5 comments about The Pirate Queen: Queen Elizabeth I, Her Pirate Adventurers, and the Dawn of Empire.

1. I love history and I love pirates. Thankfully history never goes away and pirates are more popular than ever. I grew up on stories of Sir Francis Drake, the most prominent of her majesty the queen's privateer, who took his letters of marquee and seized a place in legend for himself. But I never really got into the true story about the man until I was more grown up. By then I was majoring in history in college and found the stories even more interesting because I recognized them as men who had to overcome their fears before they became swashbuckling heroes.
   
   I was, however, guilty of not thinking overmuch about the lady that gave men like Drake the chance to become my childhood heroes. Her journey, her decisions, were - upon reflection - even harder and more awe-inspiring than her privateers.
   
   Called the Virgin Queen, and that must have been a hard one to deal with back in her day, Elizabeth I rose to the throne a month after she turned 25. She was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, who was beheaded at the order of her husband Henry VIII. A beheading served as a divorce at the time because the Anglican Church hadn't instituted divorce as acceptable.
   
   For a while, Elizabeth was declared illegitimate and had no shot at the throne. That struggle was only one of many she faced, as well as religious problems within the nation and war with Spain.
   
   Historian Susan Ronald brings all of the adventure and excitement of Elizabeth I's life to the pages of her book. I'm ADHD and even though I love history, I oftentimes find wading through "scholarly" approaches to material I'm interested in very hard reading. My attention span wanders and I lose track in the middle of baroque sentences.
   
   This isn't so with Ronald's book. She effectively nailed me to the pages with her engrossing spinning of Elizabeth I's trials and travails. When I first hefted the book, and it is certainly hefty, I have to admit to being somewhat daunted. But then I began turning the pages. And kept turning the pages.
   
   Eiizabeth I's struggles to right the English economy, deal with controversy over her lineage and the religious changes she made, all became drama played out in my mind's eye. Ronald painted sets with her words, and the people came to life. Reading this book is effortless, and it provides a splendid study of that time and the people involved.
   
   I'd been fascinated by the Spanish Armada and how it was destroyed in 1588, but I hadn't really felt all that was at stake if they'd won against England. The Cold War that played out between Russia and the United States between 1950s-1980s had nothing on the conflict that took place on the Atlantic Ocean during Elizabeth's reign.
   
   Although the book focuses a lot on the Queen's privateers - legalized pirates by any other name - much time is spent with her relationship with Robert Dudley, the Earl of Liecester, Thomas Seymore - who was her guardian for a time, as well as those famous pirates, Sir Francis Drake, and Admiral John Hawkins.
   
   Ronald's book is an armchair historian's dream and a keen, mostly unbiased, look at one of history's most famous and most daring women. If you've ever been interested in pirates or English history during a most dangerous time when history could have flipped in any of several directions, THE PIRATE QUEEN: ELIZABETH I, HER DARING ADVENTURERS, AND THE DAWN OF EMPIRE is definitely a book you should pick up.
   
   Although almost 500 pages long, take heart in the fact that the book is heavily documents and several of those pages are reference. The layout of the book, wide margins and easy-to-read typeface, also make it extremely attractive in this time of microscopic fonts.



2. Definitely not as dry as straight history textbooks or as fanciful as the title might make you think, it takes fact and presents it in an interesting way.



3. I don't know all the literature on this era, but I expect that Ronald's achievement is not in unearthing new information, but in putting it all together. The general works on Elizabeth and this period present pirates and piracy in piecemeal fashion and Elizabeth's benefits as serendipitous. This book shows that piracy was wed into her foreign policy as much or more than her marriage possibilities, which garner considerably more attention in books for the general reader and in film.
   
   The author brings together the internal and external politics of England, the economy, the religious issues, the excitement of discovery, the role of court favorites, and shows piracy as a thread running through it all. The book has provoked my thinking and given me a whole new yard stick by which to measure this period. While Spain is plundering the new world for gold and Africa for slaves, England is plundering Spain and finding benefit in the slave trade. This explains why English colonists were late (compared to Spain) in arriving in their "demarkated" hemisphere.
   
   It is for the editing and not that writing that I give this book 4 stars and not 5. The frequency of ambiguous phrases and incomplete concepts hinders a smooth read. These are not things a writer, who knows her material inside and out, can easily spot.
   
   For instance, p. 289, allusion is made to the storm raging and "driving the Francis, the Sea Dragon, the White Lion and the Talbot out to sea" meaning Drake could only offer the Roanoke colonists the Bark Bonner. 4 boats seems like a staggering loss, but there is no explanation or follow up. On p. 312, when Drake captures Don Pedro who will not submit to ransom, the author quotes from sailor's testimony from a law suit over Drake's estate 20 years hence. While this suit is beyond the scope of this book, the attribution of the quote, without explanation, suggests that there might be a reason to think a ransom was paid.
   
   The story is compelling, and if you don't get too hung up on the detail (loose ends like those above occur every 20 pages or so), you will enjoy this rendering of the Elizabethan world. It gave me a whole new perspective from which to view all else about this period.



4. I agree with one of the other reviewers that the writing style is kind of amateurish and that the writer frequently re-crosses the same ground. However, I liked how the author followed Elizabeth's difficult and dangerous task of navigating her weak nation through treacherous times with the help of her pirates. I found her habit of constantly translating the value of everything into modern day values (dollars and pounds sterling)irritating. Also think that readers looking for alot on sea battles or naval nuances will be disappointed. Not a bad book but not a great one either.



5. The essence of any writing goes back to the basics: who, what, where, when, and why. Ronald does well on all but the most important: how. There is a "story" in "history." George Santayana said: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It is the story of how something was done--or not--that can give us the perspective to make different choices when faced with similar challenges.
   
   By cleaving to the academic viewpoint of chronicling all the who, what, and when, we are presented with everything we need to regurgitate on an exam to prove that we studied, but Ronald hasn't made us wiser. Every time the story is about to pick up, Ronald halts it abruptly with an inventory of booty, or a list of persons involved with a given enterprise. This book is like driving with one foot firmly pressed on the accelerator pedal while the other foot just as firmly presses the brakes.
   
   The book ends, appropriately for the author, with John Dee's list of 13 criteria for creating the "Petty Navy Royal" and a list of "typical treasure" carried by the flota back to Spain. Ronald undoubtedly knows the subject matter.
   
   Historians such as Joseph Ellis and David McCullough have raised the bar by bringing history to life. By being part of the experience, we learn much more both about history and ourselves. In this way, studying history makes us better people. It was McCullough who said: "No harm's done to history by making it something someone would want to read." Wanting to read history is the first step in the journey; a lesson Ronald should take note of.

2 comments about The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. 3: 1925-30.

1. Of all of Virginia's diaries (there are five volumes), volumes 3 and 4 are perhaps the most interesting, if only because they span the period in which she wrote her classics such as Orlando, To The Lighthouse, and The Waves (which itself literally spans the period between Vol 3 and Vol 4.)

   If you read the collected Diaries and Woman Of Letters by Phyllis Rose, you will gain a vital series of insights into the life and thoughts of this most haunting of female writers.

   Whenever I think of Virginia, I always think of the lines from "Vincent" by Don Maclean...

   This world was never meant
   for one as beautiful as you...

   If you have never read any Virginia Woolf, I would respectfully suggest you rent a copy of Sally Potter's Orlando. While Sally takes artistic license with the novel, she has created a very sympathetic work of Art.

   This diary above all gives you many insights into her thought processes and her writing career, including her reactions to the publication of her works and their reception by the public and the sub-species known as Critics.

   Recommended.




2. Laughed at my hat, worry about clothes, Wells, Vita, Eliot, Ethel, Carrington, Hardy, Yeats, and all the regulars; new oil stove (one turns a dial and it has a thermometer!) books writing and re-writing, selling, stress, the usual depression when books published (but oh how exciting it is to read about) ;lots of feelings recorded, writing a profound pleasure, fame, money, happiness, foreshadow; on it goes in this third volume of the diaries .This wonderful, genius, enchanting, page-turner diary. I highly recommend reading all five of Virginia Woolf's diaries. Never boring or slow. The ultimate stream of consciousness.

5 comments about Sir Francis Drake: The Queen`s Pirate (Yale Nota Bene).

1. I love the story of Sir Francis Drake and his adventures in the Spanish Main and was eager at this chance at such a thourouh telling of his story.



2. For afficionados of Drake, Elizabethan England, or nautical history, this is a first rate read! The scholarship is thorough and well documented without leaving the prose too dry. Author Kelsey exegetically strips the gloss which has been after-added to most accounts of Drake's life (my brother, who is a nautical archaeologist, found it professionally worthwhile). Unfortunately, Kelsey's apparent bias against Drake's commercial focus prevents a discussion of Drake's larger role as an economic multiplier in the Elizabethan fiscus. The cash brought in by Drake's expeditions and similar ilk were probably critical in enabling the crown to finance the struggle against the Spaniards. Still, all in all, highly recommended.



3. Judging by the editorial the book gives a completely wrong picture judging actions from another time and place by modern rules.

   Sir Francis Drake had very little in common with the pirate from the movies. He was more of talented gentleman of 16 century on dangerous, but profitable enterprize.

   I do not remember Drake looting churches, but even if he did - one must not forget about him being protestant during major religious unrest in Europe. His attituide to his enemies was good and he wasn't bloodthirsty. His moral values were quite normal for his time. And his military prowess definitely was higher than normal.

   His performance during engagement with Spanish Armada was good as well (worth to mention, that, unlike of admiral Hogwart - commander of the English fleet, Drake owned some ships of English fleet). The book "Defeat of Spanish Armada" by Garrett Mattingly gives very accurate account on that issue.

   He never lost Queen's favor. He rather lost Queen's admiration, because results of his last expeditions were less spectacular, but he died vice-admiral commanding his fleet.

   I have unplesant feeling that the book is just one of those "detroning" biographies, which use the standard approach "all great people are just good liars" and aimed to entertain readers with no background in the area. Pity, because writing biography of Drake give unique possibility to make reader understand 16 century through picture of this great military leader.




4. Most professional historians at least try to feign objectivity in their treatment of historical figures. Harry Kelsey does not. The author despises Drake and makes no attempt to hide that fact. Kelsey set out to do a hatchet job and he certainly wasn't going to let history get in the way.
   
   Although the author does a reasonable job of addressing many of the established historical events, he deliberately fails to report dozens of well documented incidents of Drake's mercy and largesse. While Drake's Spanish contemporaries were torturing or executing the Englishmen they captured, Drake repeatedly spared his captives' lives, fed and treated them well, then eventually released them unharmed. These accounts are well documented BY DRAKE'S CONTEMPORARY SPANISH ENEMIES, yet Kelsey cannot bring himself to report these incidents.
   
   Why? Harry Kelsey loathes Drake and cannot force himself to simply objectively report the positive things that Drake's own enemies said about him.
   
   
   More objective treatments of Drake include
   
   1. "Francis Drake" by John Cummings
   
   2. "The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake" by Samuel Bawlf
   
   3. Passing treatment of Drake in "The Queen's Slave Trader" (biography of John Hawkins) by Nick Hazlewood
   
   Even Kelsey's own more recent (2003) work "Sir John Hawkins -- Queen Elizabeth's Slave Trader" treats Drake (albeit incidentally) more evenhandedly than his "Sir Francis Drake: The Queen's Pirate".



5. The discontented sources used for this book were a sure guarantee that Sir Francis Drake's historical accomplishments would not be shown as world-shaking events but merely "maritime myth". Many in the Royal Admiralty and Queen Elizabeth I's court blatantly reviled Drake as an upstart commoner and threat to the courtly status quo. They frankly hated Drake's guts, and wrote down all their antimosity, while all of Drake's firsthand accounts (especially the journals and logs of his Circumnavigation) have been lost to posterity.
   
   Why did the author treat Drake's actions as cruel and/or unusual in an era when Spanish and Portuguese colonists/explorers/conquistadores' brutality towards the peoples of the Americas, Africa and Southeast Asia knew no bounds whatsoever? Drake showed much more consideration for the native peoples he met than most of the Spanish or Portuguese had ever done.
   
   The author uses a contemporary politically judgemental tendency to color his attitudes. Having read some of the sources cited in this book and seen none of the spiteful inferences made in TQP, I think the author's attitude perhaps colored his interpretive judgement.
   
   Drake's piracy is condemned, although he only appropriated the riches that the Spanish had extracted through forced labor from the Incas and Aztecs. But nowhere does the author either state or condemn the brutal methods the Spanish used to rob the indigenous people of their culture and their freedom in the name of Empire and the Roman Catholic Church.
   
   Drake had many flaws: a legendary temper, brusque manner and lack of courtly breeding, but he proved himself as a leader of men, a superb sailor and an erascible member of English maritime history.

2 comments about The English Eccentrics.

1. The inimitable Edith Sitwell, in her jewelled prose, weaves together the threads of assorted strange personages, and the effect is hypnotic. The approach is poetic, oblique, and perhaps not to everyone's taste - and if it were, would you be at all interested? I, for one, was enchanted by her descriptions of, for example, the amphibious Lord Rokeby, the Ornamental Hermits, the dandy Romeo Coates, the rascally William Huntington "the coal-heaver Preacher", the intrepid Squire Waterton, and the ingenious Princess Caraboo, among dozens of others.

   Such understated whimsy within these pages! Such a singular philosophy bound these disparate lives! Read, for example, of the rich Miss Beswick, whose sole concern was that, having passed on, she might not realize it, and that her death "might prove to be only an illusion, a dreamless sleep." And so she left a large sum of money to a certain doctor and his family, "on condition that the doctor should pay her a visit every morning, after what appeared to uninstructed persons, to be her death, in order that he might be assured of the reality of this." Dame Edith dryly notes, "When the Doctor died, the mummified Miss Beswick, that candidate for immortality, was removed to the Lying-in Hospital."

   It's Edith Sitwell's droll, ornate prose, moreso even than the picturesque eccentrics, that make this a book to savor, to read bits of aloud, in the small hours of the night.

   And now the hurled invective: Shame! Shame that this book is out of print! What poverty-stricken, unpoetic times are these?




2. Who but Dame Edith Sitwell could produce such a wonderful send-up of the British, poking fun by speaking the truth as she saw it, in The English Eccentrics. Eccentricity was often simply the Ordinary carried to a high degree of pictorial perfection, Sitwell claims, and thus we get a gifted glimpse of the usually-overlooked obvious.
   
   Of course, there is so much material to work with, it is a wonder the book isn't multi-volumed! Originally published in 1933, it retains much of its vitality and levity despite being two generations (at least) behind the times. Sitwell caught the character of the English Eccentric at a time just before the wholesale decline of Empire, and thus the character portrayed here is a 'standard' one.
   
   'Eccentricity exists particularly in the English, and partly, I think, because of that peculiar and satisfactory knowledge of infallibility that is the hallmark and birthright of the British nation.'
   
   In the relating of small tales and glimpses of life, Sitwell takes us through a history of language usage and abusage, cultural niceties gone awry, personal proclivities taken to extremes, historical remembrances remembered a bit incorrectly, all the while maintaining a strong British 'we know just what we're doing, thank you, and we're doing it quite correctly' attitude.
   
   We find hermits, both ancient and ornamental (the distinction between the two of course being a relative flash that one would think inimical to the hermit-age); quacks and alchemists, some members of the sporting set (we learn of one who, in an attempt to scare the hiccups out of himself, set fire to his nightshirt--of course he was still in it--and was satisfied despite the burns that his hiccups had been vanquished), various other sorts and sets in the land.
   
   Perhaps the most valuable lesson to be learned from this book would the Of the Benefits of Posthumous Fame. Using Milton as the first example, Sitwell proceeds to demonstrate just how this posthumous fame (for the man who sold Paradise Lost for the meagre sum of £20) can be a great boon to all concerned, particularly those who have the foresight to collect locks of hair or write poetry about rummaging through the bone-remains of the dead poet. Of course, there followed in short order a detailed (yet anonymous) description of why the poet could not have actually handled the bones of the poet, not least of which being that as the grave said 1653, and Milton was not in fact buried until 1674, et cetera; thus begins an active correspondence of attempting to prove or disprove in fashion why Milton was not bodily handled.
   
   This is a thoroughly English treatment; like her eccentrics, Sitwell's style of writing is likewise gloriously eccentric. Much will be missed on the first reading, and again the second; by the third reading (should you be so eccentric as to persevere through to such) you will either be so charmed by the writing that you will carry this book around, quoting passages that need context to be understood (and thus be ordained into a minor order of eccentricity yourself) or, you will give the book away to the most tedious of your friends, hoping that the friend will take the hint.
   
   The choice is yours.

5 comments about Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade.

1. My son had to read this book for a University course. He thought that I, a history buff, might find it useful as a reference book. To my pleasant surprise, this book is quite simply a joyous read. Interesting, fast-paced, and very well written, it is fit to be consumed rapidly and then re-read. Myths are exposed, and explained, and multiple characters are presented in their historical contexts with all of their flaws, and attributes of greatness, fully discussed. This book has relevance today, as it puts the Western imprint on the Middle East at the forefront of discussion, without criticism of the West, nor undue praise. Richard the Lionhearted is portrayed as what he apparently was - a great warrior with a surprising appetite for things not often associated with soldiers. As for Saladin, it is quickly evident why he was both feared and revered, why both are deserved, and why honor is not simply a Western characteristic.



2. I've actually been planning to read this book for years and finally picked it up off the shelf at our local library. What I had hoped for was an education and understanding of this pivotal period of history.
   
   I would say I did learn things I had not previously understood but I believe I had to do so with care given not to swallow hook, line and sinker. I find, as other reviewers have mentioned, that the author seems to prefer or have taken sides with the Muslim "defenders". They are rendered in a glorious and patriotic light while the "offenders" are small and trivial people.
   
   Considering the amount of time I've wanted to read this book, I'd have to say I was a little disappointed. To credit where credit is due, I did enjoy the flow of the near storybook style of writing employed. I found there were times I wasn't sure I was reading a good historically inspired novel or the real thing.



3. This is a very entertaining piece of popular history. As usual for such work, it may be of less interest to the serious and well-informed student of history, but I would recommend it anyway just for the fun it will give you. The author manages to make the events exciting and draw the reader in, but not without the occasional hint of farce. At the same time, by keeping you reading the book brings across just how differently thought was structured in the Middle Ages. Richard's Crusade was ultimately futile and a waste both of life and of an opportunity to rule, including massacres of civilians and prisoners that would be proscribed today, although there was great chivalry between the key players. Saladin comes off better, and it is worth reading more to get a better feel for the man's flaws, but the Crusaders' acts and nature cannot really be whitewashed.
   
   A fascinating and occasionally hilarious snapshot of a very different time.



4. As a complete novice to the history of the Third Crusade (Robin Hood and Ivanhoe were about as historically deep as I got), I found Warriors of God to be a lively introduction to a fascinating and colorful cast of characters--most of whom I'd never heard of before. I enjoyed the fast-paced, episodic style of the work, and I could tell Mr. Reston was enjoying himself with these stories--that sort of enthusiasm on the part of the author can cover a multitude of sins.
   
   But not all. While the book makes for a good read, I'm not entirely sure it makes good history. As other reviewers have mentioned, Mr. Reston has a tendency to state things as fact without much bothering about proof. At one point Mr. Reston, commenting on the tangled, soap opera relations of the Plantagenet family, says that Henry II, Eleanor, and Alais: "raged at one another, as we know from the modern play The Lion in Winter" (page 61 in the hardcover). Now, James Goldman's play is excellent (go read it), but it's a highly fictionalized account of a Christmas court that never took place. Perhaps Mr. Reston merely phrased this badly, but it sounds as if we are meant to give as much historical credence to a modern author as to eye witness accounts from the 12th century.
   
   There are also several obvious fact checking errors--for example, the child king Baldwin V is referred to as the son of Baldwin IV (page 75 in the hardcover) rather than his nephew. Many historians have a tendency to be dismissive of popular histories already--there's no need to add fuel to the fire by making mistakes that any web page can manage to get right.
   
   All that being said, I did enjoy the book, and found myself utterly drawn into this world and these people's stories. The extensive use of quotations from primary sources really brought the history to life. It absolutely "hooked me" into seeking out more on the subject. And as long as that's as deeply as one needs to read it, Warriors of God is worth a look.



5. I recently finished Warriors of God : Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James Reston Jr. The book is informative and full of wry humor. It was also full of "oh, that's what they meant" moments.
   This is the first book that I've read that talks about the third crusade from both the Muslim and Christian perspectives. This balance is made more meaningful given it's post- 9/11 publication. It in no way makes an explicit connection, but you can see the beginnings of struggles (hostile and diplomatic) over Jerusalem that are still operant.
   The very beginning of the book covers an era reported in two movies in particular. The Lion in Winter, if not exactly historically accurate, at least conveys the same gist and tone as Warriors of God. Wikipedia says, about the movie,
   "The Lion in Winter is fictional: there was no Christmas Court at Chinon in 1183; there was a Christmas court at Caen in 1182; none of the dialogue and action is historic, though the outcomes of the characters and the background are historically accurate. In reality, Henry had many mistresses and many illegitimate children; the "Rosamund" mentioned in the film was Henry II's mistress until she died."
   Kingdom of Heaven covers the next slice of time, but combines characters and adds an improbable and non-existant love relationship.
   I recommend the book to anybody that's curious about this era and place.

5 comments about The Perfect Prince: Truth and Deception in Renaissance Europe.

1. If you like real mysteries and have a taste for all the problematical aspects of real history and research, this is an incredible, masterful book. It is one of the most satisfying books I have ever read - satisfying on many levels and in many ways.
   
   I am surprised by some of the negative reviews. Obviously, there are people who did not read the book with suffient care and attention. For example, to quote Wroe on Perkin's final confession, as if this is her last word, is to show a woeful understanding of her style and the way the book works. This is not a short book, but it is a truly fine book. If you liked Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_, you will love this tale as it is better written, more complex and mysterious, and about a historically more significant person.



2. I am a history buff and an avid reader of anything written about the Wars of the Roses, and in particular, anything written about Richard III and the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. This book, however, was hard to finish. The narrative style is so rambling and incoherent that it is difficult to follow. Facts, dates, and quotes are muddled, sentance structure is meandering and the author never seems able to make a point. How this book got past a copy editor, I'll never figure out.



3. I found the Perfect Prince to be a well written and superbly research book on Perkin Warbeck affair that plagued King Henry VII of England duirng the last decade of the 15th century. The research goes deeply into this blond pretender who claims to be Richard, Duke of York who somehow survived his days in the Tower of London while his older brother was murdered. The level of deception proves to be so great that many great monarchs of Europe gave their support of him and many English men great or small gave their support as well as their lives for him.
   
   Ann Wroe investigates this interesting sideshow of European history, trying to determined the true nature of this blond fellow who fooled so many, often with their lives and his origins. The study of motivation of Perkin Warbeck, aka: Ricahrd, Duke of York proves to be an interesting and indepth look. One of the important side subjects of this book remains the fate of the princes of the tower, a subject that continued to interest many during the last decade of the 15th century as well as up to the 21st century.
   
   If there was a weakness in this book, I believed it had a lot to do with the fact that the book was over written. Too many petty details were brought out in the book, too tedious at times in some sections. I thought the book could have been edited more tightly.
   
   Still, this book proves to be an interesting read although it tailored to a specific subject matter. Anyone who got any interest in the fate of the Princes in the Tower should read this book. Of course, Henry VII make a dour subject matter but this booka also reflects upon his rule as well.



4. When I first saw the synopsis of this book, I was very excited. The mystery of Perkin Warbeck (was he or wasn't he the younger of the Princes in the Tower?) has one that has always intrigued me. Besides, being a staunch Ricardian who firmly believes that Richard III is innocent of his nephews's murder, I thought to myself, if there's even a possibility that Perkin WAS Richard, Duke of York, then it goes to prove that the Princes in the Tower were not murdered at all, by their wicked uncle or anyone else (theories abound on who that someone else may have been, or if there ever was a double murder).
   
   On that last point I very quickly found out that Ms. Wroe thinks no such thing. In the first pages she describes Richard III as having been cut down "like a dog" (when in reality he fought bravely against overwhelming odds due to great treason, and his death caused a "great heaviness" in York and the North). That was the first disappointment. Still, it was moot to the story of Perkin himself, so I ploughed on.
   
   Well, you do need to hang in there tight, the book is overlong and overladen with totally irrelevant details (who cares about trade between Senegal, Portugal and Spain, what does the Aeneid have to do with the story, why spend so much time on Margaret Duchess of Burgundy's illuminated Book of Hours and her "visions", etc.?). When it does come to Perkin Warbeck himself, the narrative is thoroughly confusing. It takes some mental gymnastics to keep it all straight, between the boatman's son, the boy who was Brampton's attendant, the Prince who showed up in several royal courts of Europe, and who did what to him when. Same goes for his wanderings before he gets to Scotland. The narrative just doesn't flow. The sheer dryness of the writing, the contrived prose, the irrelevancies and the confusion make for the other disappointments.
   
   The only (almost) straight piece of narrative is when "Richard, Duke of York" does try to invade England after having married one of the King of Scots' kinswomen, up to his capture and "confession". Here I have another bone to pick. Ms. Wroe's contends that, since this confession was made just before he died, it must be true. I don't see the logic of that. Being tried as a commoner, he was probably "coerced" (to put it mildly) into confessing to almost anything. Bertram Fields, in his book "Royal Blood", devotes a chapter to Yorkist pretenders who tried to overthrow Henry VII, in which he casts serious doubts about Warbeck's confession and points out some inconsistencies that might impugn its reliability.
   
   Well, I give the book 3 stars simply as a reward for so much painstaking research. It's a pity that, so as not to have her time and effort wasted, Ms. Wroe crams all the results of that research, relevant or not, into her book, making it unwieldy, hard to follow, and a very dry read. The stars also go to having tackled an obscure historical figure and tried to shed some light in a 500-year-old mystery.
   
   If you're a history buff and are interested in the small footnotes of history, by all means read the book. If your interest is more in history-as-entertainment and an easy read, seek elsewhere. There are other non-fiction books on the period that are a lot more digestible.



5. This is an extremely well-researched, well-written biography of an intriguing young man who may have been the rightful King of England. I give Wroe full marks for her fascinating, open-minded portrayal of a confusing and turbulent period of history that in other hands has often been handled so poorly that it's impossible to follow. Her work is highly readable, and her research is original, cutting-edge, nsightful and thought-provoking. If a reader is really interested in this period, then Ann Wroe's book must not be missed.

5 comments about Once In A House On Fire: A Memoir.

1. Some books disappear from your memory a day after you've read the last page. Some books stay with you forever, and constantly bounce back with tidbits of emotion. Andrea Ashworth's 'Once in a House on Fire' clearly fits in the second category. How she managed to survive intact and come out at the other end as a seemingly balanced person is beyond belief.

   A brave tale witten by a very brave young lady who coped with the horrors of growing up with abusive 'fathers'. Five stars for the book - ten stars for surviving.




2. What can I say about this book except it was incredible? I read it in 2 days on holiday, I just couldn't put it down... the only thing is, I wanted it to go on even after it had stopped... I just kept thinking - What happened next? As one critic of the book said, it is only a shame that she had to live it to write it.



3. Andrea Ashworth is brave, smart, and amazing. I will later tell you why. First, I will discuss the base of the plot of the book. I have read this book about her childhood and teenage memoirs of life with her family, and know now what she went through. Following the death of her real father, she lived through a situation with two different abusive stepfathers, who emotionally and physically abused her mother, and occasionally her and her younger sister. This type of situation is an oft kept "secret" in this world-a subject that does not often get talked about; a problem that very rarely gets "cured". Against a backdrop of East London, and Canada, Ashworth recalls her tale. It is amazing that Ashworth, who is now an adult, remembers details far back into her childhood so vividly. It is amazing that she got through that part of her life without too many "visible" scars. I will not tell too much more of the story, you must read it for yourself. But again I say that Andrea Ashworth is brave, smart, and amazing. She is brave to recall this story; smart to address it, so that this world renowned secret can be uncovered and maybe tackled as a real problem for many families; and amazing to survive and then tell it to us later. Her story surely helped her deal with her past, and thus it will probably help others learn about abuse in families, and help others who may or may not have experienced similar situations in their lives as well.



4. Andrea Ashworth's book is testament to the strength in the human spirit. I was going backwards and forwards between feeling repulsed by her mother's inaction to being amazed at the coping strategies and abilities of Ashworth and her sister's. I feel it hard to swallow that at the end of the book Ashworth thanked her mother for her spirit, etc. I wonder what has happened since the book was published and whether her mother has recognised how she has failed her children. Her 'blindness' and selfishness was astounding. Ashworth's book was interesting also due to tha fact that it was based in Manchester and it was a valuable social commentary and insight into what parts of the city was like before. A must read for everyone to wake up to the fact of how prevalent abuse is in society and how it manages to escape people who choose to look the other way.



5. and her siblings. This book really drew me into her life. When it ends you want more..I hope the author decides to write about her life after this memoir ended.

3 comments about Great Contemporaries.

1. There is very little about Sir Churchill that can be considered routine, average, or some standard he can be compared to. Everything he did was generally on a scale that helped to create the Legend he has become, and that he will remain. Even when he erred, it generally was not minor, however rare, but on balance we do not, nor will we have his kind again. He loved his Country, and he loved the US, for he was 50% American, so that even in Washington D.C. today, a statue of him striding forward has one foot on British, and one on American soil.

   His life was long, stretching past the 90-year mark, allowing him ample time to write and give speeches, which are routinely quoted to this day. He was a master at both disciplines, with his writing awarded the Nobel Prize For Literature in 1953.

   "Great Contemporaries" is a book that is more about the men and women he knew than about the Author. He is evident throughout the read, as the impressions of these people of History are his. The 21 profiles he shares with the reader are incredible in their range, and that they were his "contemporaries" is one testament to the History he created and was a part of.

   Contemporary people of fame are often identifiable by a first or last name alone. However as we live in an age where you can chat in real time across the planet, fame does not require the same level of notoriety. The fame is of a different character and caliber.

   The Kaiser, Shaw, Chamberlein, Hindenburg, Foch, Trotsky, these are only a fraction of the essays this man of history will share. Too, there is Lawrence of Arabia who requires a bit more than a last name, but it is not do to his renown, rather the generic nature of the end of his sobriquet.

   These reminiscences are different than those of today's leaders, there was very little distance between these people, they often met alone, and they did not bring an array of lackeys, translators, and gadflies.

   A tremendous sweep of one man's impressions of people whose actions resonate to this day, and in all likelihood will not cease.




2. Consider this passage, about the political climate in Britain before World War One:

   "At the time, conflict unceasing grew year by year to a more dangerous intensity at home, while abroad there gathered sullenly
   the hurricane that was to wreck our generation. Our days were spent in the furious party battles..., while always upon the horizon deadly shapes grew or faded, and even while the sun shone there was a curious whisper in the air."

   Who could the author of such Churchillian lines be but Winston Churchill himself? The stately but rarely stentorian pacing and tone, imitations of which are rarely successful, still impresses upon the reader the power and beauty of the English language.

   These biographical essays, written while Churchill was in political exile in the Thirties, were collected in book at the end of that decade. His majestically simple (or simply majestic) writing brings long-gone controversies and personalities back to life, if unavoidably suffused with the aura of the author's own personality.

   Some notables that would seem to have been natural subjects for this book are missing: Gandhi, Lloyd George, Edward VII. But an American reader only passingly acquainted with the luminaries of early 20th century Britain would be interested in Churchill's memories of the First Earl of Birkenhead, Herbert Henry Asquith, and George Nathanael Curzon. The pieces are light on biographical detail and heavy on evaluation, but Churchill's estimation of most of these people is generous. He dismisses George Bernard Shaw as a jester, gallantly defends the ex-Kaiser from the worst of the late war-time propaganda, and warns of the rising influence of Germany's new chancellor, Adolf Hitler. The reader is also reminded from time to time that Churchill was indeed a politician, as in the essay on Lord Fisher, in which he deflects blame for some WWI naval setbacks onto that gentleman.

   Excepting Walpole, probably no statesman's collected bread and butter writing has ever been so memorable, or made for such good reading.




3. Although Winston Churchill is remember best as a statesman (and in my mind the greatest man of the 20th Century), he made his living through his pen. Churchill though of aristocratic background, was not extremely wealthy. While he could have survived on the family fortune, his expensive tastes and zest for living would have bankrupted him. So he turned to writing to earn his living.
   
   Great Contemporaries is a series of essays written between 1929 and 1937 on the "great" leaders of the day. Churchill knew many of these leaders personally, and is able to supplement what might otherwise be a dry recitation of the facts of a career with personal stories and vignettes.
   
   Perhaps the most famous of the essays is on "Hitler and his Choice, 1935." This essay is often cited by neo-Nazis and far leftists as proof that Churchill actually admired Hitler. But finally getting the chance to read the essay shows that any such analysis takes Churchill's words extremely out of context. Hitler was to be Churchill's great antagonist in the coming decade. In 1935, Churchill recognized that Hitler was facing a choice - would Hitler take a moderate road and perhaps be remembered as the leader who restored German honor, or who Hitler take the road of war. Churchill ends the essay with a warning, that German rearmament was continuing, and, of course, tragically, Churchill's misgivings were played out.
   
   One problem, with this book is that many of the "great" men described are almost forgotten today, at least outside their home countries. Men like the Earl of Rosebery (Prime Minister in the 1890s) or King Alfosno XIII of Spain probably make no impression on the American reader while George Curzon is remembered, if at all, as the man who roughly proposed the border between Poland and the Soviet Union (the "Curzon Line").
   
   The book includes essays on well-remembered men such as George Bernard Shaw, Clemenceau and Churchill's protégé T.E. Lawrence (better known as "Lawrence of Arabia"). These essays, full of personal remembrances by Churchill, are well worth the time.

No comments about Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason.

2 comments about John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Freedom, 1937-1946.

1. There was a time when John Maynard Keynes was not the most famous living economist. Then he was. Then, after he died, he seemed to be more useful than Karl Marx to anyone who was interested in how modern economies actually operate in the best times, when statistics actually reflect the level of some real activities. Two earlier biographies by Robert Skidelsky cover the years in which Keynes gained in stature and wrote his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), described by Joseph Schumpeter as "the dying voice of the bourgeois crying in the wilderness for the profits it dare not fight for." (FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM 1937-1946, p. 4). This final volume starts with the problems with his heart that, after ten years of making Keynes an invalid, deprived the world of his advice at a time when situations continued to change at a pace which needed someone to keep applying different aspects of the General Theory in time to keep most elements of society from feeling that they were being swindled. He never had enough power to make a miraculous demonstration of anything, but the spread of American wealth after World War Two made many professionals think that it was possible, if not already proved, that happy days could keep reappearing here again far more optimistically than Joseph Schumpeter's dour statement.

   Economics has become a science which is widely taught at a college level. Robert Skidelsky seems comfortable with writing about the political struggles involved, the nature of intellectual controversies in the field, and he is generous in his comments about Friedrich von Hayek, author of THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, and Milton Friedman, who emphasized other aspects of political economy. The years 1937-1946 had major problems of their own, and there is far more attention in FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM paid to the people that Keynes had contact with and responsibilities to. The Preface to the American Edition is dated 6 October, 2001. Already the author was prepared to apply a lesson of this book to our life and times:

   "To be reminded of the realities of alliance politics, even in the case of such close partners as Britain and the United States, is timely in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September, when the United States is working to construct a global coalition against terrorism. In 1940, it was British vulnerability which threw it into the arms of the United States. America did not fail its fellow-democracy; but also used the occasion to settle old scores, and secure pole position in the post-war international order." (p. xv).

   A major episode in this book recounts how an economic genius approaches the United States of America on behalf of a bankrupt country at the end of a big war to get debts pushed far enough into the future to be able to convince himself `If we don't make it by then, we're sunk anyway,' only to be asked why he didn't bring along the trade representatives. Countries which did not get involved in the current endless war might have leaders who read the British edition, which was published in 2000. Even at the beginning of this book, Keynes thought a government was foolish to commit itself to a war before the overwhelming mass of its people were convinced that the war was absolutely necessary, even after he felt that the Munich Agreement had been a pathetic trick.

   This book describes Keynes as being conservative, and the picture it paints of his legacy continues the tradition of maintaining a bias in favor of economic stability. The Truman-Eisenhower years had a durable mix. "Setting tax rates to achieve an employment target consistent with a low rate of inflation was properly Keynesian; . . . It was to keep inflation under control by methods which did not bring about the collapse of the secular boom." (p. 505).

   "However, U.S. fiscal restraint broke down in the 1960s. In 1962, the second-generation Keynesian economists who came in to office with President Kennedy were convinced that the long-predicted slump was at hand. A further stimulus to action was the quite unwarranted fear that the Soviet Union would win the Cold War economically and politically, without any need for a hot war. So the scene was set for the big Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and `Great Society' programmes." (p. 505).

   Economists might be familiar with the description of what followed, but the attempt to maintain a coherent theory is admirable when we get to: "Friedman's own attacks were launched from within Keynes's own macroeconomic citadel, but, by ruthlessly applying the maximizing logic to individual behavior, he gave two of the Keynesian `functions' -- the consumption function and the demand for money function -- properties of stability which they had lacked in their Keynesian form." (p. 506).

   The picture of the doctor responsible for treating Keynes's heart, James Plesch, is labeled "the doctor who brought JMK `back to life', and whom he called `the Ogre'." (facing page 166). This is a typically British nickname for a Jewish Hungarian who left Germany in 1933 and settled in England. (p. 40). The author and I suspect that he was more thorough than British doctors. "There is no reason to doubt Keynes's own view that it was Prontosil which had brought about his dramatic improvement. Unfortunately, it was subsequently discovered that Prontosil was effective against the green streptococci lodged in the throat but not against those already firmly established in the valves of his heart." (p. 43). He lived through World War Two. He was losing money in the stock market before the war, as some people must have realized that weird things were about to happen to the economy. Keynes died before some of the big changes that were afoot. The American dream in this book: "Henry Wallace, who had fallen asleep, woke up to ask why Britain could not trade Indian independence for a write-down of Indian debt." (p. 414).




2. The last part of Robert Skidelsky's magnificent biography of J.M. Keynes is a tale about the fall of the British Empire with Keynes as one of its most clairvoyant and active go-betweens trying to avoid the disaster. Great-Britain had won the war but it was bankrupt, crushed by its debt contracted to buy US weapons.
   This book shows clearly through its analysis of the Bretton-Woods negotiations and the discussions about the conversion of British debt, that the ultimate goal of the US Administration was to get Great-Britain on its knees and to take its place as world leader.
   The US preferred an alliance with te Soviet Union against Britain. Their most important negotiator H.D. White was a convinced Soviet spy.
   Keynes defended exhaustingly Britain's role in world matters by begging time for a reconversion of the British industry from a war to a civilian economy and for safeguarding its Commomwealth with its preferential tariff and pound sterling payment system.
   The humiliatig conditions for its debt conversion imposed by the US would cripple the British economy for years. The suicidal internecine European wars created a new world hegemon: the US.
   
   Before the war, Keynes defended his 'Treatise' policies, but saw them applied in Germany by a very clever economist, Hjalmar Schacht, who also saved the German economy internationally by creating a bilateral trade system.
   Prof. Skidelsky shows us also pregnantly the deterioration of Keynes's physical condition, aggravated by his exhausting travels, difficult (empty handed) negotiations and even hard opposition at home when he was in the US.
   
   One could perhaps slightly criticize the exhaustive excerpts of letters or the extremely detailed evolution of the negotiations in Bretton-Woods or about British debt relief. But, all in all, this is a fascinating read.