5 comments about Lady Jane Grey: Nine Days Queen.

1. A book with Catherine Parr on the cover using a few embellished facts, very little research and fanciful story telling make this a book only for the passive reader.



2. I had eagerly anticipated this book for a long time, but I found it very dissapointing.

   It's more of a quick retelling of the struggle for the throne after Henry VIII's death than a biography of Jane. She's a minor character in her own biography, emerging only for brief, tersely described events.




3. Jane Grey was queen for nine short days, during a period of great turmoil. The documentary evidence from this time is rather spare; even the coins minted during this brief reign are so rare as to be valued collectors' items. Author Alison Plowden uses documentary evidence and secondary sources to reconstruct the world around this brief reign. Indeed, Jane Grey remains a shadowy figure, even with this and other biographies available, given that, as a child, she was not party to much life at court, and did not have ongoing correspondence with many people likely to preserve such writing (only a handful of personal letters remain from her).

   Plowden introduces the world of the Tudors and their friends, hangers-on and rivals from the time of Lancaster/York conflict, and Henry VII, the first Tudor king, forward. This reads like a soap opera, and indeed it was a time of intrigue, deception, jockeying for position and occasional outright evil behaviour. The executioner's task at the Tower was never wanting for more; the Tudors, Seymours, Brandons, Dudleys and other such families were intertwined in the political, religious and dynastic machinations of the time, and sometimes this late medieval machinery caught up the people as it would grind along.

   Lady Jane Grey was not born to be queen. This does not make her unique among monarchs in British history; when the current queen Elizabeth was born, it seemed very remote that she should ever advance to be monarch. Indeed, even the great Henry VIII wasn't the heir apparent when born; his brother Arthur was Prince of Wales -- Henry married his brother's widow Catherine of Aragon, and the successive sequence of wives and offspring commenced from there. Lady Jane Grey was born of none of these wives, nor even from Henry directly, but rather through one of his younger siblings, Mary, one-time queen of France.

   Plowden's tracing of the history is very much personality driven. Events and issues take a secondary role to the history she recounts here -- it is very much the people involved, who are somewhat hard to keep straight at times (when one would acquire a new title, the name changes; since these names often had predecessors also active in royal and governmental affairs, one sometimes needs charts and graphs to keep the players distinct).

   Lady Jane Grey was a mere teenager when she came to power, such as it was. A precocious and intellectual child, she still lacked the political savvy of the Privy Council and other chief executors and leaders from Henry and Edward's reigns; she was the not-always-willing but not-unwilling pawn of her family's ambitions -- at one time thought to be a possible wife for the king Edward, her family jumped at the chance of settling the crown directly on her head, under the ostensible purpose of preserving a Protestant succession.

   Ultimately, the venture was doomed to failure, for as much as the royal and parliamentary authorities like to believe they rule England, ultimately it has been the people en masse, and those whom they do not support do not last long. The common folk, still largely Catholic in leaning, also understood royal succession in simple terms -- Mary Tudor was the next in line for the throne, so they supported her (largely they would support Elizabeth, a moderate Protestant, for the same reason five years later). Lady Jane fell victim again to the problems of politics; Mary Tudor, once queen, was inclined to be lenient until it was felt that Jane's presence continued to be a rallying point for Protestant dissidents.

   Plowden's book is not a simple biography of Jane Grey, but rather a survey of the historical period, from the generation prior to the aftermath. If Jane Grey seems to be a bit lost in the sea of people in this text, that is understandable, for even though she was queen for a short time, it was hardly her own reign or her own doing, and she didn't last long enough for contemporary histories in personal detail to be written (nor was it really in the interests of others to do so during the reign of either Mary or Elizabeth). Taken as a snapshot of a short time in the Tudor dynasty, and a very unique period in British history, this is a good survey.

   This is not an historical romance, nor a narrative history done in novel style. It is a little light on notes, placed at the end rather than as footnotes, for a 'grand' history, but is still built on strong authority. The select bibliography is worthwhile, as is the index. While Plowden's language could take a little polish to good effect, the text remains interesting and factually well-executed, keeping speculation and romantic embellishment to a minimum, and clearly delineating between documentary fact, gossip and hearsay, and later interpretations and reconstructed memories.




4. I was honestly hoping that the issue with the cover portrait would have been resolved with the reprint. There is no new information that I had so hoped for from a writer as well-known as Alison Plowden. I am disappointed and would not recommend that anyone seeking facts about Lady Jane read this book. In an "information age", I had really hoped for facts, the book is so reflective of 1986. There are plenty stories about the Tudor period of our history but little factual compositions.



5. I didn't read much of "Lady Jane Grey: Nine Days Queen", but that's due to the author. However, the book is skimpy and regulated to "this event happened" and "He/she did/said this and that". Alison Plowden is a good and factual writer, but this time she paints by the numbers. Also, in her excellent four-book biography of Elizabeth I, Plowden's attitude resembles Hester W. Chapman's; she tends to get a bit terse and condescending. I guess this is why I didn't finish "Lady Jane Grey: Nine Days Queen". I simply didn't want to encounter Plowden's attitude again while reading about my favorite Tudor princess.

5 comments about A Profane Wit : The Life of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester.

1. I must confess that I had never heard of John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester, until I saw the Johnny Depp movie "The Libertine". After that, I just had to read a biography of a person who appeared to be extremely interesting. This work was not a disappointment, for it detailed Wilmot's life and times, and also went deeply into both his prose and his poetry. He certainly was a mirror to the Restoration Age, and is unfairly forgotten now, but I hope that the movie, and this well-written book, bring him back to the recognition that he so justly deserves.



2. With the release of THE LIBERTINE there is a renewed interest in the life and poetry of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester. My own interest began when I was taking a class in Restoration Literature. While I was taking this class it was rumored that there was a movie version of the mad Earl's life out there somewhere (rumor was that it had been finished for some time but that studios were reluctant to release it) but then just a few weeks after the class was over a holiday release date was announced and I saw the film on opening night. I enjoyed it thoroughly as a person with a slightly more than casual interest in this character and time period. And left the film wanting to know more.
   
   I think there are probably several groups of fans for the film. There are the fans who like Johnny Depp and will see anything he is in (I'm not one of those although I will admit to liking DONNIE BRASCO & Jim Jarmusch's DEAD MAN). But then there are those who come to the film because they are interested in Rochester himself. These fans can probably further be divided up into those who are amused by Rochester the legend ( the mad, bad, and dangerous to know libertine) and then there are those who are curious about Rochester the actual historical figure and author of many fine lyrics. James William Johnson's biography will appeal to those who have an interest in not only Rochester but the entire social, political, military, economic, and literary milieu of 1660's and 1670's London. I think the reader with only a casual interest in the subject might find this treatment to be too complete. I for one found this biography to be almost too exaustive; that might sound odd but Johnson spends so much time on Rochester's mother and her family politicking, for instance, that I found myself nodding off during these parts. The family tree at the end of the book is helpful if you are a completist and want to know every detail of John Wilmot AND his extended families lives (before his birth and after his death) but for me this was more than I really wanted or needed. In short Johnson is a Restoration scholar and Johnson's biography is really written for other Restoration scholars.
   
   The Rochester that makes it onto film is, as one might suspect, a sensationalized version of the real thing. Thats not to say that the things in the film did not happen (most of them did) but the film makes it look like the life was all salacious scandal and street theatre. It wasn't. The film also seems to take great pains to show you the great pains that John Wilmot went through in the last three years of his life as his body and face suffered the effects of a syphilis that was greatly aggravated by alcoholism. The film, intentionally or no, creates a martyr. To the filmmakers Rochester's atrophy is presented as a kind of heroic metaphor for unwillingness to compromise (even if that unwillingness to compromise meant that he lived only for the moment and only for himself). This probably tells us more about ourselves and our times and values than about the social times and values of 1660's and 1670's London--we seem to be socially programmed to equate a short life with a beautiful life. This is probably due to the allure of an early death promulgated by rock star's and actor's and artsits's of various stripes dying young; but then maybe this has always been true. I suppose the short beautiful life myth always assumes that its better to burn out than to fade away. That would be the myth on the mind of the filmmakers (or the myth that the filmakers rely on to bring audiences to the film). This mythos implies that some people are just not meant to or able to live a normal life, or at least not able to accept the limits and boundaries that most accept. These types are Depps's specialty. Johnson's book is, however, to its credit, not about perpetuating a legend or a mythos. In fact Johnson's book goes a long way in exploring the life or inhabiting the life in order to show us what Rochester did within the confines of a very limited set of social and intellectual possibilities. Rochester's drink-driven poetry and riotous actions were attempts at a kind of semblance of freedom that he actually did not have. When sober the reality was that he was confined to a very specific social station and almost all of the major decisions of his life were decided by his superiors (his mother, teachers, king). His life was virtually dictated to him every step of the way. It is not surprising that he struck out against authority (including his own). But he also (in verse and in life) struck out against women, and (as his critics were quick to point out) he often caused trouble that others had to pay for (sometimes with their lives).
   
   In his own day Rochester was Restoration England's most celebrated bad boy, but that fame or infamy only lasted about five years ( a time in which he claims he was perpetually drunk). By the time he was 30 he was already a has-been on the London social scene. The public lost interest in him partly because he could no longer do what had made him so famous (the syphilis caused sexual malfunction) and also because the climate of the country had changed and grown more morose due to war, plague, and fire. But also the public lost interest in him because bad boys become tiresome after awhile; they wear out their welcome. In the last years of his life he was someone the public loved to hate.
   
   There are several biographies of Rochester out there. I think each biography has something to offer. If you are interested in this whole time period then Johnson's biography is the best because it situates Rochester's life among the other lives and the major trends and happenings of the time. If Johnson's biography has a weakness it might just be that he does so much contextualizing that you feel like the focus is on the time period as much as it is on Rochester himself. Another option is to track down a copy of the out of print biography of Rochester by the novelist Graham Greene. This biography called LORD ROCHESTER'S MONKEY was written in the 1930's but not published until the 1970's (for censorship reasons). It's concise and lavishly illustrated and I found a nice used first edition here on Amazon for pennies. The advantage of the Greene biography is that he concentrates on the major events of Rochester's life with an especially keen focus on the Elizabeth Barry relationship and an equally keen focus on Rochester's intellectual-emotional world view and temperament. (Many in Rochester's day read Hobbes and were influenced by Hobbes materialism and it was Hobbes' philosophy, some argue, that led to the rampant selfism that Rochester was so famous for but Greene argues that Rochester never totally followed this program of thought and even struggled against it as he attempted to evolve some kind of classically inspired social ethic that is, sometimes, evidenced in his poetry). Perhaps one problem with Rochester the poet is that he almost always writes through some masque or persona and he seems never to have written except when incensed at someone and so the poetry tends to be polemical or invective or scathing satire but rarely, if ever, do you get a measured estimation of his real values and beliefs. Greene, as you would expect, is especially good at analyzing Rochester's lyrics and what makes them so interesting. Johnson's reading of individul poems is informed by current gender theory and since Rochester often wrote in the guise of a woman this works. Greene's book is a nice option for those who are literary but do not require (or desire) the academic armature and trendy theorizing as well as the leave-no-stoned-unturned thoroughness that you get with scholarly biographies. If you have the time read both the Johnson and the Greene.
   
   If you are interested in this period I would also recommend an excellent PBS miniseries called THE LAST KING (available on DVD). Rochester himself makes only a couple of brief appearances but this is an excellent and entertaining way to familiarize yourself with the England of Charles II and the surronding cast of characters (Lady Castlemaine, Duke of Buckingham, Nell Gwynn, etc...) that will be mentioned in any Rochester biography.



3. This is an extremely detailed account. It in fact reads much like a text book...dates included.



4. I really couldn't better some of the excellent reviews already made about this book, so I'll keep mine short. I've spent many years enthralled with the Earl of Rochester's work and life. I have read almost all of the biographies ever written about him, which are numerous, and in my opinion this is the crown jewel of Wilmot biographies. It is steeped in depth of detail, but the most important fact about it is that the author manages to keep personal opinion out of the bio the whole way through. He states the facts and leaves it up to the reader's discretion to form their own opinions, unlike some of the other Rochester biographers.
   For those of you wanting the most up-to-date, detailed account of this wonderful poet's life, this is it. From birth to death and it's aftermath, this biography is the fullest and most accurate account of John Wilmot's life available. Poet, Libertine, Husband, Father, Lover, Cynic; every possible aspect of Wilmot's life and career are laid out for the reader here. While at times, the author possibly gives a little too much detail on persons not so important to the Wilmot story, the reader is richer for the knowledge in any case. Not only an excellent bio, but a great insight into the life and times of the court of Charles II.
   Wilmot fans should not pass up the chance to read this. :)



5. A Profane Wit : The Life of John Wilmot, Earl of RochesterA fascinating and fairly complete biography of a brilliant yet doomed Restoration gentleman. Only recently have his poetry, letters and life been studied after an extremely long hiatus...partially because some of his poems were considered obscene, as was his life; in spite of a deathbed confession. I would suggest obtaining at least a complete copy of his poems to go along with this book. They are surprisingly readable even to one who has done little study of poetry in general. The biography does contain parts of his letters. A copy of "The Man of Mode" by George Etheredge (1676) would also be entertaining as Dorimant was based on the 2nd Earl of Rochester by the author, who was also close friend. Two recent plays have been written based on his life: "The Ministry of Pleasure" by Craig Baxter (1965)and "The Libertine" which recently was made into a movie.

4 comments about Queen Elizabeth II: A Woman Who Is Not Amused.

1. Ever since I can remember I have been fascinated by the British Royal family; watching the weddings of both the Waleses and the Yorks, reading Majesty magazine each month, etc. I bought this book to find out more about the Queen and Prince Phillip. I finished this book within two days and still find myself drawn to it. The depth that the author reaches, describing the Queen's marriage, family, responsibilities, daily life - it is all covered with a thoroughness that makes the reader feel as though they knew Her Majesty personally. Undoubtedly there are other books available that detail Queen Elizabeth II's life, but this one will stand out due to it's ability to draw the reader into the world of this remarkable monarch.



2. One of the best books on the British Royal Family and on Queen Elizabeth in particular.

   Reading this book one can see that Mr. Davies is quite knowledgeable and has done his homework where researching the subject is concerned.

   Queen Elizabeth may not be easily amused - and she has every right not to be - but I certainly was highly amused and entertained.




3. Three years ago, I added this book to my too-large collection of books about the Royal Family. I started re-reading it this week when looking up something about her disinterest in clothes while reading the reports of her visit to Australia. Whoever is doing her hats now should be drawn and quartered!

   This is an enjoyable book and I can only feel a bit sorry for the Queen. For all of her worldly possessions, she leads a rather dreadful life. Smiling, looking interested, holding flowers, etc. must almost drive her out of her mind! She does a good job of it, though, and for that I give her credit. It's a good show. I've been watching it for over 40 years!




4. A great book about the Queen. Lots of information, but not too over the top with details and hard-to-understand writing.

5 comments about War's End: An Eyewitness Account of America's Last Atomic Mission.

1. A sad reminder that history is written by the victors. I wonder how Americans would feel if Al Qaeda would write a similar book glorifying the 9-11 attacks. Disgusting.



2. Paul Tibbet should have been tried as a war criminal. I don't see anything to celebrate about on this 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
   Perhaps the Japanese are rethinking about these events today and can write their own versions of what they think of these two genicides.
   Whether it saved lives or not is speculation, just that speculation. We all know how speculation is viewed in a court of law.



3. Neither of the atomic bombs the US dropped on Japan (not to forget the earlier fire bombing of Tokyo) were necessary to conclude the war. Japan was a thoroughly defeated country and had been seeking peace terms for over half a year. The terms ultimately granted by the US were those which Japan had been seeking all along!
   
   Irrespective of this, by the self proclaimed standards of the United States, Major (later Major General) Charles Sweeney was clearly a war criminal of the worst kind. It is one thing to attack enemy troops and fortifications; quite another to burn the eyeballs out of the heads of 100,000 *civilian* non-combatants -- most of whom were women, children and the elderly; and 10-12,000 of whom were Sweeney's fellow Catholics. Germans and Japanese swung for much, much less. Sweeney got promoted! But, what goes around comes around.



4. My my my. The hot and cold reviews that this book attracts are a reflection of why Sweeney claims to have written the book, I think. For those who "support" the manner by which the U.S. ended the war that Japan started, Sweeney wanted to provide the record from one of the key players as the pilot of "Bock's Car," the plane that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. For those who oppose this bombing, he wanted to provide his perspective and argument. My review of the book is from the perspective of someone who wanted to just understand the facts of the bombing missions, and who is interested in reading the firsthand account of such a moment in modern history. I doubt that anyone's position on the bombings will be changed one bit by this book; it does, however, provide that eyewitness perspective of the missions, and it gives the reader some understanding of what it took for these controversial measures to have even been executed. I found the book fascinating from that angle. If you are interested in the big pro or con moral questions, I am not sure that this book is going to feed your desires.



5. Sweeney writes a compelling story about his role in the use of the atomic bomb. From an initial interest in flying, thru his early years as a pilot, to the secret preparations to train pilots and mission support to deliver an atomic bomb, and finally the actual missions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
   
   This book is a must read for anyone interested in understanding how and why we "dropped the bomb".

No comments about The Book of Margery Kempe: Annotated Edition (Library of Medieval Women).

5 comments about Lennon Remembers.

1. John Lennon gave only two lengthy, in-depth interviews in his life. The first was in 1970 to Rolling Stone magazine and his final interview was given in 1980 to Playboy. Both are instructive to read, especially when you contrast their tone and content. The Lennon in this book had just left the Beatles and was trying desperately to convince the interviewer and the public that it just didn't bloody matter. Though history has shown Lennon emerged from the Beatles break-up much more undamaged emotionally than McCartney, the dissolution of his band was bound to leave some scars. John puts up a bit of a front here and I fear he doth protest too much, especially when he says he can't remember much about the Beatles and didn't think they were that great of a band to begin with.

   In 1970, John was in the midst of his Arthur Janov primal scream therapy and he talks about this at great length. If you're primarily interested in the Beatles, then you might wish to skip over this section. The most interesting chapters of the interview are undoubtedly his thoughts about the Beatles and his individual bandmates. Read this with caution, however. This was the same year Lennon penned the visceral anti-Paul ode, How Do You Sleep? His caustic comments about Paul would soften a trifle by 1980, as he himself admitted in the 1980 Playboy piece. There is also some intentional untruths here, such as when John says Lennon and McCartney rarely collaborated on a song post-1964. He corrects this in his '80 recollections. He tells some wonderful stories about Ringo and how he helped George with the lyrics to Taxman in 1966.

   I first read this book at the age of 8, when it was published. It's remained an integral part of my Lennon collection and still makes for some excellent reading. Whether you've grown up on Lennon or are new to him, this is an indispensable tool in trying to understand his mindset at the critical juncture of his life.




2. In the "Forward", Yoko describes the interview as unsettling:
   "You will probably feel like getting up and walking around the room after every paragraph...It's a jolt on your nerves like bad, bad espresso. People with weak stomachs should close the window before reading. You might just feel like jumping out."
   With words like that, you might expect to be deeply disturbed by the impending interview. Or fearing worse, you might even soil your trousers. Was John a necrophiliac? Did he like to wear ladies' stockings? Did he sleep with Phil Spector?
   
   All that really managed to surprise me was how easily he used the word 'fags' to describe gays despite the fact that he had many gay friends and co-workers. However, I can't imagine anyone having to don a helmet or feeling as though they couldn't stomach this interview. I read it in two sittings.
   
   If anything, Lennon Remembers gives me a negative impression of John. At the time of this interview, he seems highly judgmental, bitter and more egotistical than I had been familiar with. On the other hand, 1968-1970 were tough times for John and Yoko: the Beatles and the press treated them harshly - especially Yoko; their experiments - both artistic and political - were often criticized by a trite, conventional media; Yoko had suffered a miscarriage, etc...all of which might have contributed to the tone of the interview. Often accustomed to the edited and fun-loving John, I have no doubt that this interview will reveal his human fallibility...even to his most die-hard fanny-licking fanatics.
   
   Jann Wenner, as interviewer, frequently comes across as a broken record: 'What do you think of Paul's album? What do you think of George's album? of Dylan's? What do you think of Sgt. Pepper's? Rubber Soul? Abbey Road? Are you pleased with your new album?'
   Even Jann seems bent on dragging John through his turbulent years with the Beatles. It's understandable that a representative from a rock magazine would be more interested in talking about the Beatles' phenomenon, but it's pretty obvious that John, no longer a member, would have wanted to talk about the here and now of 1970: what he's involved in, how he's changed, what he'd like to do, etc.
   
   Lennon Remembers is a pretty decent offering, but it fails to capture the essence of John's new found independence. John was much more than a Beatle, he was a person of great wit, talent, and charm. With the demise of the Beatles, his life was only just beginning.



3. Although I agree it's a decent interview once you get past the overt anger, Lennon seems to have short-term memory loss throughout. Compare this interview with David Sheff's in "All We Are Saying". Lennon's tormented artist soul is more at peace and his memory is better.



4. 
   The journalistic style of Jann S. Wenner's book Lennon Remembers offers a new, non-traditional, and fascinating glimpse into the mind of John Lennon. Rather than telling the story of Lennon's life through her own methods of research and writing, Wenner has elected to let Lennon tell his own story in an interview - style method. The conversation between the journalist, and Lennon (along with his wife Yoko Ono) allows the reader to see John Lennon's true self better than any form of factual biography possibly could. Lennon's first person account of his life is told in 1970, after the breakup of the Beatles. The slowing of the pace of his life has obviously given him some time to reflect, and Lennon's demeanor is telling of this. The book leaves the reader with a multifaceted, less idealized, and altogether more real understanding of Lennon's views towards what he has accomplished through his music, his efforts for peace, and even his shortcomings.
   As a book, Lennon Remembers draws its strength from the manner in which it exposes John Lennon's human side. After reading the exact words from Lennon's mouth, one begins to see that Lennon was, like the rest of us, a mortal who grappled with conflicting ideas in his life. Throughout the dialogue, Jann Wenner manages to expose Lennon's frustration with aspects of his career, how the `dream of the Beatles' died within him, and his general distrust of dogmas after his time spent with the hypocritical Maharishi. Lennon's description of his life makes it clear that he values the extent to which he could spread pacifism through his music, but simultaneously conveys a tragic loss of faith. The book Lennon Remembers, because it is a direct transcription of Lennon's own words, portrays this somewhat depressing shift more powerfully than any traditional biography could.
   The main downside to Wenner's book is the multitude of technical musical discussion which pads some of the discussion. Rather than focusing on the meaning of Lennon's music and his philosophies, the book tends to get caught up in the personal relationships of the Beatles and specific musical analysis which seems irrelevant to any reader who is not an avid musician. Lennon, himself, admits that he believes lyrics are the most important part of a song, yet the book devotes entirely too much time to the discussion of musical technicalities, and not nearly enough to the overall message which Lennon wanted to convey to his audience.
   After reading Jann Wenner's Lennon Remembers, I found myself with a new, yet ambivalent view of John Lennon as a person. I had always thought of Lennon as a man who valued peace above anything else in his life. Reading his own reflections about his career made me see him as far less perfect than I had imagined. At times he seemed bitter, prone to bickering, faithless, and as if he had given up on anything he once valued. His admissions to excessive drug use and constant fighting with his band members also seemed to suggest that Lennon was far less of a role model than many think. Upon reflection, however, these flaws are somewhat endearing as well. John Lennon was, after all, a human. He was a man that found himself in a unique position that allowed him tremendous influence in the world, and he tried to do what he could to make the world a better place. He wholeheartedly believed in pacifism, and tried to use his power to further peaceful causes. Even with his pessimistic comments, Lennon allows the reader an opportunity to relate. After all, do we not all go through phases of doubt? If for no other reason, Lennon Remembers is a successful journalistic work because it paints John Lennon for who he truly was.



5. The problem with any biography or autobiography is the problem of bias. As much as a biographer (or autobiographer) wishes to be impartial or objective, his pen is ultimately driven and guided by his own beliefs and ideologies. It is for this reason that Jenn S. Wenner's 1970 interview Lennon Remembers with John Lennon and wife Yoko Ono is truly remarkable.
   
   The semi-autobiographical interview leaves no room for dishonesty or bias; neither interviewer nor Lennon has the luxury of time to craft a story. Thus, neither individual is capable of bending and changing details or infusing partiality into the account. The result is a shocking collection of unbridled and unfettered memories that provide readers with a glimpse into the life of one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century.
   
   The majority of the interview deals with the period of Lennon's life dominated by "Beatlemania." Lennon very candidly talks about virtually all aspects of his life as a superstar. For Wenner, no stone is left unturned, as Lennon tackles issues around his tumultuous relationship with members of the band and his "insane" experiences with LSD and "going around London on it."
   
   Wenner also works to explore Lennon's life as a musician-activist. In the interview, Lennon acknowledges how his work as a pacifist won him notoriety in many circles, saying, "If I walk down the street now I'm more liable to get talked to about peace than anything I've done." His pacifism breathes within the lyrics of songs like "Give Peace a Chance" and "Happy Xmas." Also, Wenner exposes the creative dimension of Lennon and Ono's pacifism. For their honeymoon, Lennon and Ono conducted a "beautiful" "Bed-in," refusing to leave their bed as an act of protest against war and violence. The couple sent acorns to heads of state around the world, including Golda Meir and Haile Selassie, as a symbol of their peace campaign. Whether they were singing at the Moratorium Day in Washington, DC or promoting their "War is Over" poster campaign, John Lennon and Yoko Ono did what they could to aggressively and effectively advance the pacifist cause.
   
   Wenner does a commendable job of investigating the source of Lennon's pacifism, taking a look at important influences in the musician's life. Certainly growing up in Liverpool, a working class English city devastated by World War II, helped cultivate Lennon's apparent disdain for violence. Furthermore, The Beatles' connection with Hinduism and the Maharishi, the pioneer of Transcendental Meditation, intensified their preoccupation with the horror of war and bloodshed. The interview, however, seems to suggest that Lennon's love for Yoko Ono most noticeably influenced his pacifist activism. When talking about his pacifist career with Ono, Lennon said, "Yoko didn't want to do anything that wasn't for peace." Indeed, Lennon's love for Ono, and his belief in the power of love constitute the foundation for all of Lennon's pacifist beliefs and actions.
   
   On the other hand, Wenner does a marvelous job of exposing Lennon's growing uncertainty about the place of pacifism in a war-torn world. In the interview, Lennon seems content with accepting the inevitability of war, saying, "But I'm beginning to think what else can happen?"
   
   However, Lennon's apathy and resignation are the symptoms of a life characterized by volatility. In a life marked by moments of incredible happiness and indescribable agony and depression, Lennon and Ono appeared ready to live each day as if it were their last. Lennon articulates this belief in the "now," saying, "It's only going to be alright now, this moment, that's alright."
   
   The strength of Wenner's book are quite evident. The candor and striking honesty of the interview are refreshing, a pioneering piece of journalism in a field characterized by spin and sway. Furthermore, Wenner masterfully uses questions to craft a brutally accurate story about the life of an amazing man. The interview paints a complete picture of a beautiful life, characterized by depression, euphoria and music.
   
   The interview's strengths, however, do not eclipse the glaring weaknesses of the story. Although she manages to discover a little bit about life in Liverpool for Lennon, Wenner does not explore this aspect of Lennon's life adequately. Rather, readers are left with a superficial account of a meaningful period of time in the musician's life.
   
   Way too much time in the interview is spent investigating the shaky relations of the band members. Such stories make for interesting, juicy reads, but do not abound with substance and meaning.
   
   Lastly, the interview, for one with no previous knowledge of John Lennon and his life, presents Lennon as a flaky, waffling character with no concrete belief in anything. Lennon's disillusionment with pacifism, amongst other things, must be contextualized and examined as a product of circumstance.
   
   Wenner's interview with Lennon is an honest account of the life of a very honest man. The interview format is problematic in its lack of organization and informational incompletion. However, the candor of the interview provides readers with a complex, multi-dimensional picture of a man who believed in the potential for change within himself, of a man who claimed, "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me."

5 comments about Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen.

1. After reading "The Other Boleyn Girl," I wanted to learn more on Anne. Somehow I had reached twenty-five years old without knowing much on Tudor history. This book happened to be on sale here on Amazon, and I bought it. After reading many fiction and non-fiction stories of Queen Anne, I still go back to this book.
   
   It explores every aspect of her life, from before her birth to after her death. It includes many pictures. It is a little heavy to read all in one sitting, and I usually just take in a couple chunks at a time.
   
   Many of the other reviewers hated it for opposing the "facts" that have been known about Anne. Denny does a wonderful job of stating how Anne was most likely tarnished after her death, leading to the many negative things still being written on her. The truth is, we will never the all the facts about Anne, or anything in history, as we were not there. Something that happened yesterday could be told from a friend, and you would get their point of view, as it is told from a person.
   
   What Denny does is give other possible explanations of Anne's life. This book is not for those that have an opinion of Anne as a whore who destroyed England and who only wish to remember her that way. If you have an open mind about events we will never know the whole truth about anyways, pick up this book.



2. Anne Boleyn (1501-1536) was the second of the notorious Henry VIII's wives. She was the first of his wives to be beheaded (Katherine Howard was the second and final wife to die in this manner). Anne was the first crowned Queen of England to die by the executioner's sharp blade as a public spectacle, Her often told story is retold by the late Joanna Denny. Denny published this book in 2004.
   Henry VIII became infatuated by the seductive, highly intelligent and multilingual Anne as his marriage to the dour Catherine of Aragon turned sour. Anne refused to give in to the old king's sexual desires until she had a wedding ring on her pert finger. Henry divorced Catherine claiming she had engaged in sexual intercourse with his older brother the late Arthur Prince of Wales. Henry believed this sin was based on the statement in Leviticus that it was evil to wed the spouse of a deceased brother. Henry believed this was God's curse on his inability to sire a male heir to the throne. He did not want Mary his female child by Catherine of Aragon to sit on the throne. Mary was a devoted Roman Catholic as was her mother. Henry did not want England to become a part of the Holy Roman Empire. As a result of Henry's marriage to Anne the English national church was established and the tie with Rome broken. Anne was an evangelical Protestant whose downfall was engineered by Henry's Lord Chancellor the evil Thomas Cromwell. Anne was accused of adultery with her own brother and several other young bucks at court. She died in 1536 but not before giving birth to Elizabeth I who would reign following the deaths of her half sister Mary and half brother Edward VI. Elizabeth would become one of the greatest rulers in British history.
   What are the problems with Denny's biography of Anne?
   a. She is an advocate of Anne who in her eyes can do no wrong. This is a viewpoint contrary to the assessment of many other scholars who saw Anne as a schemer seeking power for herself, her family and her faith.
   b. The Roman Catholics are all portrayed as bad. Denny has bad things to see about Thomas More who was executed when he refused to agree to the wedding of Henry and Anne. She did prove to me that More was a bigot who sought the death of as many heretics to Roman Catholicism as possible.
   c. Her style is dry reminding one of a textbook account.
   The book can be read but the biases of the author need to be noted. I did learn things I didn't know about this well documented tragic tale of love and death and betrayal in Tudor England.



3. Joanna Denny provides the 'white legend' of Anne Boleyn. Anne had deep religous scruples, therefore, God used her influence on King Henry to bring England out of the clutch of Rome -- and therefore, Anne could do no wrong and all who opposed her influence opposed God. That seems to be the premise of the book. Katharine of Aragon was a liar and perverter of truth. Thomas More was a persecuting pervert. Henry was a tyrant before he married Anne; but he was coming closer to grace until he was duped by the Seymours and Cromwell into falling for Jane. Anne had to be labelled an adultress to soothe Henry's ego, and a witch because she was a Protestant, and she had to be killed because 1) she was a threat to the Catholic party; 2) she knew that Henry wasn't so virile; 3) Cromwell saw political advantages in mending fences with the Holy Roman Emperor and the supplanter of the Emperor's aunt was a liability.
   Now, Anne did a lot for the 'new religion' by encouraging reformist preachers, promoting their writings to the King and protecting them from Chancellor More at home and the Inquisition abroad. I don't see that she was as radical a Protestant as Denny writes. She sponsored them mainly because they were pro-King and anti-Pope as religious shepherd, and thus supported her over Katharine. That Anne saw her queenship as a divine mission makes some sense to her conduct toward her former mistress and the Princess Mary. But Anne was not 'Saint Anne' with the Sword of the Spirit in her hand. Denny plays down that she bedded the King before she wedded him. She plays down her invective against Katherine and Mary by accusing the one of living a lie about her chastity (and this living in sin) and accusing the other of being disobedient and rebellious because she refused to brand her mother a whore and her faith idolatry. Denny is hostile to all the Catholics in this story. For example, I grant that Thomas More was a zealous persecutor of 'heretics'. He was proud of it. Of all people, I would have expected him to see another person's point of view; but he did not. He was so concerned that these heretics would not corrupt other, more ignorant souls, and damning them to hell that he would not see their sincerity or the good in their different beliefs. I warn Ms Denny she is much like him by despising other views of the faith than that of the radical Protestant. [I'm from the Anabaptist sector of Christianity. Sir Thomas would have burnt me alive, so I have no brief for his brand of Catholicism; but I appreciate his concern.]



4. So many biographies already of this fascinating woman, & I'm always happy to read one more. Perhaps Anne appeals to us as the most modern of Henry's wives, with her wit, intelligence & ability to make a life for herself as best she can. I enjoyed this book, probably because the author presents her views so firmly that it makes you think through all the alternate ways of analysing the information. I agree with her conclusions about Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador, & I've never been a fan of Thomas Moore. Anne with auburn hair? All the historical descriptions I've seen say she was very dark, with swarthy skin. I thought a very good case was made for Anne truly believing that Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid, for genuine religious reasons. It is of course genuinely tragic that Catherine was also a deeply religious woman, with a diametrically opposed view. This book also happily confirms my personal opinion of Jane seymour - you only have to look at those mean little eyes in her portrait! Do buy this book - its very readable, whether you agree with all the author's opinions or not. It's a great addition to the shelf for those of us who are Anne fangirls.



5. Ms Dennys unfortunately, through what can only be a very biased view, makes all her seemingly excellent research go to waste. She distorts it all to fit her point of view. I have few doubts she uncovered new evidence to prove that not all was "black and white", but with her determination to make Anne and her father true saints it just does not read true.
   And agreeing with an excellent review I read here, to argue that Catherine of Aragon was a shrew (aactually treacherous!) for not accepting her marriage as not valid and her daughter as bastard, right at the beginning of the book, just makes one want to close the book and go do something more interesting.And somehow I also do not believe the idea that Boleyn also married the king in order to bring forth the new religion sticks, not with all that was known about Henry and his court

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.

5 comments about Sovereign Ladies: Sex, Sacrifice, and Power--The Six Reigning Queens of England.

1. AN EXCELLENT BOOK THAT IS INFORMATIVE AND EXTREMELY INTERESTING. ALTHOUGH I AM FAMILIAR WITH EACH SOVEREIGN I LEARNED MUCH MORE THAN I EXPECTED TO. THE INSIGHT INTO THE TIMES MADE EACH SEGMENT RELEVANT. A VERY WORTHWHILE READ.



2. If you are not at all familiar with the six reigning Queens of England, than this is the book for you. It was informative, concise, not too biased in one direction or the other, and showed a bit of each ladies personality. It is the type of book to spark a persons interest in doing additional research on each monarch, on an individual basis.
   
   My reason for four stars, instead of five, is that I am VERY familiar with the British monarchy. This book did not disappoint, but there was little that was new and which hadn't been read in other volumes.



3. Seven personalities, not six, are on display here, the reigning queens' and Ms. Waller's.
   
   She doesn't condescend to the reader or get too lofty either; she assumes you're pretty educated, anyway, if you're reading this work, but not an expert on this subject. I loved her "voice;" it was friendly, highly personal--yet her research was impressive. I can't imagine trying to make sense of the huge amounts of often conflicting information.
   
   Like Antonia Fraser, Waller assumes the reader has a good command of foreign languages, so if, like me, you last opened a Latin book sometime in the 80's be prepared to miss a point here and there.
   
   In some places, I noticed sparks of startling misogyny. For example, Edward, son of Henry VIII was dying and his caretakers dismissed his physicians and brought in "a female quack." Well, maybe she was a quack and maybe she wasn't, but Edward was dying anyway and Ms. Waller didn't criticize the males who failed to save him. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to be treated by a medieval or Ren doctor of either sex.) In another section, she praises Elizabeth II for thinking "like a man." Hardly words I'd expect from a woman writing about comparatively powerful women!
   
   Waller succeeds in finding the personalities of all the queens, and since I never found anything interesting about either Anne or Mary II it was fascinating to feel them in particular come alive.
   
   
   All in all, I greatly enjoyed this book that gave wonderfully readable stories of the queens that were more than regents.



4. History is one of those subjects that endlessly fascinates me. And one of my favourite times and places is England. So it was pretty much a given that I would pick up Maureen Waller's latest study on the six women who have ruled as monarchs in their own right.
   
   The six women here enjoy a unique position in history, ruling alone (with one exception) and helping to shape what we now know as England. Each one had a very different personality and would help to provide plenty of legend and mythology to what we think of as a Queen. One of them is still living, and several have become icons in the modern mind.
   
   Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II, are probably better known than their male counterparts. They have been the subjects of innumerable books and films, and have inspired the arts, social custom and were often the catalysts for change in the time that they ruled.
   
   I have to say, I was not that impressed by this book. Each queen is covered in a series of vignettes, most of them rather scanty and feeling rushed, despite the attempt of the author to provide some historical and personal details. If that wasn't enough, Waller also tries to include some psychological insights, and also some medical theories as to why each woman behaved the way she did. The result is a thin narrative that doesn't really satisfy.
   
   Technically, the stories are written in a bland, matter-of-fact way that left me feeling rather bored by the stories, despite quite a bit of drama that occurs in each life. What I was hoping for was something new -- after all, how many more biographies of Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria can the market handle? And Waller has already written an outstanding book about Mary II and Anne titled Ungrateful Daughters, about James II and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
   
   Along with the narrative, there are two inserts of colour and black and white photographs, as well as genealogical tables. The bibliography is about the best thing here, giving plenty of ideas for further research.
   
   Summing up, I would recommend this one for someone who doesn't know very much about the subject, but if you've already read biographies about these women, and are looking for something new, it's going to be a pretty dull read. Throughout the book, my attention kept wandering and I found myself bored silly. That's not a good sign, especially with history. Waller has already proved that she can do much better than this, and it's a real disappointment overall.
   
   Three stars overall. Somewhat recommended.



5. Sovereign Ladies is the story of the six women who have ruled Great Britian. You might call it a tale of the good, bad, ugly and beautiful!
   Historian Maureen Waller writes in an accessible style which adds to our knowledge of these important historical women. Waller's book discusses in scintillating chapters the following queens:
   1. Mary I (reign-1553-1558). Bloody Mary so called because of the over
   300 Protestants burned at the stake during her reign. Mary followed Edward IV her Protestant half brother to the throne. Mary was the daughter of Katherine of Aragon the first wife of Henry VIII. Henry had divorced Katherine in order to wed Anne Boleyn. Katherine had failed to produce a male heir to the throne. Mary wed Phillip II of Spain but failed to have a child. She was a devout Roman Catholic not liked by the British people. Her relationship with her half sister Elizabeth was convoluted. At one time she imprisoned Elizabeth in the Tower of London.
   Her attempt to align England with the papacy failed and she died after a short and inglorious reign.
   2. Elizabeth I (1558-1603). The greatest queen and possibly the greatest ruler in English history she was good Queen Bess beloved by her people.
   During her long reign the Spanish Armada was defeated; England lived under a policy of religious toleration; Shakespeare and his fellow playwrights produced great plays; North America was explored and Virginia named after the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth never married though she was often courted. Elizabeth was a brilliant intellect speaking several modern and ancient languages. She surrounded herself with savvy advisors. In 1587 she ordered the execution of her cousin Mary Queen of Scots due to the latter's involvement in conspiracies designed to dethrone Elizabeth and restore England to the Roman Catholic faith. The cult of Elizabeth was wide and she was considered a modern incarnation of the Virgin Mary. She was the daughter of the beheaded Anne Boleyn and the formidable and evil Henry VIII. Countless novels, movies and biographies of this complex ruler pour off the presses.
   3, Mary II. (1688-1694) Mary was the daughter of James II (he reigned from 1685-1688). James II was a Roman Catholic who was forced into exile in 1688 to be replaced by William of Orange the Protestant from the Netherlands. William and Mary reigned as co-monarchs. Mary was a bright woman and a good queen. She loved her husband, England and learning. She was childless and died young. Mary was a strong Protestant unlike her father James II. In 1690 James II lost the battle of the Boyne in his attempt to unseat William and Mary.
   4. Anne (1702-1714). Anne was the younger sister of Mary II and the daughter of Catholic James II. She was duller than her sister Mary and plotted against her father. Anne became Queen of England following the death of King William. She was constantly pregnant by her mediocre husband George of Denmark. None of her 16 pregnancies resulted in the birth of a healthy child. Her children died in childbirth or expired prior to adulthood. Her best friend was Sarah Churchill the wife of the famed soldier John Churchill but the two later had a bitter quarrel never reconciling. England grew in power during Anne's reign. She was an ordinary woman who was thrust into power.
   5. Victoria (reigned from 1837-1901). There is the Elizabethan age and the Victorian Age. Elizabeth and Victoria are not only the two greatest of the queens chronicled by Waller but the two greatest monarchs of Great Britain. Victoria was the daughter of the Duke of Kent one of the many dissolute sons of George III. She ascended the throne following the death of her uncle William IV. Victoria was not beautiful and had a willful and imperious nature. She became queen as a young girl being tutored by her beloved father-figure Prime Minister Palmerston. She would later come to rely on Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli a Tory. Victoria detested the Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone.
   Victoria's great love was for her German husband Albert. She and Albert had nine children; she became known as the grandmother of Europe. Kaiser Wilhelm II was her granchild as was Tsar Nicholas of Russia. When Albert died in 1861 Queen Victoria went into seclusion for many years. She worshipped Albert sleeping with a picture of him in his coffin each night.
   Under the prodding of Disraeli she emerged in the 1870s as a visible presence on the political scene. She favored the emergence of the middle classes and had a keen mind. Victoria was very fat with a 48 inch waistline in middle age. She did not get along well with the playboy Prince of Wales Edward who became King Edward VII when she died in 1901.
   During her reigin Britain ruled over a quarter of the globe. She became Empress of India and her image was seen on everything from the penny postage stamp to vases. Her storng sense of morality and service is commendable. Victoria loved England and the English loved her. A great queen!
   6. Elizabeth II (1953-present). Elizabeth "Lillibet" was the oldest daughter of King George VI and his wife Mary of Teck. W@hen the old king died Elizabeth and her dashing Greek husband Phillip were on tour in Kenya. Elizabeth was raised in a cocoon along with her spoiled sister Margaret. During her long reign Britain has declined in power. She has been a better queen than a mother. Three of her four children have divorced. She lost popularity when Charles divorced Diana and wed his love Camilla Parker Bowles. Elizabeth lacks imagination but has been a good ruler of what is sometimes called "The Firm" of Royals. Elizabeth has endured and is much admired throughout the world.
   Waller's book contains no new historical revelations and is written as popular history for a general audience. As a longtime fan of the British Royalty I did enjoy this book. It will both entertain and enlighten the reader. I look forward to future books by this young historian.

5 comments about Mick: The Real Michael Collins.

1. This account portrays Collins as cold, calculating, incompetent and a sly opportunist...without any real skills or leadership. Every aspect of his life is presented as a lie, this is revisionist histroy on the level of David Irving...



2. I finally finished Mick: The Real Michael Collins by Peter Hart which I began almost exactly one year ago. My attraction to this book was my obvious admiration of Collins and the opportunity to read a new biography (there have been many before). Although I was excited, I was also wary because this book was supposed to take a not-very-flattering look at Collins' life. I found this to be true as Hart attempted to look through the praise and hero-worship that has accompanied Collins since his untimely death in 1922. Hart in several places goes too far, interjecting spite and taking the opposite position just to stir things up.
   
   I can say one good thing about the effect the book has had on me, though: if I had not been reading this book, I would never have chosen the topic I did for my final university history paper and broken new ground in the canon of Collins literature. Overall I found it to be very informative and an exciting read (this is probably due to the fact that this is the first Collins biography that I have read cover to cover and there were many things that I learned for the first time). Despite all of Hart's best efforts, I still find myself a devotee of Michael Collins, maybe even more than before, and for that reason I would recommend this book to anyone interested.



3. I enjoyed this book. M. Collins was shown to be an interesting man living among interesting people in interesting times. I am an interested, but not as interesting, amateur and not qualified to speak to the detailed criticisms made by some of the earlier reviewers or Publishers Weekly. All in all though, I found the subject matter fascinating, to the extent that plowing through this dense biography was a joy. I may pick up some of the other sources and try to gain another perspective some day. I was willing to tolerate a few stylistic lapses on the part of Mr. Hart (at times he was on too familiar terms with his subject, but this is a small matter). One can forgive the fact that a good understanding of the era may be necessary for a full appreciation; many readers will be able enough to overcome the gaps in their knowledge.
   
   Best for me was that the portrait of Collins and his era was nuanced and new. It also helped me to understand just how an old-fashioned revolution against a colonial power could come to be. The romanticism is thankfully kept to a minimum, and the author's opinions are stated with sobriety. I felt he truly liked his subject and found myself in agreement with his closing assessment.



4. This is the 92nd Anniversary of the Easter Uprising of 1916- Chocky Ar La
   
   I have spent a fair amount of my adult political life fighting for a just solution to the national question in Ireland and for justice for the Catholic minority in the North (and any Protestant workers who will listen) thus I am no stranger to the name Michael Collins. However, as Peter Hart has gone to pains to describe in his well-thought out biography Mick is a very contradictory man both in his expression of his personal aspirations for Ireland (and himself) and the political choices that he made in the important 1920-22 period just before his death. The consequences of his actions (and others, notably Eamon de Valera) are still being played out today as the struggle for that just solution to the national question continues.
   
   For those who are not familiar with Collins' biography (affectionately known as the Big Fellow) or have not seen the fairly recent commercial film about his life (starring Liam Neelson) Collins represented that next generation of leaders who survived the Easter Uprising of 1916- the event that is the real start of the modern national liberation struggle in Ireland. Mr. Hart spends some useful time detailing Mick's schooling, upbringing and the development of his administrative skills that would prove very helpful in his rise to the top of the Irish revolutionary movement. The real meat of the book, however, describes the rocky road to the top in the struggle to break Ireland from English domination.
   
   This period from about 1917 to his death in 1922 is both where his huge reputation was made but also where the limits of his capacity to lead Ireland to real independence from the British are displayed. That failure, exemplified by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, has caused no little ink to be spilled on both sides of the divide that ultimately led to the civil war that tore the republican camp apart. This is hardly the place to have a full discussion of that question but I confess that I am still baffled by Mick's decision to sign the treaty. To a great extent he, more so than de Valera, was the very Irish face of the military struggle lead by the then current version the Irish Republican Army.
   
   Despite Collins' well-informed and industrious intelligence apparatus formed in his role as `commander-in-chief' of the republican military forces I believe that he overrated the ability of the British to stay in Ireland in the immediate post World War I period. Lloyd George, not for the first time, got the better of the revolutionaries (as he did with others, witness the 1919 strikesin England and Scotland). That miscalculation, among other issues, led to the signing of the treaty widely seen as a betrayal of the republican struggle and the abandonment of the peoples in the North. While Collin's historically has had the best of it on this question though the efforts of his many biographers this thorny issue is still with us. Too much blood has been spilled to ignore it. Read on.



5. Hart,we get it - you've an opinion that is contrary to history. Yet you do not put forth any evidence in support of your contrarian views.