3 comments about Fanny Kemble's Journals.

1. I was attracted to this book after I saw the movie, Enslavement, based on the life of Fanny Kemble who lived before, during and after the Civil War. This book uses exerpts from her letters and journals to tell the story of her adult life, but it does not contain all of her written material. She published several journals, letter collectiions, and plays. Fanny was a remarkable woman, obviously much before her time. She was unusually independent and energenic, and her writing includes few of the steriotypes typical of the period. However, we are able to see how the customs of society restricted her ability to act, especilly her efforts to help eliminate slavery and improve the life of her husband's slaves. Because of her popularity as an actress she was able to earn a living after divorcing her husband, but he had control over their children until they reached adulthood. This book gives unusual insight into the lifestyles and concerns of the period. It actually reads like a novel.



2. I must say, I have never seen insight so dignified on such a subject in all my years of book review. When I read this book, every page enlighten me with an overwhelming sensation of sadness, guilt, freedom and anger. Every one of my emotions were totally stimulated by this master piece of modern society. Regardless of the date in which Fanny published this book, it still leaves a gruesome reminder of the pure agony suffered from the hands of Prejudice and Hate. I have just finished watching the TV movie of Fanny's story, and I am absolutely blown away by the extreme emotional precision used in creating this film. Let this film and this book be a lasting reminder, to the youth of our age. It is important for the younger teenage generations of this new century, understand the facts of what had to be done, to win them the lives they have today. I rate this book 5 plus stars. It was amazing. :-) ~ LiteratureLuver418thCentury... ~



3. Fanny Kemble provides us with a unique and courageous account of the 'peculiar institution' that was thrust upon her by her marriage to Pierce Butler, the wealthy scion of a Southern plantation owner.
   Already a celebrated actress when she came to America, Fanny was well-educated and accustomed to earning her own living when she married Pierce. It was only after traveling from Philadelphia to Butler Island, near Darien, Georgia, that she became aware of the full horror and degradation of slavery. She toured the plantation, helped to nurse the sick, did what she could to improve their conditions, and opened her door to all who dared to air their grievances, much to the dismay of her husband. Eventually, their disagreements on these points led to a divorce, and Fanny returned to Europe where she resumed her theatrical career.
   This volume also contains Fanny's letters to friends and confidants that provide a valuable insight into the cultural climate in England as well as America for much of the 19th century.
   These journals and letters are not only entertaining, but a must for any serious student of American history.

5 comments about George Orwell: As I Please, 1943-1945 : The Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters (Collected Essays Journalism and Letters of George Orwell) (Collected Essays Journalism and Letters of George Orwell).

1. I don't know if George Orwell is the best writer this century has produced, but he is among the most decent human beings who was also an extremely talented writer. And that decency, that honesty and sense of fair play come through loud and clear through this wonderful mix of editorial pieces and personal letters. It does not matter whether he is writing about the Socialist movement, the Monarchy, the manner in which Americans were treated in England during WWII, the English language, writing, colonialism, nationalism, anti-Semitism, or how to make a proper cup of tea, his honesty is ever-present. For he wrote these essays (I think) because although "emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, [they] should be able to exist side-by-side with reality. But this requires a moral effort." If you are prepared to make such a moral effort-or simply want to spend a few nights with a truly wonderful human being and gifted writer, I highly recommend this book.



2. It is a pleasure to read Orwell. I think that there are two major reasons for this. Stylistically he an exceptionally clear writer. His work has a quiet elegance. Secondly, he is a writer who says meaningful things. Whatever subject he writes about he writes about not only with knowledge but with real ' sense'.
   In this third volume of his collected essays, jouralisms, and letters there are a number of outstanding longer pieces, including those on 'The English People' 'Notes on Nationalism' and 'Anti- Semitism'
   He is an excellent letter writer and I especially enjoyed his insights into literature. His remarks on Conrad and Koestler and European as opposed to British Literature are sensible and insightful.
   All through this work there are scattered gems of humane perception.



3. The last review that I did on George Orwell's work was Homage to Catalonia, his compelling story of his involvement in a Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) left-wing militia regiment in the Spanish Civil War. I noted there that this is the Orwell that today's militant leftists need to read. The current compilation of articles that he did during World War II and shortly thereafter are not in that same category although they are, as always with Orwell, well worth reading. No matter the subject matter of the articles they conform to the points that he made in Politics and the English Language about using precise, clear and rational political language. Unfortunately, at the time of the Tribune writings Orwell had already made his peace, even if critically, with British imperialism. This is obvious from the subject matter of some of the articles, particularly those in defense of holding on to the old empire or at least its prerogatives. The articles themselves vary from the topical and mundane under war time conditions to the speculative but as always written in a bit of a tongue and cheek manner. That said, although Orwell by this time was an anti-Stalinist socialist of some sort he preferred to outsource the fight against Stalinism to world imperialism. Apparently, as the recent furor over his naming names of British communists to British intelligence indicates, he had no such qualms about doing so. Certainly this was not his finest hour. He left that in Spain.



4. George Orwell' (1903-1950)anthology titled AS I PLEASE is an interesting collection of his careful literary criticism and political insights which were much more often right than wrong. Readers can learn so much about not only the situation and conditions in Great Britian between 1943 and 1945, they can learn much about the international situtation and Orwell's complete disillusionment with the "Left" both in Great Britain and in Europe.
   
   This reviewer thinks that Orwell's literary criticism of Arthur Koestler is the best article of literary criticism. Orwell focused on Koester's DARKNESS AT NOON which Orwell thought was Koestler's best work. Orwell argued that Koestler was a supporter of the "Left" during the Spanish Civil War and was arrested and faced the prospect of being shot. Koeslter escaped but had to know how the Stalinists betrayed the Spanish Left during the Spanish Civil War. Koestler was a member of the Hungarian Communist Party, knew of the Stalinist purges of Lenin's Bolsheviks, and saw a repeat of all this in Spain.
   
   Orwell also had intelligent commentary of literature and humor. Orwell stated that good humor had all but disappeared in Great Britian because of political and religious sensitivity. Orwell stated that the best comedy was that which attacked hypocrisy and pretensioness. Orwell cited Aristophanes, Rabelais, Shakespear,Voltaire, etc. who did not hestitate to mock and write comedy of the self righteous and "high and mighty." Orwell was bothered by the fact that such humor almost disappeared from English litature during his life time. An interesting aside is that Orwell complimented Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton for their humor. Orwell was critical of both in some of the other essays in this anthology.
   
   Orwell not only wrote good literary criticism, he wrote solid political commentary. Readers can see the beginnings of his best known novels-ANIMAL FARM and 1984. Orwell's comments on ill feeling between British and American troops. Orwell stated that since American troops were paid at least five times as much as British troops, social divisions and hard feelings were almost inevitable. Orwell also commented that many American troops refused to admit that British casualties were larger than American casualties which indeed they were.
   
   Orwell's best political commentary dealt with such concepts as Fascism, Pacifism, the Trotskyites, the Stalinists, etc. Orwell's major criticism of the "Leftists" was that because they were anti-Fascist, they would not become anti-totalitarian because of refusal to oppose the Stalinists and Big Communism and its obvious record of mass murder and concentration camp brutality. Orwell makes hash out of the accusation that the Internatianl Jews heavilty subsidized Britian's Trotskyites. Orwell commented if that were true, one had to ask why Trotsky's supporters were always so poor. Orwell accused much of the "Left" of refusing to accept facts and assessments of World War II. For example, many of the British and American leftists commented that the Soviet Union was an example of the biblical inscription that the meek shall inherit the earth. Orwell noted that those who made this remark obviously had not read Soviet anti-German propaganda which was full of hatred and violent vengence. Orwell also noted that the Left expected British military failure while extolling Soviet victories during World War II.
   
   Orwell also expressed serious concern over the distortions and falsification of history. For example, both the "Allies" and "Axis" claimed victory when their was defeat. Casualty figures were distorted as were events. What was worse was the description of non-events or events that never occured. Orwell commented that the Leftists never wrote a word about the SovietGerman "Non-Aggression Pact" which was negotiated in 1939 with the secret protocol of the Soviets and Germans to invade Poland.
   
   Orwell made comments that his novel titled ANIMAL FARM was censored or kept from publication because of British concerns of offending their Soviet "allies." Little did Orwell know that this novel would be a best seller after he died. Orwell can also see the outlines of his 1984 in this collection of essays.
   
   One development that concerned Orwell toward the end of World War II was the emerging anti-Semitism in Great Britain and to a lesser degree in the United States. Orwell was clear that accusations and slurs agains Jewish people were patently false. Yet, Orwell was clear that facts and reason were of no avail to many because they were immune to knowledge and reasoned thinking. Orwell attributed much to a weakened Great Britain at the end of World War II, and the British Empire would soon be dismantled. Orwell argued that nationalism and the fear of the loss of Empire incited anti-Semitism among people who would otherwise not fall for such nonsense.
   
   While Orwell was wrong in some of his earlier predictions, he was honest enough to admit this and explained why which something most "intellectuals" are loathe to do. If Orwell had lived another 50 years, he would know that his important predictions came true. This reviewer was pleased to see Orwell admit he was wrong as this showed a degree of honesty that is sadly lacking.
   
   This reviewer did not like the format of the book. As this reviewer stated elsewhere, the book should have been arranged by topic rather than by chronology. However, this is a matter of taste. This reviewer strongly recommends this anthology which is part of a four volume set of Orwell's thought. This is yet another excellent collection of Orwell's great writing.



5. Sorry for the prank in the headline, it is not a comment on Orwell but a quote from the book, from the essay 'The English People', written in 44, but published later. Orwell tries to characterize the English. I would never have dared to write that myself.
   This is volume 3 of 4, and the first that I give 5 stars. It is less uneven, less self-contradictory, probably more honest than the previous 2. GO had grown up, I assume. The bulk of the book are his leaders under the name that the collection carries: As I please. He comments on events of the time, and does it with lasting interest.
   I don't want to repeat my friend Jim Egolf's summary of the book, nor his assessment of its historical value. All true.
   But Jim left out an important subject that Orwell also included, and that I want to bring to your attention. The fact is that GO was an impossible romantic about England. He honestly thought that there was merit in English cooking! One essay is called: In Defence of English Cooking.
   He lists a few items that we are supposed to accept as proof of his odd point of view. Believe it or not, one of the items which supposedly prove the high standard of English cooking are English apples. I rest my case.
   'It is not a law of nature that every restaurant in England is either foreign or bad.' Written 1945. My regular visits in recent years, all in basically friendly intention, make me conclude: if anything changed, then for the worse, because now even many of the foreign restaurants are bad.
   Dui bu qi.

1 comments about Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love.

1. It was dangerous to be married to Henry VIII. His first wife was cast away and died prematurely; the second was beheaded; the third died in childbed. When Henry was casting about Europe for his next wife, Christina of Denmark is supposed to have quipped, "If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England's disposal." Fortunately for his fourth wife, she was merely divorced (and outlived Henry); but the fifth was beheaded; and the sixth too had a brush with the king's deadly wrath. Only by her wits did Catherine Parr survive.
   
   In the first biography of Catherine Parr (1512-1548) in a quarter century (since Anthony Martienssen's), Susan James approaches her subject as more than just the sixth queen of Henry VIII (which is the context of books like Antonia Fraser's, Alison Weir's, and David Starkey's). The present book is a new, slightly shortened edition of the 1999 biography Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. The footnotes of the earlier book have been relegated to the end, and gone is the last section on Catherine's brother William Parr after her death, as are the appendices, including the love letters of Catherine and Thomas Seymour and a discussion of the painting previously thought to be of Lady Jane Grey. What remains is a lively (if abruptly ended) account of Catherine Parr's life, rich in detail about her before, during, and after her reign as queen.
   
   It is a Victorian misconception that Henry married Catherine for her nursing abilities--but she was well-versed in the medical arts of that period. She also had a humanist education normally given to noble boys at the time, since she was tutored in the same group as her brother, her sister, and their cousins, all under the keen eye of their mother Maud Parr. (Maud had been widowed young and took advantage of the independence this allowed; she was also a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon, who, ironically, was probably Catherine's godmother.)
   
   Rather, Henry became genuinely attracted to Catherine when she was still married to Lord Latimer (her dying second husband) and in the service of the princess Mary. No doubt it helped Henry with his competitive spirit that Sir Thomas Seymour was also courting the soon-to-be widowed Catherine. And it was perhaps key that Catherine (unlike Anne of Cleves) didn't offend Henry's sensitive nose: "she carried with her small jewelled boxes of lozenges flavoured with liquorice or clove or cinnamon for sweet breath."
   
   The notion of Catherine as Henry's nurse gives the impression--wrongly--that she was secure in her position. She certainly found her niche in the royal family, making peace between its warring members and restoring her stepdaughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession (she'd had practice with her Latimer stepchildren, and this part of the traditional view is correct). And she made a good and competent regent when Henry was making war in France--almost too good, though, because her conservative enemies (including Bishop Gardiner and Thomas Wriothesley) began to conspire against her. Ever since the break with Rome, Henry had been growing steadily more conservative in his religious views, although he tolerated Catherine's progressive beliefs and her choice of his younger children's tutors (enthusiastic reformers). She'd had to keep her beliefs secret during her previous marriage, especially when she was a hostage in the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace protesting Henry's dissolution of the monasteries. But now as queen, she felt the freedom to read forbidden books and argue with the king--tendencies that the conservatives exploited in their efforts to overthrow the queen.
   
   When the conservatives contrived to have Catherine arrested, she had her forbidden books destroyed and then took to her bed, sick. She was probably more sick with fear than anything, but the ploy brought Henry to her, and she expressed her fear of his displeasure and eagerness to make amends. The next day when she was permitted to visit him, Henry baited her for another argument, but she demurred, saying that she had only argued with him to distract him from his health troubles and to learn from him. This savvy appeal to his self-concern and vanity had the intended effect, and Henry received her back into favor--and into his bed. Wriothesley and the guards were not informed, and when they came to arrest the queen, Henry publicly humiliated them. The conservatives thus fell from power, and into their place came the reformers, including Edward Seymour and John Dudley, who would wield power during Edward VI's reign.
   
   Catherine, too, had influence with the new king, until she alienated him by her ill-advised affair and hasty marriage with Sir Thomas Seymour. It was, finally, a marriage for love long frustrated--but it was fateful all around. Catherine herself died in childbirth (and the child appears to not have survived infancy); Thomas Seymour went to the block; and her stepdaughter Elizabeth suffered a blow to her reputation and nearly lost her life.
   
   Susan James has written an excellent scholarly biography of Catherine, illuminating her motives and passions and highlighting her influence on the future Elizabeth I (who shared with Catherine a particular "restraint in the face of religious excess"). Catherine Parr comes across as a formidable woman, a match for Henry VIII, and a role model for her stepdaughters.

5 comments about We Shall Not Fail: The Inspiring Leadership of Winston Churchill.

1. Anyone who gave less than 4 stars for this book needs to have their head examined! This is a great book about a great man. I read a lot, but when I read that this man read entire volumes, I was impressed. The fact that England isn't speaking German today is largely due to the perseverence of Churchill. As far as good writing, Celia Sandys (Churchills grand-daughter) did a wonderful job. Any leader would learn a lot by reading this or other books about or by Churchill.
   
   I liked it and highly recommend it.



2. I am a Churchill fan and have read much by many on the subject. This book might serve as a primer on Churchill. It captures some of his distinguishing characteristics. While some of them relate to leadership, others were just extensions of his personality. He was a bullish, long winded, contrarian, egoist. Without a doubt he was also an extraordinary leader and a man for his time during WWII.
   
   Unfortunately, in some chapters Celia Sandys takes a personality style or quirk and tries to stretch it into an inspiring nugget of leadership truth for the masses. She gives anecodtal evidence of a particular facet of Churchill's outlook and then ends each chapter with Churchillian Principles. They are meant to convey that he had distilled these principles and lived by them, however, there are many biographies out there that will show you the complete Churchill. He was a leader. He was stubborn, relentless and fully taken with himself. But let's don't over do it. These were manifestations of WHO Churchill was, not leadership principles. Churchill wouldn't have changed any of them even if he discovered they weren't exceptional leadership traits. He simply would have continued on undeterred.
   
   Still, I would recommend this book to any not familiar with Churchill and who may not be up for a lengthy biography. You'll get enough for a flavor of the man or you may be intrigued enough to conduct more serious study about him. I don't think you will be able to take any one of the "Churchillian principles" and infuse it into your personal management or leadership style.



3. First a caveat to my review. I only bought this book for information on Winston Churchill, and have no interest on the business aspect of this book at all. I got exactly what I wanted, insight on Churchill the man, and even learned a bit about some great business minds. The book is full of little vignettes of Churchill, and how he operated and used his personal skills. Divided into chapters which define Churchill at his best, and even some of his worst. The gems of the book are the little stories given to reinforce thought processes of the authors on Churchill. Such as the one where Churchill, after a late night meeting, ran into a trunk G.I in a hallway. The G.I addressed Churchill as "Fatso", and asked him where the bathroom was. Churchill gave the man concise instruction on finding the restroom, then added "It is marked Gentlemen...., but do not let that discourage you." Priceless, stuff on a great man. If I were more intersted on the business side of the book a five would have been given.



4. Found the book in my case that had kind of sit there for some time. Was a book short without the library being open so why not? It was a great decision. Having always thought alot of Churchill this book was excellent to expose his deep thinking and ways with people. Any executive could learn a multitude of actions from this book. Todays world does not follow most of these ways and it probably is the reason we are in the mess we are currently in. We need more men as great a Churchill. Are you out there?



5. There is no question that Winston Churchill was an inspiring and powerful leader, probably the best that the twentieth century produced. He took over a nation reeling from defeat and standing literally alone against the mightiest military power ever assembled before the massive American forces were mustered at the end of World War II. When many were convinced that England would be forced to surrender, he rallied the British so that they held on until the Soviet Union and the United States entered the conflict.
   This book is a recapitulation of many of the actions and principles used by Churchill to achieve his war aims and at that level, the book is a success. Beyond that, there is an attempt to relate these actions to managing a modern business. While there is some justification to the comparisons, the book is very weak in that area.
   The problem of course is that the British position in the first years of World War II was a literal matter of life and death. If they failed, the nation could cease to exist and even in the best case scenario of victory, thousands of British citizens would be brutally killed. This simply cannot be transferred into the leadership of a business. The capitalist system has programmed a rate of business failures into the regular operations, so the failure of a business is at most a local catastrophe. Therefore, all such comparisons suffer from a serious, if not fatal flaw.
   The authors use the incident of the destruction of the World Trade center towers as the most similar modern incident and there is repeated praise of the American and British leaders after the fact. While some of that praise is justified, the reality is that despite the horrific nature of the event, it was a singular event, unlike the Blitz, which was nightly.
   For these reasons, I rank the book highly in the historical sense, although there is a glossing over of some of Churchill's mistakes. This is balanced by a poor rank in the modern business sense, because the situations are just not that comparable.

5 comments about My Country Right or Left 1940-1943: The Collected Essays Journalism & Letters George Orwell (Collected Essays Journalism and Letters of George Orwell).

1. This is a great collection of essays and other writers by one of the foremost socialist critics of totalitarianism and domination. It is also a great book for admires of writers such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Edward said, as all share the same overarching purpose: to be a tireless critic of power and domination wherever it may be found. It is ironic to the extreme that so many conservative revisionists attempt to claim Orwell as their own, which is due to the tragically myopic misreading of his writings, especailly 1984 and Animal Farm. Both books are condemnations of totalitarianism, and in the case of Animal farm, the final page attests to Orwell's repugnance of capitalism. Let it not be forgotten that Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War in the aid of the socialist-anarchists. This is truly a great collection, which should be required reading for those who may not be familar with Orwell's non-fiction work.



2. ...Country Right or Left is part of a four volume set of essays commissioned by Orwell's wife Sonia. Whatever the criticisms that have been made of her stewardship of Orwell's legacy, these four volumes contain much of the best of Orwell's essays, letters and diary excerpts. This volume covers the early war years and much of the writing is shaded by that war.

   This is Orwell at his finest, on one hand a confirmed socialist dedicated to fighting the right whether the Tory party or fascism; one the other hand an anti-Stalinist and critic of the left and always an anti-totalitarian.

   Contained within "My Country Right or Left" is some of Orwell's best writing. In "Pacifism and the War", a notorious piece at the time, he accuses pacifists of aiding the fascist cause. "The Art of Donald McGill" is an essay about, of all things, postcards that are popular among the middle and lower classes. The postcards themselves, Orwell argues, say much about England's political and social attitudes. It's actually a perceptive piece of pop art and social commentary. Among my favorites is the essay concerning Mark Twain (Mark Twain- Licensed Jester). Orwell, a great admirer of Twain's, is critical of him for not being forceful enough in his social criticism. He accusation is that Twain pulls his punches far too often. It's a great piece of criticism and is Orwell at his finest.

   What holds a large amount of this Volume together are the letters to the Partisan Review, a New York publication that contracted with Orwell to write commentary on England during this early war period. The issues vary from English politics, reflections on the clothing worn by the masses, attitudes towards democracy and so on. All well written, never dull and very often wrong in their predictions. There is much more here including excerpts from his diary, letters to other major figures of the day and reflections on the Spanish Civil War.

   This is some of the greatest essay writing in the English language. Even sixty years later the essay's read clearly and give insight to Orwell's thinking.




3. For years, I have been impressed by the quality of the essays in Dickens, Dali, and Others, Shooting an Elephant, and Such, Such Were the Joys. I was looking forward to reading more of Orwell's essays. I soon discovered, however, that Orwell's essays not published in book form shared all the faults of those that I had read, but few of the virtues.
   
   Many cite Orwell's honesty as his primary virtue, but these essays reveal a man who is, if not dishonest, then at least quite blind to his own experiences. He states, without any supporting evidence, that "only Socialist nations can fight effectively" (p. 67, from The Lion and the Unicorn), despite the fact that he served in an army organized along socialist lines (as narrated on p. 255), if not the army of a socialist nation, five years prior to the publication of this statement; the army was defeated decisively by Generalissimo Franco's decidedly non-socialist forces.
   
   Orwell also frequently resorts to name-calling. Those who disagree with him politically are almost invariably "reactionaries", "Fascists", or "pro-Fascist". Jack London is "not . . . a fully civilised man."; rather, he possesses a "streak of savagery". Any thought, expression, or even word of which Orwell disapproves is "vulgar", from the cartoon postcards of Donald McGill to Kipling's statement that "He travels the fastest who travels alone" to Yeats's use of the word (!) "loveliness" (Orwell also claims that "Yeats's tendency is Fascist." on p. 273).
   
   It is clear to me after reading this volume that the editors who selected pieces for the three volumes of essays published during Orwell's lifetime made the right choices; they show him at his best. The rest of the material here is hardly worth reading except as a window into the soul of a man who was incapable of viewing the world except through the distorting lens of a commitment to socialism.



4. This book is an anthology of Orwell's essays, literary criticism, letters to friends,and political criticism. Those who read this book can read some interesting letters that Orwell wrote to the editors of THE PARTISAN REVIEW on the fortunes of W.W. II involving the British. The book concludes with Orwell's diary of the war. While George Orwell (1903-1950)was a self admitted "leftist," he was not an ideologue. Orwell showed that he was a well read individual and knew very well that political labels conceal the desire for political power regardless of political titles and party affilations.
   
   Orwell was a master of literary criticism. Two examples are his review and comments on Hitler's MEIN KAMPF and Tolstoy's denounciation of Shakespear. Orwell commented that an English review of Mein Kampf favaored the German dictator. Orwell correctly predicted such praise would soon evaporate which it did. Orwell informed readers that praise for Hitler was not unusal. One must note that Churchill complimented Hitler in Churchill's book titled GREAT CONTEMPORARIES. Churchill also complimented Hitler in a speech to Parliament in November, 1938. Here Orwell shows not only his ability as a literary critic, but he informs younger readers that the political disapproval word,fascism, had a different connotation. Many Europeans including the British middle and upper classes had serious concerns of Big Communism with its record of mass murder and concentration camp brutality.
   
   Orwell showed himself again as a literary critic when Orwell critisized Tolstoy for the latter's condemnation of William Shakespear. Orwell correctly refuted Tolstoy on a couple of issues. First, Tolstoy read Shakespear in translation which may have tainted his understanding of Shakespear. Also Tolstoy tried to condemn Shakespear in lieu of Tolstoy's social philosophy. Orwell stated such criticism was useless because such criticism would have been incomprehensible to Shakespear and his English contemporaries in the 16th and early 17th centuries. Orwell also chided Tolstoy for his assumed superiority. Tolstoy could not understand why Shakespear literary work was so appealing and wrote that everyone should know that Shakespear was some sort of scoundral. Yet, Orwell wryly comments that Shakespear's literay work was available throughout the world while Orwell could not find Tolstoy's essay until he found it in a museum.
   
   The best part of this Orwell anthology are his political essays. Orwell noted that there was suppose to be a bitter political divide betwen Fascism and Big Communism. When the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 unhinged this concept and angered Communists and their fellow travellers. When asked about this unexpected turn of diplomatic events, Molotov (I believe it was Molotov) who said that the difference between Socialism (Bib Communism) and Fascism was a matter of taste. Approximately two years later when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, this view sure changed. Orwell stated that Stalin and his supporters would have called themselves Fascists if they thought such a label would enhance their power. Hitler and his supporters would have done the same. Orwell clearly indicated that men who have concentrated power will use whatever political labels to keep or enhance their complete hold on power.
   
   Orwell used the political chaos both inside the Soviet Union and in Europe to sound a serious warning that literature could be lost because of the rapid changes in political loyalties. The sudden changes in internal enemis in the Soviet Union serves as a classic example. The heros of the Workers' Paradise were concentration camp victims the next day because they could not stay current with ruling party's changing enemy's list. The Non-Aggtression Pact mentioned above is another good example. Orwell reflected that in previous centuries, literary men (an women)had "a frame of reference." Their political and religious loyalties were stable from cradle to grave. However, given the rapidly changing of enemies, literary figures had no such stability and writing could be dangerous especially in the Soveit Union where writers were either sent to concentration camps or committed suicide. Had Orwell lived longer, he would have been pleased to see such Soviet writers as Boris Pasternak (DR. ZHIVAGO) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn who surived the Soviet purges and yet were awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In fact, Solzhenitsyn sent ten years in a Soviet concentration camp from which he emerged as a literary giant. Orwell did suggest that totalitarian thought control could not survive the spirit and soul of thoughtful men.
   
   Among Orwell's many talents was his ability to expose political hypocrisy. Many of the British leaders were demanding that Mussolini be charged for "war crimes." Orwell scoffed at this nonsense. Orwell cearly indicated to his readers that those British leaders who demanded such "war crimes" trials against Mussolini were exactly the same British leaders who ten years previously praised Mussoini for the acts they now wanted to charge as war crimes. Orwell had a solid memory, and when Mussolini moved against the Communists and aided Franco in the Spanish Civil War, many of the same British leaders who wanted to try Mussolini for "war crimes," praised him for his actions which they awkardly tried to define as war crimes ten years later. Among those who praised Mussolini in the 1920s-1930s included Churchill.
   
   In parts of the book Orwell showed himself as a military expert. When there were threats of a possible German invasion, Orwell had practical suggestions of arming the British citizen with the most practicle weapons. Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War and volunteered for W.W. II, but illness kept out of that conflict. Orwell also took pride in his position in the Home Guard.
   
   This reviewer has one criticism. Orwell's letters to the PARTISAN REVIEW, political essays, literary criticism, etc. should have been arranged by topic rather than by time sequence. This would enable readers to easily read the book. However, this reviewer could not have done nearly as good a job. Orwell simply enhanced his position as a great novelist, literary critic, political thinker, and excellent prose writer. Readers would to well to read this book to have a better understanding of the war years (W.W II) than is presented in badly written textbooks and popular accounts. This reviewer highly recommends this book.



5. This is my first volume of essays, articles and letters by Blair/Orwell, which I read thanks to Jim Egolf's recent review here. The man contradicts himself quite a bit, but I do not regret the time spent. Who wants to get bored by people that one always agrees with?
   The main theme of the book, due to the time of the sample, is England in war with totalitarianism/fascism/nazism. Though Orwell was in his heart a leftist, he had enough insight from own experience to understand the nature of totalitarianism, he was a dedicated anti-Stalinist, and he staid away from party politics.
   And yet: his long essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn', one of the core texts of this book, gives a political vision, that puzzles me. He displays a surprising naivete about the strength of economic planning in socialism. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight, we know that a central planning bureaucracy can be the right approach for a short term effort, like for a war, but will be hopelessly lost in inefficiencies in 'normal' times. Orwell was deeply convinced that state capitalism or socialism was the future, there would be no return after the war.
   I have decided to ignore his political recipes, but to enjoy his social analyses: England is a rich man's paradise, but the ruling class is too stupid to run the country.
   One of his main contributions to our understanding of the confict of the time: his juxtaposition of the ideology of hedonism (which nearly led the West into the abyss) against the ideology of social sacrifice, which helped the Nazis to succeed, luckily only temporarily.
   I wonder if he fully understood the real antagonism of Hitler to the West or if he got deceived by the temporary diversion of the pact with Stalin. (I notice when I browse the reviews and comments in this neighborhood that there is a certain willingness to say, the West should have gone with Hitler against the Soviets. Oh my, what a misunderstanding.) Probably he did. In a nice remark after the German attack on Russia he says, had this happened before the Hitler-Stalin pact, there was a chance of serious political disturbance in Britain, because the ruling class might have wanted to join the attack on Germany's side.
   My favorite text in the collection is the essay on H.G.Wells' inability to understand Hitler. Wells was the man who envisaged scientific progress against reactionary societies earlier in the century. He was unable to understand that Hitler's essentially irrational and superstitious ideology was capable of an efficient alliance with the other side of science.

5 comments about Younghusband: The Last Great Imperial Adventurer.

1. Even more astonishing than the fact that Younghusband marched with bayonets to Lhasa, to convince Tibetans they must have no truck with the Russians, was the complete reversal of his political persepective a mere thirty years later. The result was the historical precedent of an arch imperialist striking camp to cross over to the opposition, becoming, in the process, a hero for Indian nationalists. Ironically the man responsible for the death of hundreds of Tibetans fighting for their freedom would today be a huge thorn in the side of China, had he survived to join their successors in their continuing cause. The contradictions in his character are beautifully and arrestingly captured by French, who has done a marvellous job of bringing this paradoxical enigma to life in a thoroughly entertaining manner. I can't believe this book is no longer in print. Books this good should never be out of print.



2. Patrick French's biography of Francis Younghusband - `the last great imperial adventurer' - is beautifully written, insightful and above all humane. I say humane because at first glance Younghusband could easily be ridiculed - in his youth for a reckless jingoism that cost lives and embarrassed the British government, and in his later years for a brand of religious mysticism that was, well, bordering on insane. It is a tribute to French's understanding of his subject that he digs beneath these criticisms to bring us a deeply satisfying portrait of a surprisingly complex man.

   Frank Younghusband's most pressing claim on history was that he led the British expedition into Tibet in 1904 - even at the time seen as being based on a flimsy pretext of stopping Russia from gaining control of central Asia. Some 2000 Tibetans were killed as the British force made its way into Lhasa. Younghusband forced a treaty on the 13th Dalai Lama pledging loyalty to the British empire. The Government in London found this deeply embarrassing and almost immediately repudiated the treaty. Younghusband himself was convinced of the threat Russia presented to British interests in India and central Asia.

   But while the expedition created popularity and profile in England, it finished any chances of a senior career with the civil service. Younghusband served in India in a number of middle-ranking posts and wrote books about Tibet and his earlier exploits as an explorer in central Asia. In 1906 he played a bit part in the Jamison raid in South Africa - in the pay of The Times. Most importantly Younghusband thought about spirituality. Literally following a mountain top revelation in Tibet, he increasingly devoted his life to promoting a form of all-embracing spirituality which led in its silliest form to speculations about aliens living on a planet called Altair. His later years were devoted to boosting this form of spirituality by establishing popular movements in England, lecturing widely including in the US, running the Royal Geographic Society and supporting Indian independence.

   All of which one could easily ridicule. But French brings life to his subject and a subtlety of understanding which makes the book absolutely engrossing. One reason is that Younghusband was a prolific letter writer - the India Office Library contains 600 "bulging" boxes containing his papers. Through these we see into the private mental world of Francis - his arid and rather sad marriage to Helen, and the relationship in his very last years with Madeline Lees - truly the love of his life. These insights allow French to paint a much deeper and satisfying portrayal of a complex man - a person of his time and place but also a complete iconoclast, some one who pushed against the establishment for most of his life. Remarkably, this is Patrick French's first book, written in his mid-twenties. He is a natural, a gifted writer with a fine sense of judgement. No sentence rings out of tune in the whole book. In short Younghusband is worth every one of its five stars. If the publishers have any sense they will issue a reprint soon. If not, readers should do everything they can to somehow find a copy of this wonderful biography.




3. The book traces the life of one of most intrepid explorers of fin-de-siecle 19th century, Sir Francis Edward Younghusband (FEY).

   FEY was a man of many talents : explorer, writer, athlete, spy, thinker and philosopher. Born to English parents in `Imperial' India, FEY spent his early years at Dharamshala where he came under the influence of his maternal uncle Robert Shaw. Shaw was a keen adventurer and trekker himself which left a deep impact on the young FEY.

   FEY started his career as an official of the British Empire and because of his treks to China (Gobi desert) and within India (Rohtang Pass) he became recognised as an explorer. At the turn of the century, Tibet remained one of the last uncontrolled regions in the 'Great Game' between Russia and Britain (for increasing their respective influences in the Asian region). Curzon, afraid of Russia's growing influence over Tibet (later proven unfounded), decided to send an 'expedition' to Lhasa headed by Younghusband. (Curzon and Younghusband were very good friends). The expedition was actually a military adventure to assert British influence over Tibet. In this most celebrated event of FEYs life, he along with British troops trekked from Sikkim to Lhasa and signed the Treaty of Lhasa which was responsible for Tibet coming under British influence (till the Chinese took it over much later on).

   In the post-1904 phase of his life FEY tried, unsuccessfully, to enter politics. However, this physically-resilient explorer turned into a philosopher after he had a near-fatal accident in Belgium. He also led the `probably' unsuccessful attempts over Mt. Everest in the early-1920s (`probably' because till date the mystery over whether George Mallory did reach the summit in 1924 before perishing to his death remains unresolved).

   The author also discusses in detail FEYs relationship with his wife Helen and daughter Eileen. PF also uncovers an affair FEY had in the twilight of his life with Lady Madeline Lees.

   The book is also interspersed with details of how the author, Patrick French retraces Younghusband's steps. In true `living in his shoes' style, the author traces the travels / exploits of FEY. PF travels to Dharamshala, China, Gobi Desert and Sikkim to get a feel of Younghusband's travels. The research done by French on events of more than hundred years ago is commendable and extremely detailed. He even details the number (67) and type of shirts FEY took with him on his 1904 expedition !

   Patrick French has also recently written `Liberty or Death' which is a lucid and well-researched account of the Indian Freedom struggle.




4. This book is an excellent achievement by a young British writer. Patrick French has meticulously researched all aspects of the life of this enigmatic 'empire builder'.

   In the earlier stages of his life Francis Younghusband was desparately trying to gain fame and get his name into the annals of British imperialism. In a way time was running out, for the era of great explorations was coming to an end. Therefore the young officer set his eyes on the last frontier: Central Asia.

   Very soon Younghusband was caught up in the hike-stake 'Great Game': the competition between Britain and Russia for control over the enormous expanses of inner Asia. Both states considered this region as vital for its strategic interests. The British feared that control of Turkestan and Tibet would bring the Russians too close to the mountain ranges separating India from the rest of Asia. The Russians in turn considered the steppes and deserts of Central Asia as a buffer zone between its Far Eastern territories and British-ruled South Asia.

   Younghusband's travel experiences through the Himalayas, Karakorum, Hindu Kush and Pamir mountains would turn out to be essential for the formation of his later-day personality and activities. By temperament Younghusband fits into that strange category of the late Victorian soldier-adventurer with a spiritual bend. Just like General Charles 'Chinese' Gordon and T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), he paired a love for action with unmistakable spiritual inclinations.

   After his military and administrative career in the British India service had come to an end, Francis Younghusband started a new mission in life. He became involved in a myriad of organizations concerned with inter-religious dialogue and the pursuit of world peace. Although, along the lines, he maintained a vivid interest in all 'things Asian' and was deeply involved with the first Mount Everest Expeditions.

   French has been extremely thorough in investigating this second career of Francis Younghusband, pursuing all kinds of vague leads and intent on turning over the last stone. Patiently sifting through years of correspondence and personal journals, he pieces together a very detailed picture of Younghusband's later life and relationships with the people around him.

   French's five year involvement with the life of Francs Younghusband was nothing short of an obsession, with the writer being determined to get into the head of his subject. The result is one of the best and most entertaining biographies I have ever read.




5. This is a worthy effort by a very able biographer. But, alas, I found the subject, Francis Younghusband, less than compelling. As Younghusband's life went on, he seeemed, like his biography, to get duller and duller. The details of his life in the Indian subcontinent and the Himalayas are superbly rendered, and anyone interested in "The Great Game", Tibet or India during the British Raj MUST read this book. For Younghusband was a major player in those events. The author also vividly conveys Britain's colonial environment of the time. But for me, as Younghusband entered the more mystical period of his life, he revealed himself as a dilettante. I think he just didn't know what to do with himself and just puttered around for the rest of his life. He was a very complex and conflicted man -- envious, I believe, of his more notable friends and associates. French paints a nice picture of this man and his times. But, in candor, beyond his Tibet adventures, he wasn't all that fascinating a character. However, at the end of the day, this is a book many will find worthwhile.

5 comments about The Lost Cities of the Mayas: The Life, Art, and Discoveries of Frederick Catherwood.

1. In reading the The Lost Cities of the Mayas : The Life, Art, and Discoveries of Frederick Catherwood by Fabio Bourbon, one must first take in and enjoy the full folio size color reproductions of Catherwood's engravings and drawings. The vast aray of sumptous images and the clear and concise text that takes you on an adventure through the life of Frederick Catherwood, the first real Indiana Jones is a joy to read and imagine! Oh to have lived in the 19th c. and been on the first real archaeological journey through mexico and central america, documenting the opening up of an ancient civilization to the world. A must for the adventure reader and explorer.



2. I have read all of John Loyd Stevens books and this is an excellent addition to my library. I would say this book is a must for all you amature Mayanists. Many times I have wished I could tag along with the great adventurers, Stevens and Catherwood, this is the next best thing! I also recomend all of John Loyd Stevens work. You might also check out "A Tourist in the Yucatan" A fun thriller, adventure set in the Yucatan.



3. Fans of Stephens and Catherwood should very much enjoy this volume. Catherwood is neither featured - nor ignored - in Stephens' "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" set - their travels together being the source of most of the included drawings. This book, however, focuses not only on Catherwood's intriguing artwork, but reveals a good deal about the life of the man himself. Especially considering the price, this book is not only a must for those interested in the Mayan civilization, but also for the story of one of the first white men to discover and document this great culture for the rest of the world.



4. A very well done, review of the life of Frederick Catherwood, as well as an excellent description of the mid 19th centuries London, Paris, and New York. The efforts of the first archeological efforts, and how were the must important archeological discoveries at that time. With the beautyful work and potraits of Catherwood
   
   Excellent



5. Well written, informative and spectacular reproductions of his excellent drawings from his travels in Central America. Well worth the price.

No comments about Churchill's Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thompson.

5 comments about Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown.

1. I loved this book. It is well written and contains such detail that the characters truly come to life. I have many books on the Restoration and none of them describes James, Duke of York and his second wife Maria Beatrice and the "ungrateful daughters" better. Many jucy details. What they wore, how they looked, their quirks and peculiarities give a much fuller picture of the court and courtiers. This book is an easy read and would engage a reader who does not like usual history books. This does not mean it is light. It's the writing of an author who is a keen observer of the subjects.



2. Better books on the time period can be found. The writer distorts historical fact to fit her own agenda.



3. The Stuarts were more than a series of Scots-English monarchs, they were a contentious family filled with ambitious, egotistical, often ignoble figures who were not above slipping the knife in to advance their own careers. The generational and religious tension chronicled in this well-written true-to-life soap opera began with James II's move toward the Catholic Church, which alienated both his people and his two staunchly Protestant daughters, Mary and Anne, each of whom reigned after him. Whether Mary's husband, William of Orange, usurped the crown in the Glorious Revolution depends on your point of view, but Anne (who wasn't speaking to her older sister at the time of her early death) declared her half-brother, James ("The Old Pretender"), an outlaw -- having previously claimed, in letters to Mary, that their hated stepmother's pregnancy was a Catholic hoax and plot. Waller's narrative is compelling and enjoyable as well as informative. You can almost see a screenplay waiting to be written.



4. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a compelling human drama as well as a major political event. At the center of the political events were Mary II and Anne, daughters of James II, real human beings who faced difficult decisions as to where their duty lay. Unfortunately, Ungrateful Daughters does a very poor job of telling this story. Instead of a story of real people dealing with an actual dilemma, Waller's book tells the tale as a shallow soap opera with the principals divided into neat categories of victims (James II and Mary Beatrice) and villains (William, Mary, and Anne).
   
   The theme of James II as victim has come into vogue in recent years, as the result of a revisionist historical interpretation which casts him as a proto-modern champion of religious toleration. Regardless of the sincerity of James's professions about liberty of conscience, they were the result of the fact that members of his own Roman Catholic faith were a minority in Britain and would thus be the beneficiaries of any alteration in religious policy. James certainly never exhibited any inclination toward tolerance that would not end up benefiting members of his own Church. There is no record that his enthusiasm for toleration ever led him to press for better treatment of Protestants in countries with a Catholic majority. At exactly the same time that James was advocating tolerance of Catholics in Britain, the Protestants in Louis XIV's France were being forced to either convert to Catholicism or emigrate, and there is no record that James II ever protested to Louis about their treatment.
   
   However, the deeper issue between James II and Parliament was not religious but political. James professed that he, as king, had the power to suspend and dispense with laws enacted by Parliament. Parliament, understandably, strongly disagreed with this claim, and there was bound to be a clash at some point. Religious policy just happened to be the issue upon which the disagreement came to a head. Waller is not as sympathetic to James as the most extreme revisionists (which incurred the ire of at least one reviewer on this site), but the theme of James as victim is a major one, as evinced by the title of the book itself.
   
   Waller spends a great deal of time discussing a pivotal event leading up to the revolution - the birth of Prince James Francis Edward (later known as the Old Pretender) to King James and Queen Mary Beatrice in the summer of 1688. It was the prospect of a Catholic heir to the throne that pushed many who were undecided into supporting the intervention of William. Even before the birth there were many rumors circulating that the Queen's pregnancy was a conspiracy on the part of the Catholics to ensure the birth of a Catholic heir to the throne, and the rumors became certainties for many people after a boy was born, just as many Catholics had predicted. The fact that both Mary and Anne gave credence to these rumors is the crux of Waller's portrait of them as "ungrateful daughters." Historians have long accepted that there was no truth to the rumors insinuating that the new prince was not the son of the king and queen, and Waller excoriates both Mary and Anne for doubting it and doing nothing to stop the rumors. Anne in particular is held up as the villain of the piece, and, reading Waller's account, one gets the impression that she single-handedly fomented the rumors surrounding the birth of her half brother and could have stopped the revolution in its tracks had she acted differently.
   
   However, Waller utterly fails to take into account that the circumstances of the prince's birth were not nearly as clear in 1688 as they are with the benefit of hindsight. At the time there were plenty of suspicious circumstances for those who wanted to doubt. The very fact of the birth of a healthy son to a woman whose eight previous pregnancies either ended in miscarriage or produced sickly babies who died soon after birth was in itself suspicious. Also, the birth took place a full month earlier than was expected. Waller argues that the discrepancy was due to a mistake on the part of the royal physicians as to the date of conception, which was probably the case, although she does not explain why this should have been clear to everyone in 1688. Additionally, although the birth was witnessed by numerous people, they were all either Catholics or political allies of James, whose testimony was regarded as suspect. Notably absent, besides Anne herself, were the Dutch ambassador and Edward and Lawrence Hyde (brothers of James's first wife and thus uncles of Mary and Anne), whose testimony would have been accepted as conclusive. From the perspective of three hundred years in the future, all these things may appear insignificant next to the fact that a baby boy was born in full view of numerous witnesses. However, in the atmosphere of 1688, with the prospect of a Catholic heir who might someday decide that a re-conversion of Britain to Catholicism was preferable to toleration (just as Louis XIV had reversed his grandfather's edict giving toleration to French Protestants), the questionable aspects surrounding the birth gave plenty of material to justify doubts on the part of those who were disposed to be suspicious.
   
   The doubts about the new prince's legitimacy did not rest upon the testimony of either Anne or her sister. Neither Anne nor Mary started the rumors, although Anne repeated them and Mary in Holland believed them. The stories were spread throughout the country by such popular press as existed at the time and many prominent political figures lent credence to them and spread them. Anne's conduct in this affair leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but it is far from clear that she could have done anything effective to quash the rumors, even if she had wanted to. Even if she had publicly denied the rumors, there was nothing to prevent people from dismissing this as done at the behest of James. Nuance, however, has no place in this book. By portraying Anne as holding the balance of affairs in her hand and failing to accurately consider events in the context of their time, Waller gives an incomplete and distorted picture of events.
   
   There are numerous instances throughout the book of sloppy research and assumptions presented as fact. For example, Waller claims at one point that certain letters (not written by Anne) "imply" that Anne promised her father that she would restore the throne to her brother. There is no solid evidence that Anne actually made such a promise, and Waller does not present any. However, this supposed promise becomes a major theme in the book, and Waller refers to it again and again as fact, describing certain actions of Queen Anne during her reign as violations of the promise that she made to her father - a promise that there is no proof Anne ever made. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example, but rather typical of Waller's method. Assertions are made on flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all, and thereafter referenced as fact.
   
   The story of the Revolution of 1688 has the potential to be a compelling tale of real people living through momentous events. The two princesses who are the chief subjects of this book could be portrayed as real women who had to make difficult choices when their duty to their father came into conflict with what they saw as their duty to their faith and their country. Instead, what this book gives is a two-dimensional caricature of two women who "stole their father's crown" for no better reason than petty vindictiveness.



5. Ungrateful Daughters is a beautifully written book that I highly recommend to any English history nut. I not only felt as if I knew each person intimately, but the sequence in which the author writes keeps it fast-paced and interesting. It is the first book I've read about the latter Stuarts (and I've read many) that kept me involved from start to finish. It is a skillful study of personalities, motives and all the human strengths and weaknesses everyone of us possess. Ms. Waller presents the political influences on the women in question in an engaging manner - a great accomplishment since politics during the Stuart reign are so complex one can easily be overwhelmed by them. Ungrateful Daughters is one of the best historical biographies I have ever read!

3 comments about London Rising: The Men Who Made Modern London.

1. Anyone with an ounce of curiosity about the monumental doings in 17th century London should buy and read this book.
   
   Leo Harris is a wonderful storyteller, with a true gift for historical synthesis. Having read his book, I now have a much better understanding of the background to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and of the astounding advances in scientific, economic and political theory arising out of the handful of brilliant men who dominated this transitional age.
   
   Those with interests ranging from religious theory, to banking, to urban planning and development, to architecture will enjoy this book, which will inspire many to go beyond it; to seek out more information on the time's many major events and still famous personalities, e.g., Isaac Newton, John Locke and Christopher Wren.
   
   This book will win prizes.



2. This interesting book is a set of mini-biographies of five men who helped shape the future of London with their influence and abilities. The five men, philosopher John Locke, scientist and architect Robert Hooke, city developer Nicholas Barbon, politician and diarist John Evelyn and one of history's greatest architects, Christopher Wren. The author goes through each of these men, how they influence the development and creation of modern London as we know it today. Of course, much of this phoenix like rising of new London was owed to the Great Fire of London of 1666 that leveled most of the old city and thus, giving these men a chance to make their own imprint to history.
   
   I think of all the five men discussed here in this book, Christopher Wren definitely stand head and shoulder above all others. Even in the book, Wren's life appears to be more dominate and his works on St. Paul's Cathedral appears to be the central anchor of the narrative. And Wren's work is what we see more often visibility around London then any of the other four men in the book.
   
   I think the only minor weakness of this book comes in that the subject matter is spread out bit thin since its impossible to do justice to each men. However, this book definitely encourage me to read a biography of Christopher Wren which I will do in the near future.
   
   Overall, this proves to be a pretty good reading material for anyone interested in the historical development of London during the second half of the 17th century when the foundation of modern London was being laid out.



3. The great fire of 1666 presented King Charles II, and those diverse individuals that served him, with the opportunity to create the first modern city of Europe.
   
   This wonderful book tracks the lives of five individuals (Nicholas Barbon, John Locke, Robert Hooke, John Evelyn and Christopher Wren) from the Civil War (in the 1640's) through the early 18th century. These individuals contribute to the "modernity" of London after the great fire in different ways (including contributions to science, religion, modern government, horticulture and, or course, architecture), with the center piece being Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral. Learn how these extraordinary individuals used their unique talents to make the City what it is today.
   
   Anyone who loves London will love this book.