The review above says it all. The book is on one level, the personnal history of the search of a son (adopted, it turns out..) for his mysterious, elusive father.
   
   The fact that the father in question happenned to be Win Scot, head of the CIA Mexico station in the Sixties (the biggest CIA operation targeted at Soviet and Cuban interest outside the US) when Oswald, according to the official story, popped up there and started making himself noticed just a few weeks before Dallas, transforms what would be a mere personnal quest into something of historical importance.
   
   Author Morley is known, appropriately, for his groundbreaking work bringing to light most notably the very strange story of George Joannides' s dealing with the DRE. Morley's work definitely showed how the CIA, deceptively, put Joannides in charge of contacts with the HSCA regarding Cuban matters, without ever mentioning his previous responsabilities as Focal Officer for the DRE during the latter part of November 63...
   
   Students of JFK's assassination may remember that the DRE was very heavily involved in the early attempts to paint Oswald as a Communist Pro-Castro assassin, participating in a conspiracy.
   
   Joannides's field reports on the DRE activities for the relevant period are still missing, and are the subject of a FOIA lawsuit by Morley....
   
   A few pieces are still missing, and we still have a few open questions, but the picture is now getting clearer and clearer:
   
   *the official story of the assassination is a fairy tale
   
   *the events in Mexico City (most notably how the station and HQ handled the visits of a known "intelligence risk" to ennemy embassies..)are crucial in understanding what took place
   
   *the inner workings of the CIA (need-to-know, etc..), and most notably the total autonomy and secrecy of Angleton's group (CI)made feasible any type of obscure intelligence operation whithout the slightest possibility of outside control or supervision.
   
   
   Great, great book.
   
   I would recommand as a companion Peter Dale Scott "Oswald in Mexico", which is the ultimate post-mortem on Mexico.
   
   If you never thought reading administrative cables could make for a riveting read, or draw the outline of the most-wanted "smoking gun", brace yourself...



3. A critical question makes the Kennedy Assassination perhaps more relevant to today than ever:to what extent is the nominal leader, the President, really in control of the permanent military, political, and communications bureacracies that shape his options? In 1961, when Kennedy became president, key components of this permannent bureacracy were thirteen years old. As a parent with a teenager there were moments of tension when one can wonder who or what called the shots. This was uniquely the case in 1960, as for eight years-- the truly formative ones in the developement of the entire post-war US society-- the CIA had been given extreme lattitude. Kennedy's relations with the permanet political and military bureacracy can serve as basis of comparison for how matters of war and peace are decided today, when blame-game controversies sometimes seem mere PR strategies for plausible denial 10.0
   
   Jefferson Morleys book leaves little doubt that no matter what our betters tell us, the CIA was to a very significant degree doing its own things in 1963. The reason this emerges far more clearly than in other books, is that Morley's never allows the ocean of detail to alter his camera agle. It is not a totalizing focus like some other books that mistake thickness for ambition. Rather, it sticks to the Mexico City CIA station, its chief Winston Scott, and his close World War Two friend and possibly his own privatest Idohaon-- the only one weirder than fellow poet and contemporary Ezra Pound-- James Jesus Angleton.
   
   Morley is carefull. When your asking about unauthorized actions of the CIA people who normally talk freely in the New Yorker have a way of clamming up. It is hard to find sources in the middle ground, for example on the question of who knew what when about the Bay of Pigs. Far easier to treat this grey area as the blacktop of the Langley 500, the way Tim Weiner does in his childishly simplified and baldly propagandistic narration of Kennedy relations with the CIA.
   
   How does he get insiders to talk for a book that is lethal to the government sanctioned version of the assassination? By not oversating things. By mentioning enough right wing cubans without so many as to lose sense of thier handlers. By clearly delineating who was in charge of what CIA operation, and who didn't know about them as well. We can see the critical wires cross, and are not confused in a whirl of unessential relations. We can see the extra piece-- George Joannides-- being added like one too many bones in an ankle and the clarity with which one could mistake treason for the logical coorination of a counterintelligence
   operation. Individuals are not blamed here, but the flow chart that teaches how the Cubans were "turned" is clear for the first time. At least for me, but I'm gradual.
   
   Also Morley tells the story from the persepctive of Win Scotts family. This "works" in many ways. It might just be the footwear necessary for treading accross one the most contested and and important middle grounds -- between president and permanent bureacracy-- in twentieth and 21st Century history.
   
   This work stands in welcome contrast to recent books that mistake the shere number of mafia people who were involved with anti-castro opperations between 1959-63 with actual causal importance in the assassination of JFK. So often books like Ultimate Sacrifice emphasize the Mafia unconvincingly, because their CIA contacts merely seem outnumbered on the page. Morley goes to the quixotic center of the maypole: one has little doubt of this as he reads about Angletons very different, and very compartmetalized relations with Winston Scott and his secret sharer within the US embassy in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips.

5 comments about His Excellency: George Washington.

1. There are many review about this book so I will not go into a lot of detail.
   First I will talk about the narration. One reviewer was very critical. He said the pace was very slow. I liked the pace and the reader has a very clear voice. The other review also mention he could hear the readers stomach or something. There are places like on the third disk where the reader takes long pauses after a paragraph and you can hear distracting noises. I think it is the reader trying to swallow or bring moisture to his mouth. I don't think it is his stomach.
   I do think Ellis had an agenda and stuck to it, sometimes in spite of the facts. Ellis tries hard to bring Washington down from the God like status he believes many hold of Washington.
   Ellis tries claims that Washington was in love with a married woman, Mary Fairfax, just before marrying Martha. He states the evidence for this is just in three letters that aren't very clear. Yet he claims anyone disagreeing with his conclusion most have had their minds alreay made up.
   Ellis criticizes the plans British leaders made in the Braddock incident. He justifies this because they made these plans without knowledge of the Ohio region. Yet when Washington does the samething later on it is evidence of a personality flaw. "Washington felt he was superior to his superiors." Washington had first hand experience, that almost took his life and did take the life of many close to him. I think he should be given a little more credit than Ellis does.
   Overall, however, I think Ellis did a good job. Ellis is human and I disagree with some of his conclusions. Readers need to realize historical writers are not divinely inspired and therefore are not free from error. Ellis did a good job in presenting the details and I just did not always agree with his conclusions.
   Ellis also had an objective. He wanted to demonstrate how Washington became the man that others would choose over what seemed like more qualified men like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and other to be our first president. He also wants to keep his work at a reasonable lenght.



2. I was very disappointed with the disrespect shown toward George Washington. If you remove the negative comments made by Ellis about Washington, the book would be shortened by one half. Throughout the book he makes accusations about Washington's motives. According to Ellis, almost every decision that Washington made was based on some sort of arrogance, pride or self-esteem issue. And all of this coming from a man who lied about his own past and was severely reprimanded by his employer. Washington was beloved in his own time and now. I certainly understand that people have their flaws...and Washington was no exception. In the final analysis, this was a slander of Washington's character - I would definitely not recommend this book.



3. My only real gripe about this book is that it was too short. Because Ellis has such an ability to produce readable history books, I believe a 700-page book on Washington would have been more valuable and not been too bogged down in detail. In fact, there is so much about the American Revolution that is not discussed in this book. That was a bit disappointing.
   
   On the positive side, it's a very quick read and informative. I learned a great deal about Washington's temperament and his relative sensitivity to criticism, which surprised me. The book was naturally pro-Washington, not that anyone could really justify an anti-Washington stance. Ellis gives Washington perhaps too much credit for liberating his slaves in his will; Washington could have made a greater impact by freeing them while he was alive. Regardless, this is a great book for someone with minimal history background because it's short and easy to follow.



4. "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is a brief but illuminating view of founding father and first president, George Washington. It briefly tells about what little is known of his boyhood, and then quickly moves on to his first public adventures in The French and Indian War. Mr. Ellis follows Washington from his first retirement after that war to Mount Vernon, Washington's pride and joy. From there his frustration with British authority (specifically in commerce) is followed to it's conclusion by his part in the American Revolution. Washington then tries to retire again, but is called back into service (very grudgingly) as the new republic's first president.
   
   If there was anyway to categorize this biography, it is as a myth buster. Many of the ideas we have about George Washington are, while not lies or wrong, are not exactly completely accurate. He is also presented as not so much forging the new nation as lending his credibility to the other men who's ideas were more sound (like Alexander Hamilton's bank and treasury policies or George Mason's protests against the English monarch). He is also shown as much less effective in dealing with pet projects like emancipation of slaves and a more respectful treatment of Native Americans. On a personal front Washington is miserly and land hungry, and benefited by very aggressive land schemes and ventures that may seem unscrupulous by today's standards.
   
   But he is also proud and unbending in what he thought was right. When he chose a course he stuck to it usually no matter what the outcome may be (though usually worked in favor of Mr. Washington. He was a devoted husband and father to Martha and her two children. And he treated his slaves better than most; he refused to split up families despite the economic problem this produced.
   
   I have seen many complaints of this book, saying that Ellis is trying to destroy the reputation of this great man. I do not think so. I have not done the research that Mr. Ellis has done, but I trust that the evidence bears him out. The book was entertaining and thought provoking, and I am glad I read it. Most recommended to anyone with an interest in the early American history and it's founding fathers.



5. The thing that stands out as being most erroneous in this book was the beleif that Mr. Ellis has that Washington was not involved in the practice of slavery in any way on his own volition. According to Mr. Ellis, the slaves on Mount Vernon were his father's, his brother's and his wife's, but not his, and he had no authority to free these slaves, even though he privately opposed slavery. Mr. Ellis supposes that Washington opposed slavery, even though he shows not evidence to support this other than the fact that he did not work his slaves. In his book, Mr. Ellis has submitted that Mount Vernon ceased to be a working plantation not due to Washington's advanced age and possible exhaustion, but due to Washington's opposition of the practice of forced labour.
   
   I also found it very interesting that Mr. Ellis took pains to make Washington at times a deist, agnostic and even an atheist. Once again he submitted no hard evidence for this, but it is inferred from from the fact that Washington was not the most proliferative writer of theology of the Revolutionary era. Since Washington never wrote a major work of religious philosophy on the subject of Christ he must had not believed in Christ seems to be the opinion of the writer. But if Washington did have religious views outside the norm for those days, why didn't any of the numerous rivals that Ellis mentioned bring those beliefs to light? It was well known the Jefferson used the press to attack Washington, and Adams when he viewed them as political rivals and not as friends, but he never mentioned their faith.
   
   I also take issue with the idea that this book depicts Washington as a bloody-minded general in the mode of Grant, and not as a man who learned his limitations as a military leader. Washington seems to have come to the realization that he was no field commander, but was far more effective in the role of the face of the resistance, and Commander-In-Chief. Furthermore, due to the ineffectiveness, and questionable loyalty of his officers, as well as the loss of his men, he felt the need to commit to a very limited number of engagements in the war until the French military arrived, but Ellis feels as though Washington jealously held on to his commission at the expense of his men with the aim of enhancing his own glory. Washington's firm belief that the war would be won by the French military, and the French economy was missed by Mr. Ellis, but most other scholars have accepted this as a fact.
   
   Mr. Ellis seemed to miss the idea that Washington was a product of his time. Generals kept their command until death in those days, there was no transfers, and no reassignments at those times. Southern plantation owners owned slaves in those days, and that was how it was. And lastly, all members of polite society were fundamentalist Christians, even though Mr. Ellis prefer the founder of the United States not be. Maybe I should amend my review to recommend this book to anyone who wants to see Washington as a Liberal Northeastern Politician from the early 21st century , and not as a Christian/planter/general from 18th century.

5 comments about The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

1. Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.
   
   This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.
   
   Very easy to read - see for yourself.



2. I found the book discussing many facts that I had already studied because I always felt that our teachers were mouthing what was fed to them by the Great Northern Machine that rolled over the agricultural South and therefore wrote the history books.
   
   This book is as much about the Republican Party, their insincerity, bigotry and their military-industrial complex as it is about Lincoln. Good or bad, we should look at history in its full context and this book gives us a good start. You may also want to do as I do and Google those parts where you want more knowledge on the subject, good or bad. No such book is without its faults.
   
   One fact that most blacks miss, is that while Lincoln emancipated them, for political reasons, the results of the war and the way "reconstruction" was carried out in the South for the next decade, caused hatred and kept the blacks as second class citizens for another one hundred years and even today, they are struggling. Lincoln and Obama's own state wanted laws, making free black's persona, non grata in Illinois. This did not happen to England, Spain, and France who did not fight a war and kill their own people to free the slaves.
   
   The Democratic Party finally saw the error of their ways but the Republican Party would like to still keep this hate, status quo.
   
   George Bush, like Lincoln, is careful to not keep written word of his misdeeds and of his administrations secretes. Also his lackeys are destroying and hiding their actions as well. He is also guilty of some of the same crimes as Lincoln and even more which are too numerous to name here. He says that History will show him to be a great leader. HA! He must think that history will be as kind to him as it was to Lincoln. Lincoln and the Republicans had the benefit that the winner of a war writes their history. This is not the case for Bush or the Republican Party. Maybe this book will throw a little light on what happens when Americans believe, without question, all the propaganda that is thrown at them.



3. Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my Ph.D in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school!



4. I read this book after seeing a few libertarian critiques of Lincoln, thinking they made sense, and hearing this was a good summary of the libertarian arguments against Lincoln. I found the book very compelling, and would ask critics of the book and Lincoln to stop focusing on the trees and look at the forest of Lincoln:
   
   -Why did habeas corpus have to be suspended?
   -If slavery was the reason for going to war, why was the Emancipation Proclamation not issued until the war was over a year old, and why did it explicitly keep slaves in border states enslaved?
   -Why did Lincoln imprison thousands of Americans and shut down tens if not hundreds of newspapers?
   
   Even if you think the author selectively picks and chooses quotes of various people to make his points, it's hard to read this book, think about what actually happened from 1861-1865, and not have a much different opinion of Lincoln than what most of the United States currently does.



5. Let me say, right off, that this is not a biography of Lincoln. It is not even a character study because most of Lincoln's character is never touched here. This is a study - I think it fair to call it an attack - of one aspect of Lincoln, his ideological purpose in fighting the Civil War. However, it is a determined, fact-filled attack, worth reading.
   
   I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.
   
   There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.
   
   So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.
   
   However, Dilorenzo's reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.
   
   There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America's Joseph Stalin.
   
   Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.
   
   The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view - in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.
   
   The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author's pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author's narrow focus.
   
   I don't think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo's. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to "The Union." He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer's judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.
   
   For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.
   
   The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.
   
   I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.

5 comments about Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson.

1. I can't tell you how somehow comforted I am that there are others out there who "got it"! Alan Pell Crawford has written a remarkable book. It's been a while since I found a book so intriguing that I could not put it down!
   Jefferson was a complicated man -- and here in the 21st century, it's almost impossible to REALLY understand the thought processes, the logic, the "why?" of someone who lived under very different circumstances. We are products of our time. And so was Jefferson.
   The beauty of Crawford's work is that he bridges that chasm -- as best as anyone can -- to explain HOW, for example, an ex-president (and creator of the Declaration of Independence!) could end up in such financial dire straits. How the times and political climate played a role. How family squabbles and obligations add to financial strain (some things never change!).
   And yes, how it was very possible that Jefferson could have fathered the children of a slave. (I commend Crawford for not dipping into the "sensational" or treating the topic as some kind of an "exposé." He dealt with facts and probabilities - his explanation as to how the architecture of Monticello could've been conducive to "nocturnal visits" was beautifully researched, and yes, believable.)
   So many historical biographies are frankly dull. Laden with facts, but missing that spark of life that makes a book breathable. Twilight at Monticello is a wonderful read - and very, very thought-provoking.



2. Rarely does a nonfiction text grab hold of one's imagination in such a powerful way. Only pages into the text any reader will find a story that while seeming familiar will be rediscovered as if for the first time.
   
   We were surprised at the quick emotional connection with this towering figure of American beginnings. Thomas Jefferson would have been considered a renaissance man in any era, but his presence at this pivotal point in history contributes to the good fortune of all who would follow.
   
   American history comes alive as the story of a young Thomas Jefferson sets the stage for what would become his later life at Monticello. To have reached the height of accomplishment during his time as President of the United States should have been enough. This text adds to the story all that came afterward, and how a man beyond the high watermark of his career can live out his days in such a way that his legacy is not diminished, but secured for the ages.
   
   Of particular note is the study of Jefferson's evolving perspective on slavery; how a nation can speak to injustice when it is so deeply tied to a protected economic system. Students of any era will benefit from the study of a slowly changing paradigm; one that echoes through the years to the present day and beyond.
   
   Absolutely worth reading; a masterful work by author Alan Pell Crawford.



3. Alan Pell Crawford brings an elegant writing style, a compelling narrative and insightful analysis to this powerful look at Jefferson's final years. With this book, he joins the first ranks of historians on the founding fathers, building on his success telling the bizarre tale of Virginia aristocrats-gone-wrong in a look at the 18th Century's Trial of the Century, "Unwise Passions."
   
   Here, the young Thomas Jefferson portrayed in a distorted way in the HBO series, "John Adams," as a callow, aloof stylist-for-hire is shown in Crawford's book in a far richer, more nuanced way: a still-vital political thinker riding horseback in his 80s who combines an evolving radical view of democracy and the drive to build the University of Virginia with with a fractious family life and mounting debts. Crawford has an eye for the telling detail -- looking at the way Jefferson arranged for an escaped slave to be captured and flogged -- and enriching that narrative by exploring the various philosophical rationalizations Jefferson used to justify his gradualist, if not outright hypocritical, approach to slavery.
   
   The book has an economy of sytle that makes it an enjoyable read, while offering a penetrating political, religious and philsophical analysis of Jefferson's thought that makes his ideas both more accessible to modern readers and a welcome contrast to more ponderous or glib works on our founding fathers.
   
   It's a must-read for anyone interested in a fresh look at this unique Founding Father, the way he lived and what he really believed.



4. ........Thomas Jefferson never lost hope. And that alone would make him remarkable, because his last 17 years were filled with trouble. Dr. Crawford has given us an excellent study of the final years of a very great man. While not a biography in any conventional sense, the first 50 pages give us a fairly complete overview of Mr. Jefferson's first 66 years. Upon leaving the White House, Jefferson went home to a rundown farm, a family filled with strife, massive debts, and had to face it with no pension [Presidential pensions didn't arrive till Harry Truman needed one]. Without his daughter, Patsy, and grandson, Jeff, even he would have crumbled.
   
   Thomas Jefferson always dreamed of establishing a haven for his family. Unfortunately, there was no money to do it, but that didn't stop him from trying. He loved his grandchildren, and lavished them with gifts...and the debts got worse. He tried to farm...but tobacco had depleted the soil...and the debts got worse. He co-signed a note for a friend...and the debts became impossible. His grandchildren had problems among themselves...and his heart was broken. His son-in-law was a piece of garbage [notwithstanding three terms as Governor of Virginia]. Still, Jefferson tried to stand by him. He hated slavery, but kept his own slaves. Thru it all, Jefferson never lost faith, never ceased his interest in public affairs. And, he founded the University of Virginia. Old, sick, broke, and beset; he made it work.
   
   Dr. Crawford has an interesting take on the "Tom and Sally" controversy. While appearing to side with those who would vote "guilty", he freely states that there is no proof, and there are other alternatives. But, he then makes a point I haven't seen before, and for which I admit I have no ready answer: if Jefferson wasn't having sex with his slave[s], he was perfectly willing for others to do so...family...friends...casual acquaintences...day-laborers. Not a protecting master.
   
   Thomas Jefferson was a man of many parts, massive ability, and endless contradictions [which never bothered him], to whom we owe much. He was not without faults, and most of his problems were of his own making. Still, he never lost faith in himself, his family, or America. Some of the stories and pictures will make you cry. But, you will in no wise question that a true giant walked among us.



5. At one point in this beautifully crafted book, Crawford details Jefferson's effort to rewrite the story of Jesus, portraying him more as a man than a deity. In many ways Twilight at Monticello performs the same service for Thomas Jefferson. We come to know Jefferson as a human; concerned with the welfare of his family, troubled by turbulent financial circumstances, bruised by controversy and yet driven by convictions that remain intact throughout the turmoil.
   
   I differ with the assertion that the book shows only the negative side of Jefferson. On the contrary, I think the author demonstrates a great deal of admiration for the man and his political achievements. The fact that Crawford casts Jefferson in flesh, rather than bronze, makes his story more accessible and his life more inspirational.
   
   The author has taken the approach of the nonfiction novel popularized by Capote and Mailer into the realm of historical writing. We can only hope he will influence others to do the same.

5 comments about Under a Wing: A Memoir.

1. Reeve Lindbergh gives a most interesting overview of her very famous parents - her father with his eccentric behavior - her mother with her focus on life through the eyes of a true poet. Her parents would be proud of her writing skills and her father would probably have given her rare praise for this particular book as well as her others. Kathleen Wyatt



2. I really have enjoyed reading Reeve's memoir of her family. She has an amazing memory and can describe details of any past situation like it just happened minutes ago. I am always amazed by people who can do that (especially since I am not one of them). I come from a famous family too and enjoyed reading this book because I have always been fascinated at hearing about someone elses recollections of the past. Reeve's family experience isnt much different than my own family's and in some cases I laugh because some of the stories she has told (i.e. burping a fountain pen) is the same as my familys. My grandfather, who's stories are much the same as Charles Lindberg's, was also raised in Minnesota (St. Paul & Hallepin) so I was delighted to hear Reeve inform the reader of her father's recollections of this same period and place.
   
   Reeve writes her book in a way which makes you feel like your her best friend. She opens her soul to you and pours out all that makes her happy and sad. Although I am confident that this book will be considered one of the best memoirs of its time, I am sure that her family will be very glad she wrote it because she has unearthed the legends of her family's past and how it made them who they are. This is truly a great book...



3. What I especially like about Reeve Lindbergh's memoir is its candid and utterly sincere tone. This is not a dusty historical treatise; it is a simple sharing of thoughts and experiences. The reader is drawn into the life of a young girl with remarkable and famous parents. We already had an idea of what it was like to live with Charles Lindbergh from the diaries of his wife, Anne Morrow. Now Reeve's book gives another view, helping to round out the picture. Along the way she presents us with snapshot images that offer glimpses into his character. Charles Lindbergh wasn't an easy man to understand; and if he is difficult for us adults to get a handle on, what was it like for his offspring? Reeve tells us in her straightforward and heartwarming manner. This book should be an essential part of any Lindbergh fan's library. I highly recommend it.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



4. Reeve Lindbergh tells stories that we want to hear about everyday life with her famous, complicated father and her intelligent, artistic mother. Reeve's delicate, precise prose is reminiscent of her mother's style of writing. A reviewer said of Anne Lindbergh that she "combed" her life for meaning and the daughter seems tuned into that same compulsion. It helps that she writes with as much insight as did her mother. The passage that describes the hours mother and daughter spent together after the death of Reeve's child is heartbreakingly revealing of the private Anne and her anguish after the kidnapping and death of her own child. Reeve's reminiscences of flying with her father (she was not an enthusiast) and her longing for her enigmatic father are poignant. She does not avoid discussing Lindbergh's perceived anti-Semitism; she does not attempt to defend him but rather keeps her emphasis on the effect this controversy had (and has) on her connection with him. I challenge any daughter to read Reeve's account of her visit to her father's childhood home without weeping.



5. There can be no doubt that Reeve Lindbergh's memoir is the most touching book about that family that I have read. Through her eyes we go beyond the covers of other books and see what it really meant to be a Lindbergh.

   They were almost a closed society onto themselves, yet they still experienced the same joys and sorrows as the rest of us. We find the man who was depised as an isolationist to be a concerned and loving father who read to his children.

   We dine with the children at their grandmother's house and we soar above the Connecticut house on Saturdays. The famed aviator at the controls and a bored child in the rear seat.

   After reading this book I felt very attached to this famous family. Being the same age as Reeve herself, my only knowledge of the Lindbergh's was the famous flight and the kidnapping as I read in history books. Now, after this book, I feel as though I have become part of them.

   It can only be summed up in one word, wonderful.

5 comments about FDR.

1. This was a remarkably readable account of the 20th century's greatest president. Lord knows FDR wasn't perfect, and Smith doesn't shy away from discussing those points, which include FDR's court packing plan, the effort to squeeze out conservatives in elections, backing away from government assistance in the midst of recovery, and most importantly signing off on Japanese internment after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Stunning mistakes indeed. But FDR's successes were far grander. It's easy to recite the standard litany of Roosevelt successes, which Smith does well, but we also learn that FDR was a more caring, intelligent, and involved person than he has often been described as. Of some things that FDR has been criticized for, Smith offers evidence to support the need for a more nuanced appreciation of FDR's skills. First, though people often claim that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression - it was WWII that did that - Smith accurately points out that millions of Americans benefitted from the New Deal. Second, realizing that everyone wishes FDR did more for black suffering in the US, Smith makes an interesting point in noting that FDR's true base of support for lending support to the British cause against Nazi aggression was Southern conservative Democrats. That is, if FDR pushed civil rights, he could not have taken important steps to help the Brits against Hitler. Third, though Smith didn't really go after the claims that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked, it's clear from Smith's excellent summary of the lead up to the Japanese attack that FDR clearly allowed no such infamous thing to happen. Finally, Smith forcefully defended FDR's handling of the Holocaust. Ultimately there wasn't much more FDR could have done.
   If I had to point out any flaws in the book, I guess the last couple of chapters seemed to be more rushed than necessary. It's as if Smith became a bit tired of the project. I suppose there's some legitimacy to the approach, for FDR himself was worn down at the end of his presidency - and life. A nice epilogue summing up FDR's achievements would have also been sweet, but it wasn't necessary.



2. A great book about a great and not so great man. I was surprised of his and his wife's treatment of their children. They both had so many other interests that I wonder who actually raised their children. Mr. Smith gives a well rounded, but very detailed account of FDR's life, including both the good and bad decisions he made. The only drawback I would note are the footnotes. I had to have a bookmark for the text and for the footnote section. In doing so, it took me a lot longer to read. I have recommended this book to several people since finishing.



3. I chose FDR because I knew so little about him, he died before I was born and I had always been intrigued by what I knew of his life. I read it over a 2 month time span. I loved every page, it was so well written. When he died, I felt like I had lost a favorite uncle. We sure could use someone with his vision now!



4. It's unseemly for a scholar like Jean Edward Smith to perpetuate the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. Talk about a cheap shot!
   
   On the other hand, I don't find this book the hagiography others have called it. Indeed, Smith takes FDR to task, for his attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court; for his tin ear for economics, when he prematurely tightened budget policy in 1937, plunging the nation into "the Roosevelt Recession"; for his refusal to back anti-lynching laws; and for his attempt to intervene in state politics against those he regarded as not supportive enough of his New Deal.
   
   I admire the way Smith tries to unravel the relationship between FDR and Eleanor. Husband irresistable, wife not very much fun. Inevitable infidelity. Eventual modus vivendi. Sound familar? After the polio, Eleanor was not the kind to lap dance for Franklin, though apparently Princess Martha of Norway was.
   
   In both Depression and war years, Roosevelt was not "the decider," as some presidents try to portray themselves, but the master of promoting outstanding deciders, from Hopkins, Morganthau and Ickes, to Marshall, Stimson and Eisenhower. The fact remains that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president, and for Smith to recognize this, even to celebrate it, does not detract from his scholarship.



5. This is without a doubt the greatest biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that has ever been composed. The book has a tremendous attention to detail, and Smith is able to record even the driest bits of history with the liveliness of a village storyteller.
   
   Now, this book is not without faults. At some times the story shifts from incident to incident with every paragraph, and he doesn't give some events the attention that they deserve. On the other hand, he may have perhaps given too much attention to insignificant events, and could have used that space elaborating on other points. However, I still feel that this is the best possible biography, and it is not so long as to make it impossible to read (although it is still rather long).

5 comments about A Slave No More: Two Men Who Escaped to Freedom, Including Their Own Narratives of Emancipation.

1. Recently two new important African-American slave narratives have come to light, published here along with scholarly commentary for the first time. They are considered significant by historians because they support a theory that slaves played a role in bringing about their own freedom. Traditionally slavery is thought to have ended with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation - Lincoln freed the slaves, we are taught in school. However, is it possible that the slaves themselves played a role in their own freedom, that their own actions, conscious or not, helped bring about Emancipation? This is what today many historians contend, and these two narratives support that view. "For most slaves", Blight says, "freedom did not come on a particular day; it evolved by process." It was the process of waves of slaves escaping into Union lines as the war moved south, often forming shanty towns of "contrabands" (as the Union called escaped slaves, they were initially classified by the north as property). Eventually something had to be done about the"contraband" and Lincoln signed some limited laws that gave them freedom, which eventually morphed into the Emancipation Proclamation. But it was the slaves desire for freedom, willing to risk life by escaping, that forced the issue of Emancipation. Further, many of these freed slaves then took up arms and joined the Union army. It is estimated over 700,000 of the nearly 4 million slaves found freedom through this "process", the remaining 3.3 million achieving freedom with the 13th Amendment.
   
   Whatever the historical debates, these narratives are interesting and even thrilling. Although not as well written as Frederick Douglass, in many ways the adventures of these young men are more real and tangible - as private documents they were not written to be published, not filtered through an editor. They were meant for friends and family and thus have a rough, raw real edge to them.
   
   David Blight has done a great service to historians and the public by both publishing the original sources and summarizing and expanding on them. Each of the two narratives has a corresponding chapter that re-creates the narrative in more detail and clarity for the modern reader. In addition there are two chapters that examine what happened to the men after the war including some fascinating pictures. No two slave narratives are alike and these will surely not disappoint as important historical case examples and thrilling stories. America has two new unsung heroes representative of 100s of thousands who sought and found their own freedom.



2. This book makes the Civil War period and slavery come alive, partly through the real voices of 2 emancipated slaves, and partly through the consumate writing skill of the author. The level is just right: carefully documented sources (endnotes) that authenticate the story, plus a wonderfully accessible writing style that is clear, never boring, and quietly compassionate. This is an engaging book I recommend even to those having only a casual interest in history.



3. The book provides an in depth look at the lives of two black men who were determined to escape slavery. The book also reveals the hopelessness experienced by slaves in their daily lives. It also exposed the cruelty of slave owners, who were considered in all other respects to be genteel and upstanding citizens in their community.



4. History buffs in general will find "A Slave No More" a highly valuable read. For students of American history, and particularly for those who are interested in the Civil War and Reconstruction period, this book is must reading. There are not many first-person accounts by former slaves available to us. This volume contains two such narratives, hitherto unpublished: one is by Wallace Turnage and the other is by John Washington, both former slaves who found their way to freedom during the Civil War. David Blight presents them here in their original form "with virtually no changes to the grammar and spelling," although he has done some minor editing in their structure (primarily providing paragraph breaks) to assist in reading.
   
   The reader is not, however, immediately thrust into the narratives themselves. Blight spends the first 162 pages introducing us to the two writers, using genealogical data, and to the context in which the narratives were written. Turnage's and Washington's escape to freedom occurred during the chaos of this nation's most bloody war (over 600,000 casualties) and amidst a political and cultural conflict (state's rights and slavery) which had been ripping the country apart for many decades. It is, I think, essential to understand the plight of the Black slave on a personal level, to understand what it means to be someone else's "property," completely and totally subject to someone else's will, to recognize and accept that slaves were not thought to be fully "human." Blight does an outstanding job of providing the necessary background for the narratives.
   
   I recommend this book to all readers who love the study of history. It is a valuable contribution to the genre.



5. There have been many books about slavery and the brutality of the life that so many people had to endure. Much of this has been documented by authors and historians, and told about in history books and fiction alike. Part of this record includes the slave narratives, first person accounts, written by slaves themselves, that detail their hardships and trials, and most of them, recounting their path to freedom. David Blight has two such narratives in his new, and frankly, phenomenal new book: A Slave No More: Two Men Who Escaped to Freedom, Including Their Own Narratives of Emancipation. This is a book for your shelf.
   
   Blight starts the book with a brief review of the history of slave narratives, the distinct differences between pre and post-emancipation narratives, and how these two remarkable narratives fell into his possession, both within six months of each other. He then retells their own lives, giving background and general information (including some from other slave narratives) to make the two men's accounts more whole.
   
   The rest of the book is the actual narratives of both John Washington and Wallace Turnage. And what a powerhouse of writing both of these narratives are. Both men, finding their path to freedom during the Civil War, both with help from the Union army. But each man found his path to freedom in his own unique way, and both accounts are riveting memoirs of using wits, guts, and determination to ensure their survival.
   
   It's so personal to read these. You get a sense of the men behind the words, it's almost like you are eavesdropping on a grandfather recounting his younger days to a granddaughter. The narratives are edited by Blight, but he largely seems to keep a hands-off attitude with both of them, leaving the reader the chance to experience the author first hand. You leave the narratives painfully wanting more ... even though Blight has provided more.
   
   These narratives paint a picture of true American heroes. Men who lasted, despite incredible odds against them, to live and thrive beyond the situations they found themselves in. When Washington gets to live, as a freed man, in the same house in which he served as a slave, the sense of triumph is palpable, even though Washington is not gloating one bit. Much has been said about the brave soliders that lived and died for the American cause. These two men exemplify that to the fullest.
   
   I finished this book with a sense of awe and wonder with these two men, and a desire to want more. This book is a true piece of scholarship, adding to the growing richness of slave narratives. Hopefully, as time progresses, we will unearth more views of this time long past, to remember and appreciate once again.
   
   A true five star book!

5 comments about Life Is So Good.

1. This book enlightened me and really got to me, much more than I expected. I was delighted to read about the life of a 102-year old african american man from the south, as I am a 30-something white woman from MT. He has a lot to teach us, and a lot to remind us of and has a way of doing so that makes us thankful for what we have. George Dawson is a gem and I am pleased that someone took the time to put his story on paper. What a great book!



2. Even though this book was published six years ago, the message of "Life is so good" is timeless. It is a window into a world that we are all a part of, but some of us rarely see. Truly memorable! Dawson sees literacy as an incredible gift and he in turn gives the reader numerous ones in return.



3. Richard Glaubman's "Life Is So Good" is a real comeuppance for anyone whose outlook towards life runs along the lines of "I wish I had done X, but I'm too old to start now." Here's a man, George Dawson, who learned how to read at age 98. As a USA Today review aptly summarizes, "Dawson has become a literary hero, a testament to the power of perseverance." First-time author Glaubman expertly fleshes out Larry Bingham's award-winning 1998 Fort Worth Star-Telegram short story.
   
   Dawson's tales of life in the Jim Crow-era South, his unquenchable work ethic, and his travels throughout North America make for compelling reading. Here is a man who was never given a shot to read when he was younger - economic circumstances forced him into full-time manual labor at a very early age. Despite significant hardship, his optimism and sense of self-worth never waver. The title really sums it up well here. Glaubman's final words from Dawson are "Life is so good and it gets better every day."
   
   As other reviewers have noted, Chapter 1 of this book could stand alone as among the best short stories you'll ever read.



4. I like the memoir because George Dawson never gave up his dream to read and write. George was born in the late 1800's. His parents were not slaves, but his grandparents were once slaves. George was raised in Texas. His family was poor, and he never attended school. Georges started working at a very young age, drawing water from the well each morning for the house. George worked alongside his father in the fields. The work was hard, so was their life. They had to watch what they said and went in fear of the K.K.K. Twelve year old George went to work, and stayed with a white family to help out at home. His cousins came to live with his family because their parents died, so George was needed at home. George left home at twenty-one and worked in Tennessee building levees. It was two years before he returned back home.
   
   Life is So Good is a story about George Dawson's dreams of receiving mail, learning to read and write at the age of ninety-eight, and his work ethic. I can relate to George's hard work and his work ethic. I beleive in hard work and doing it right the first time.
   
   This book is sad and tells of struggles he had to go through. It is not easy reading at first because the chapters jumped around. But overall, it is a good book to read.



5. "Life is good just like it is"(233). "Don't worry about what someone else thinks. Just do the right thing and take pride in yourself"(214). The owner of this optimistic way of thinking toward life was George Dawson, the grandson of an African American slave, who worked hard his whole life but was illiterate until he turned 98 years old. From the time George Dawson was a young boy, he learned the importance of hard work from his father and gave up going to school to help raise his younger siblings since he was the oldest son of five children. Dawson felt that school was only for children, and he was never aware of adult education classes until he attended an ABE (Adult Basic Education) program. He was ashamed of his illiteracy, but no one around him knew it, not even his children, until Dawson told them. When signing a sheet, he had to mark his name with an X.
   
   Dawson grew up in South, Texas, where there was a prevalence of strong racial discrimination. As a grandson of an African American slave, he suffered social injustices his whole life, including racism and poverty, but his cheerful view of life was the key to his mental and physical health. Dawson's wholesome life philosophy despite a racist society was transmitted to him from his father who taught him how to get along or deal with white people without friction; this was a realistic and functional survival skill. However, throughout the book, strong racism was well represented in every story and left me feeling sad and angry.
   
   Nevertheless, their family worked hard so they could make enough to feed the family. Moreover, he left home to travel and work for about nine years here and there, not only inside the USA, but also in Canada and Mexico. These experiences away from home let him become acquainted with the ways of the world. During his lifetime, Dawson did not waste his time and tried as best as he could in any situation and he did not lose his warm heart nor fall into any misbehaviors under difficult circumstances.
   
   He married four times and had seven children, but he sent all his children to college; for his life, he had always valued the importance of education. He had lived in three different centuries, from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century. His life's journey in education as a member of the labor class and minority is a prime example of the American history of adult education in the 20th century. Interestingly, he traced back in memory to important social events or movements by looking at old photos or listening to past historical stories. Because he could not read the newspaper, he received the news from other people or the radio. His excellent memory enabled him to become literate in an ABE program at the age of 98 years old.
   
   All through the book, I learned many actual philosophies of life. I thought that every ethnic group has its own specific life style, but I am reminded that the basic philosophy of life is not different between different races or classes; Dawson said that "...Every colored man had the same talk with his children: how to get along, how to survive in this world" (202). His philosophy was that, "A man is born to die. You got to keep that in mind and don't do no wrong" (257). This thinking was not new, but hearing these advices have produced a profound sense of meaning for me. He also said that, "You have no right to judge another human being,"(12) and "People forget that a picture ain't made from just one color. Life ain't all good or all bad"(233). He did not complain toward social injustices but kept his composure illustrated by his ability to keep calm. For example, when he was gardening for a white woman, he refused to eat a meal she served when he discovered she provided the same food to her dog.
   
   However, I think that many parts of his optimistic perspectives towards social inequality were influenced by his illiteracy and non formal educational background. Without education, he was unable to articulate his human rights and desire for social reform. Criticisms directed towards social injustice were out of his realm of concern.
   "I want for people not to worry so much. Life ain't going to be perfect, but things will work out" (246). "I guess the heat doesn't bother you people. You're fortunate that you can just keep working"(209). These positive thoughts were the cause of his long life; this book was published when he was 101 years old.
   
   The school started at nine, but he got up by five-thirty and made his lunch, packed his books, and went over his schoolwork. He had always gone to school early and had not ever been late for three years since he began to attend the adult education program. When he turned one hundred years old, Dawson could read on a third-grade level.
   I would definitely recommend this great book for any student over ten-year old children to let them know the importance of education, the value of literacy, and the sadness of a distorted social and racist environment. I also would like to recommend it to older generations who have been afraid of learning something at their age. I already handed this book to my teen-aged child with a brief explanation.
   
   Those of us who are literate and highly educated people do not know the difficulties of illiteracy, but it is a shameful secret for many illiterate people. I think that illiteracy is mentally as debilitating as poverty. As a non-native English speaker, I have a similar sense of shame in many situations as Dawson might have had; this feeling is well synthesized into the story. This easy to read, meaningful, and impressive book kept me reading non-stop from the beginning to the end.
   "Life is so good and it gets better every day" (260). I always would like to remember this philosophy of life.

5 comments about Minor Characters: A Beat Memoir.

1. I just finished reading this novel yesterday, I loved the novel and how Johnson describes life in that inner circle. I agree with other reviews, do not read this book if you're only interested in Kerouac. What I came to realise was Johnson's point of view was not only to the idea of being a "minor character" in the history it self, but the fact that women during that time frame were only considered minor characters in life. I highly recommend this novel to any.



2. Baby boomers will recognize the freewheeling emotions and impulses described in this book about the late '50s, because these were ours in the '60s and '70s. Joyce Johnson's own transformation, and her close observations of her beat companions and the intellectual stew of NY in the late '50s, give hints of what will happen to America in the following 15 years.
   
   In particular, the author has a unique ability to articulate the feelings female baby boomers absorbed growing up, before the feminist revolution swept us away in the early 70s. As a small example, she points out how girls reading adventurous novels (like On the Road) didn't separate themselves from the guys but fully inhabited the male characters. Male narrators are not a problem for women the way female narrators can be for men.



3. This was the third book I bought at the City LIghts bookstore when I was there in 2005 or so. It was this one, a book of beat poety and a collection of San Francisco short stories. I read the beat poetry and this memoir at about the same time, which was a good way of doing so, as many of them dovetailed. I bought it for Joyce, not for Kerouac, as I'm not his biggest fan anyway and have never read On the Road. Was very impressed. It does a good job of showing the lives of the beats and how they lived and the insanity moments of them. Captured the feel of it. But sad. I liked Elise and Hettie a lot and kinda want to read Hettie's memoir too. And probably the dudes at some point too. I like when she's talking about beatnik as a commodification situation.



4. This memoir recounting a young woman's years spent in the inner circle of Jack Kerouac is well-written and gripping enough to hold its readers' attention. Placed firmly in the center of the Beat Generation, her story teems with indecision and insecurity, the desire to get up and go, leaving responsibilities at home to see the nation and experience life.
   
   -- Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens



5. Joyce Glassman's memoir is very well written and is truly a fascinating account. She manages to describe a scene and give the reader a glimpse of a particular era--long gone. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the 1950's, the beat generation, women in the 1950's, and New York City at that time.

5 comments about If I Die in a Combat Zone : Box Me Up and Ship Me Home.

1. I've not read a ton of war books and picked up this one because it was on some list of best books of the century or somthing like that from Time. War must not change much, becuase the narrator in this book seems to be saying so much of what I have heard from soldiers coming back from the Iraq, etc. Lots of boredom with moments of great fear peppered in. I like this book a lot. The author's writing style is very matter of fact, but with as frugal as he is with his words, he says tons.



2. This memoir brought me closer than I had been before to the Vietnam War..it was interesting. Another perspective on the Vietnam War.



3. If I Die...is Tim O'Brien's first book, and his first of many inspired by his tour of duty as an infantryman in Vietnam, 1969-70. Later, more successful books, like Going After Cacciato and The Things They Carried, deliberately smudge the line between reportage and invented story (and, in GAC, he takes it all the way to outright fantasy) but this debut is intended as a soldier's field memoir, the facts as O'Brien saw and remembers them, although with much brooding personal commentary added.
   
   More than 30 years after its publication, the book is still quite powerful, reviving the sights and sounds of a war that America decided a while ago not to forget, but rather to remember in a way it finds most convenient. There are still too many people who believe we could easily have "won" Vietnam if we hadn't been "stabbed in the back" by politicians and hippie protestors at home; that is nonsense, much of which O'Brien's book helps disprove. Indispensible works like The Best and the Brightest, and of course The Pentagon Papers, prove how various US administrations allowed themselves to be deluded about the progress the US military might make in solving the political problems of a small SE Asian country. By the time O'Brien arrived as a foot soldier in early 1969, the war had reached a high-level stalemate, was essentially over, and the Vietnamese simply had to wait us out. LBJ and Nixon knew this but they continued to send our soldiers over to be killed and mangled; too precipitous a withdrawal would have hurt their administrations politically.
   
   What O'Brien does so well is dramatize this fatal stall at the personal level. His book is loaded with stories of ranking officers, brave men with Army careers, allowing their commands to ease off in the field, avoid pointless enemy engagements, even file fake patrol reports, especially at night. O'Brien's tour commenced a year after Tet and My Lai occurred, and in their aftermath, as O'Brien tells it, Army morale at even the officer level had sunk so low, and the failure of US goals was so evident, that few Americans wanted to get killed for a misadventure.
   
   What lingers most in my mind is O'Brien's struggle with his own self-loathing: he believed even before being drafted that the war was wrong, and made serious plans to desert the Army, but found himself unable to make that great break, fearful of the reaction he would eventually encounter from parents and the small Minnesota town of his birth. He gave in to tradition, rather than do what he felt to be right, and it seems he has never forgiven himself.



4. Tim O'Brien is one of our more gifted, living writers in the genre of war literature, and although IF I DIE IN A COMBAT zone isn't his strongest book, it is certainly worthy reading, especially in the echoing din of George Bush's Iraqi adventure.
   
   A straightforward account from a soldier's point of view, O'Brien's book includes the before, during, and after of his Vietnam experience -- especially the daily grind of soldiering (during) and the soul-searching and debate about fleeing (before) instead of answering the call of the draft. He had a rather quixotic escape plan to Sweden (of all places), but ultimately did his "duty," all along meditating on the nature of sanity, obligation, and patriotism. There are frequent excerpts from Plato, even, as O'Brien explores that ancient philosopher's take on "courage." As his fellow soldiers are killed, O'Brien details the nature of fate and chance, along with the more realistic details of the many ways "Charlie" (the VC) could arrange for you to die.
   
   Here is a typical excerpt in which O'Brien compares Vietnam to the Trojan War:
   
   "But losing [Captain Johansen] was like the Trojans losing Hector. He gave some amount of reason to fight. Certainly there were never any political reasons. The war, like Hector's own war, was silly and stupid. Troy was besieged for the sake of a pretty woman. And Helen, for God's sake, was a woman most of the grubby, warted Trojans could never have. Vietnam was under siege in pursuit of a pretty, tantalizing, promiscuous, particularly American brand of government and style. And most of Alpha Company would have preferred a likable whore to self-determination. So Captain Johansen helped to mitigate and melt the silliness, showing the grace and poise a man can have under the worst of circumstances, a wrong war. We clung to him." -- (p. 145)
   
   Philosophical riffs like this are frequent -- as are accounts of the soldiers' lives (and deaths), their nicknames for killer devices, their fear and superstitions, and their ways of surviving in a strange land where even women and children could, and often did, mean death. The literary weave of abstractions on war and history with specifics on Vietnam itself make for a potent read. You will come out of it not only feeling better educated about what Vietnam was like, but sensing that many of the arguments of the American government and the officers in charge ring as familiarly hollow now (in Iraq) as they did then (in Vietnam). If I could, I'd buy a copy for the President. But I know he wouldn't read it or, if he did, seek meaning from it.
   
   Pro or anti-war, Vietnam or Iraq, you, however, can glean something from this early effort of Tim O'Brien's. Check it out.



5. Having read O'Brien's "The Things They Carried" first, this book seemed a bit dry and journalistic in comparison. It started out slow, and never really pulled me in the way the other did. In this book there are flashes of O'Brien's lyrical, dream-like brilliance, but never as consistent or as seemingly tangible as in "The Things They Carried."
   
   In this book, O'Brien brings the reader along with him from the moment he first learns that he is to be drafted until he is on a plane heading home from Viet Nam. He shares his fears, doubts and political views of the war. The book is mostly about O'Brien's experience in the war, and how it changed him and matured him.
   
   Overall, a good book. Probably of particular interest to anyone interested in a personal, almost documentary-style account of O'Brien's experience in Viet Nam. In a purely literary sense, however, the stories in "The Things They Carried" are far better examples of Tim O'Brien's skill as a writer.