5 comments about Younghusband: The Last Great Imperial Adventurer.

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



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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

5 comments about Light in my Darkness, 2nd Edition.

1. I really enjoyed reading this book. It made me look again at what I believe and see it more clearly. This is a great introduction to the ideas of Emanual Swedenborg and the New Church.



2. This book was not only touching because of Helen Keller's fascinating story, but also an uplifting reassurance that life is worth living. Her ideas, those from and about Emanuel Swedenborg, strike me as poingantly true. Helen Keller's unique perspective on the world adds an amazing depth and reality to this work. I absolutly reccomend it for anyone and everyone.



3. I have always been very impressed with the life of Helen Keller. The difficulties she overcame in life were phenomenal. This book, however, was not interesting to me in the least. I am sad to hear about how she moved away from her traditional Christian background and followed the false teachings of Swedenborg. The book is more about Swedenborg than it is about Helen. It is a strong promotion of Swedenborg's New Church. She claims that he had a special ability from God to find the truth in scripture. The problem is, he like all other cult founders, only takes portions of scripture and uses them out of context. He claimed to have special revelations that no one else ever did. Beware of anyone who makes such claims. According to the book, Helen was pretty silent on her beliefs for the last thirty eight years of her life. I hope she was silent out of her realization that Swedenborg is not master of the truth, but Jesus is the truth instead. I do not recommend you use your time reading this book. It can be spent much more wisely.



4. Helen Keller was born June 27,1980 in Tuscumbia Alabama. Her father was an officer for the Confederate army and her mother was a wife. Keller wasn't born deaf and blind that started once she got older. She was about 14 months olds when she started the Perkins School for the Blind.As she grew older she moved to New York to attend Wright Humason School for the deaf. She went to Radcliff college in 1900 and graduated four years later. She died June 1, 1958 in Eastern Conneticut.
   Raven C



5. I received the book in no time at all. It was in great condition. I was completely satisfied.

3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.

5 comments about Joe Gould's Secret.

1. This book with two different pieces about a homeless person of NY is remarkable demonstration of how to write a profile. The author achieve a literary level of writing descriving an empty life on an very ordinary disturbed person. The author did not try to get pity for him, nor depreciated him for his life style. He just descrives the life of Joe Gould on a very fair way.



2. Reading anything by Joseph Mitchell is a goldmine of pleasure and "Joe Gould's Secret" is no different: a fascinating profile of a well-known Greenwich Village eccentric. Joe Gould was, for upwards of thirty-five years, a homeless dropout living from day to day on his wits and handouts from any sympathetic ear, whether friends or strangers. The two parts of the book, headed Professor Seagull, and Joe Gould's Secret, first appeared in the New Yorker in 1942 and 1964.The son of a medical practitioner, Harvard-educated Gould arrived in New York in 1916 and soon dismissed all thought of holding down a steady job when he had a flash of inspiration to write what he called "An Oral History of Our Times". He decided any form of regular employment would be detrimental to his thinking. Over many years, Gould would add daily to this work "in progress" ("about a dozen times as long as the bible") even when badly hung over; loading his fountain pen in the Village post office, scribbling in grubby, dog-eared school exercise books in parks, doorways, cafeterias, Bowery flophouses, subway trains and in public libraries, some of these hangouts also serving as places to doss - alternatives to the floor of an artist friend's studio or a subway station. 270 filled notebooks had been stored in numerous drops for safekeeping until the work was completed.

   Mitchell, intrigued by the "Oral History" idea, wrote a compassionate profile of Gould showing much patience and sensitivity in his dealings with his subject with whom he spent an inordinate amount of time. When a publisher friend of Mitchell asked to see Gould's material, with a view to publishing a book of selections, an indignant Gould declared that the material would either be published in its entirety or "not at all". Scruffy in appearance, wearing cast-offs, often unwashed for days at a time, all the time dogged by "homelessness, hunger and hangovers", ("I'm the foremost authority in the U.S.A. on the subject of doing without") Gould's norm was to hang around bars and diners in the Village cadging food, money and drinks from friends, visiting tourists and other regular contributors to the "Joe Gould Fund". He survived on a diet of fresh-air, dog-ends, strong black coffee, fried egg sandwiches and bottles of diner-bar ketchup supped off a plate. ("the only grub I know that's free of charge") Once asked what made him as he is today, Gould answered it was all down to a strong distaste for material possessions, Harvard, and years on end of bad living on cheap booze and grub "beating the living hell out of my insides".

   Things took a turn for the better for Gould when a secret benefactor, informed of Gould's plight and worsening health, paid for his room and board at a cheap hotel for upwards of three years. When the subsidy was suddenly cut-off without explanation, however, Gould reverted to the flophouses in the Bowery that were handy for the Village. Thereafter, Gould spiralled rapidly downwards. He died in 1957 whereupon Mitchell, who knew as much as anyone about the "Oral History", was persuaded to join a Committee set up to organise the collection of the mass of scattered material that made up "An Oral History of Our Times".

   If you enjoy "Joe Gould's Secret", read also "McSorley's Wonderful Saloon", a marvellous collection of profiles of old-time New York characters in a New York that is no longer.




3. The first sketch that Joseph Mitchell made of Joe Gould, "Professor Seagull," primarily a simple exposition of a bohemian character that the New Yorker and its readers found to be an entertaining piece about an eccentric who claims to be writing an oral history, a book containing so many pages that it would dwarf the author if neatly stacked up. A work that would place the title of grand historian on Joe Gould, this so called Oral History was said to contain not just the usual dates and names of what people think of as history, but the over-heard conversations of the common man as well as scribbles lifted from park benches and washroom walls that Gould deemed to be more telling of history than the formal history taught in primary and secondary institutions. Mitchell infused this first work with witticisms and anecdotes that placed Gould in a more positive light than what is revealed about the man in the second story. There are many parallels in both stories; the opening paragraphs in both stories almost mirror each other but for a few telling and well-placed words, but for the most part, the second story gives the true definition of the character Joe Gould. The second story, "Joe Gould's Secret" gives the reader a different view of the same man. This version lifts the mask from the faces of the author and subject, exposing the truth that is not entirely based on fact. Here, Gould is shown to the reader with all faults and disagreeable characteristics intact. The feisty little homeless bohemian has turned into a scavenging, begging, egregious bum dead set on getting the attention or money he craves, and acts like a child when he does not get what he wants. Joe Gould doesn't actually crave money as much as what a couple of dollars can get him in the way of alcohol, coffee and the notebooks he scribbles in incessantly. The scribbles are later shown to contain not one bit of dialogue overheard by Gould, but the same four or five essays he has been working on for many years. The fact that Gould has been re-writing, tearing up and re-writing the same stories for several decades is the reason for the second installment of the character sketch given to us by Mitchell.
   For twenty years, Mitchell has lived with the lie imbedded in his first sketch of Joe Gould, "Professor Seagull." The lie is intricate in nature and has many facets that kept it a secret for twenty years. With the injection of Mitchell himself into the second story, "Joe Gould's Secret," a light is thrown on the subject of the interplay between Joe Gould and Joseph Mitchell. There is a reason why Mitchell has placed himself in the story instead of writing from an onlooker's prospective as most profiles were written at the time and are written still. With this injection of author placed into the context of the story, Mitchell is giving the reader a glimpse of how the author can be seen in the same vein as the subject of the story. The two are entwined in a circle of deceit that encompasses the meaning of the word `lie' in the direct or ordinary definition of the word.
   After stumbling upon the mendacity that Gould wove with his stories of the Oral History, Mitchell feels as if he has been duped by Gould, that everything that Gould stands for is an enormous and cruel lie that Gould constructed in order to gain whatever it is that he needed for self-acknowledgement and worth. After ruminating for a while, Mitchell begins to feel some sympathy for Gould by remembering an endeavor of his own. Mitchell had a dream to write a novel that would be about a man and his conquests and revelations in New York City. The novel was to have some of the same elements as Gould's Oral History in the form of spoken dialogue from an old Negro street preacher. This novel was everything to Mitchell that the Oral History was to Gould, that is, as Gould is quoted as saying, "My rope and my scaffold, my wife and my floozy," etc. Although Mitchell was obsessed with writing the epic he constructed full-form in his mind, he was never able to actually write one word of it. This remembrance cools Mitchell's anger and he allows Gould to proceed with his deception without intervention. It takes a while for Mitchell to win his trust, but once it has been done, Gould once again dons the mask of the historian of his times and carries on as usual. Mitchell feels it unnecessary to expose Gould after this revelation of like characteristics between himself and Gould, and publishes the first profile, "Professor Seagull."
   While Mitchell was able to place his dream novel on the backburner and continue life as a journalist, Gould continued to live the fantasy of the man who would someday be known as a great historian based on the jumbled dross floating around in his head. Gould had no other life and despised monetary gain and believed that he could never accomplish his goal of writing his history book if tied down to a regular job. Gould was hopeless in his yearnings and dreams. The one thing that he wanted and needed was the one thing that kept him from succeeding, whereas Mitchell rose above his desire to create a grand opus and settled for what he knew he could accomplish. The answer to the question that would tie this story neatly together is the one thing that Mitchell does not completely decipher after he has accused Gould of deception and trickery. The one line, if heard correctly, would answer many questions concerning the Oral History as well as Mitchell's dream novel, and that is when Gould indistinctly says, "It's not a question of laziness." If heard correctly, then what has kept Gould and Mitchell from realizing their dreams comes down to self-doubt and insecurities, and not from a lack of skill. These unrealized works of grand design are not with us today in written form only because the creators did not find themselves worthy of the tremendous work of placing into print what was fully realized in their heads.



4. 
   I would love to be able to ask Joe Mitchell why in the
   devil he succumbed to this worthless little wastrel
   and beggar, Joe Gould.
   It's been impossible for me to put down any of
   Mr. Mitchell's other writings; what marvelous
   learning experiences they've been.
   However, for the life of me, I couldn't find one
   redeeming virtue about a pompous, lying little
   cock-of-the-walk like Joe Gould.
   He left absolutely nothing behind in his wake
   other than decades of panhandling, fabricating,
   and babbling---almost exclusively about himself.
   And, my Gawd, he was a bore; maybe, that's what
   Harvard taught him, the art of crashing boredom.
   There was nothing secret about Joe Gould that is
   worth a reader's expending a single bat of an
   eyelash.
   Honestly, I feel Joe Mitchell felt he had to
   write---something, anything---because this
   useless old fool had succored Mitchell into
   listening to sooo many hours of his incoherent
   verbal diarrea.



5. Having seen the movie before reading the book, I wasn't sure what to expect. I'm happy to report that the movie had been totally faithful to the book. Joseph Mitchell's writing style is eminently readable and pulls one along effortlessly. Joseph Gould likely suffered from a mental illness, which would have gone undiagnosed in the 1920s-1940s. Mitchell's writing presents the subject in a sympathetic light, despite also showing Gould's negative traits. Mitchell shares his eventual exasperation with the reader, alternating between that and genuine sympathy for Gould. Highly recommended! Longer character studies may exist, but none better.

5 comments about Capone: The Man and the Era.

1. Here is a highly readable, very entertaining, and absorbing biography of Al Capone.
   
   Bergreen digs through the decades-deep layers of myth and confusion, showing us the "real" Al Capone, a complex and apparently contradictory man.
   
   And herein lies the one problem with this book. Bergreen can't seem to make up his mind. Was Capone an evil criminal mastermind or a misunderstood victim of American cultural hypocrisy?
   
   On the one hand we read about the evil Capone. The man who without warning could fly into violent rages, beating men to death with baseball bats; a scheming sinister mastermind who plots the St. Valentines Day Massacre.
   
   Then there is the other more sympathetic Capone. A seemingly misunderstood entrepreneur, a man persecuted for striving toward his piece of the American dream. According to Bergreen, this Capone wasn't the king of the Chicago rackets. He was instead a mere figurehead, whose love of the media spotlight allowed the true rulers of prohibition-era organized crime, Johnny Torrio and Frankie La Porte, to run their evil empires of vice in the murky shadows of the Chicago underworld.
   
   If this Capone is to be believed, then Bergreen should have spent more time fleshing out this aspect of his character. The "Capone as figurehead" theory is supported by very little evidence and thus fails to convince.
   
   All that aside, this is a very good book. I found it fascinating. Bergreen does a great job of bringing the hectic, thriving, and utterly corrupt Chicago of the roaring 20's to life. Capone's time in prison is also well covered and shows us the truly pathetic side of Scarface, a lonely broken man slipping into a syphilis-induced dementia, slowly wasting away in the cold and harsh confines of Alcatraz.
   
   I highly recommend Capone: The Man and His Era. It's the kind of book you hate to see end.



2. if you're an Al fan,you're going to read this anyway no matter if it's one or five stars.When things break down as did America during the Volstead Act,a vacuum exists and a law of nature,"nature abhors a vacuum".Someone or something is going to fill it legal or illegal,in this case it was Capone.You could either sell clean booze,brewed properly or as in the case of the Chicago mobsters,clean booze and dirty booze.That is beer and whiskey products brewed properly and mixed with pure alcohol to give it more life.The customer comes back more drunk and susceptible to more errors in judgement and a chance to fleece him or her even more.It is amazing to seehow large were the "bootlegging" operations hiring master brewers from Europe and employing hundreds or (thousands)? of people.It almost seems like the beer and alcoholic beverage industry has a momentum of its own that goes beyond the issues of the legality or illegality of it.Capone compares himself to an amusement park providing the American adult of the roaring 20's with entertainment.That includes the shootouts and gang wars,real life rootin-tootin cowboy shootin'.As American as apple pie and steroids.The press eats it up. The cops don't say too much as long as the mobsters only kill each other.As a matter of fact from reading this book there were so many police and newspaper people on Capones payroll that its a wonder the IRS was ever able to capture Al.He really had great PR running a soup kitchen and loads of other charities.Real drama like a shakespeare play.And don't forget Al was a family man,kids and mass every Sunday,as well as a major community financier,even if it was mob money.Indeed sometimes the machine gunnings and violence seem like a minor glitch,like nature correcting itself.Mobster movies always have to concentrate on the violence because it wouldn't play in the theatre to have a soft spoken guy making a spaghetti dinner for his family and friends.Unless somebody ended up in the pot.Al comes off in this book a perfect gentleman and warm until "crossed" then sneaky and deadly,(really deadly)!!like a true sociopath.This book is more than a biography of Capone,it captures the chaos of the roaring twenties and the depression,with America trying to figure out who and what it is after the Great War.When moral purists,like the kind who tried to "dumb down" America with the Volstead Act,get ahold of government,this is what can happen.An important book,this one. The book is divided into 2 parts,Al's rise and then his demise when the syphillus he contracted in his late teens took over his thought processes in his late twenties.This caused major errors in judgements and all the other racketeers tried to band together, even ones from other major cities,and finally strip Al of his power. Capone however was able to circumnavigate around even these to show himself "KING" of the mobsters.Just when you think Al is finished he comes back even more influential.The IRS trial was really well dealt with and it will cause a person to somewhat lose respect for Al.It amazed me how a literal handfull of government agents were finally able to bring Capone down when he seemed like he himself was an "untouchable".The way he tries to hire high profile attorneys to weasel out,we've all seen too much of.It seems from the read on this book that Capone even with his mind altering syphillus was able to play quite well the different "shades of grey"until the IRS and other government agencies and were able to present him to the American public in basic black and white.This book gives good insight into the "cooling off" aspect of Capones crime career,showing the space between the more violent incidents,whereas alot of books keep the pace of their biographies at a "white heat"by linking at times loosely ganster activity not directly involving Capones mob.



3. This is a great book. It shows us that Capone was not only a villain, but also a man who was loved by the common people. Bergreens book is hard to put down, because of his fluid writing style. Everybody knows the story of the St Valentine's Day massacre, and that time when he beat a man to death with a baseball bat. New to me however was how he spent his days in jail and what he did after he got out of it. After his time in Alcatraz he was just a lonely man who didn't know know what he was doing because of his neurosyphilis. You kinda feel sorry for him. A great biography of the most famous man in the history of crime.



4. I had to struggle to finish this biography. After investing so much time, I felt as if I had to see it through to the finish to prove that I could read it in its entirety. It was not enjoyable largely on account of the author's chosen narrative tone.
   
   Laurence Bergreen comes across as an arrogant "Mister Know It All" type of blowhard. He does not seem especially familiar with Chicago, Illinois, where much of the action in this biography occurred, beyond superficial details. I suspect that he booked a round trip airline reservation, checked into the O'Hare Airport Hilton, went out for dinner and drinks in the suburbs and called it a day in terms of his local research.
   
   There are numerous errors throughout the book, but some of the essential facts about Capone are otherwise correct. I would not recommend this book to anyone interested in learning anything about Capone's associates and competitiors in the gang wars. Bergreen's treatment of these figures is fairly stereotypical and uninformative if not entirely incorrect. He did not seem to think it was important enough to do all of his homework.
   
   If you read this marginal book it is possible that you will learn something about Al Capone in a composite sort of way, but why bother? There are more informative books available from other biographers on the same subject that make for better reading. Quite a few topics are neglected in Bergreen's text, so he takes the position that the only important aspects of the Capone story worth addressing are the ones that he has covered. When Bergreen has a point to make be prepared to have the proposition hammered upon over and over again.
   
   There is some totally off the wall material in the book about Capone becoming a cocaine addict that seems highly speculative and largely unsubstantiated. How long could a hop head survive as the leader of a major criminal enterprise in an era when drug use was considered the epitome of moral bankruptcy? Bergreen does not explain how Capone hid his habit from his criminal associates.
   
   Whenever Capone behaves violently by murdering someone or ordering others to carry out a hit, Bergreen puts it down to the progressive nature of Capone's syphilitic condition or cocaine abuse. While Capone contracted the disease and ultimately died of its ravages, it seems far fetched to suggest that it impaired him each and every time that he went into a tirade or committed a killing. Syphilis has three distinct stages and its fatal consequences can be latent for decades before the disease becomes active. Capone could not have survived as a crime boss if he was suffering from active dementia while leading the Outfit.
   
   A substantial amount of time is spent on Capone's estranged older brother who left the family, changed his last name to "Hart" and became a Prohibition Agent in Nebraska. This material has been published before, but Bergreen keeps pushing the subject over and over again. It is somewhat akin to finding lengthy digressions about Ted Williams in a biography of Babe Ruth. Yes, they both had a few things in common and both played for the Boston Red Sox, but little else transpired between the two men. After awhile I began to wonder if the author would return to the actual subject of his biography? It is correct to include "Two Gun Hart," but his importance is inflated. Capone seemed to have virtually no relationship with his elder brother, so even by way of contrast the inclusion of this material seems to be so much surplusage. I suspect that Hart's children may have been among the few Capone relatives willing to be interviewed by Bergreen.
   
   Similarly, Bergreen segues into another extended detour by recounting the career of Elliot Ness. This goes on ad nauseum and I began to wonder if the writer forgot who the subject of his biography was supposed to be. He prattles on about Ness becoming an alcoholic and a philanderer. The problem is that none of these events in Cleveland relate back to the prosecution of Capone more than a decade earlier. A short summary would have been adequate.
   
   There are a few mildly interesting anecdotes about Capone as told by people who met him in passing. Much of this is trivial. The fact that Capone was a generous tipper does not necessarily absolve him of his many crimes. These asides are amusing, but how much insight can a golf caddy really provide?
   
   This book does not actually succeed in providing much in terms of describing Capone's era. If you are seriously interested in learning about Capone and Chicago, you owe it to yourself to read some other books.



5. This is a great novel. "Not so hot" in the sense that the author almost discredits Capone for how he really was. This is the first indepth reading about Capone, but it is very detailed. I am telling you , if you want to read only one book about Capone, then read this one. You will never have to read another book about him because this one is jammed packed. His life from start to finish. This book will change how you view Big Al, and show just how the media has glorified Al and the Untouchables. It has great tidbits about Torrio, Ness, Yale and anyone else involved in Capone and that era. I definitely recommend it. It is a long read though and can get tedious after a while. I suggest if you are anything like me, to read it in halves. The book is broken into 2 parts basically. The rise and the descent. No complaints on this one.

5 comments about Rosa Parks: A Life.

1. Douglas Brinkley brings out the essence of Rosa Parks' humanity and her role in the Civil Rights movement. This short, highly-readable book provides useful background on Mrs. Parks' parents, early childhood, and introduction to the NAACP.

   The impact of Rosa Parks' actions on her family and friends was among the most revealing aspects of the book. The web of support, before and after her refusal to give up her seat, is truly inspirational.

   The author explores in detail the involvement of Mrs. Parks in the NAACP, church groups, and other activist organizations during the early-to-mid '50s. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s first national exposure in the movement is interesting for those not having read "Parting the Water..." and other such works.

   Douglas Brinkley's telling of the Rosa Parks story is not the first - and certainly not the last - but is the best!




2. Walking into restaurants and shopping malls, I see short and tall people, young and old people, and black and white people. You may be thinking, "Well, DUH!", but think about it for a minute...were black people always allowed to eat with and shop where white people did? I don't think so! I mean if it weren't for certain people such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, black and white people wouldn't even be able to drink out of the same water fountain, let alone shop and eat among each other.

   After reading the book entitled Rosa Parks, written by Douglas Brinkley, I realized that life today isn't at all the same as life was 50 years ago.

   Rosa Parks is mainly an autobiography of Rosa Parks. It does although mention other great people such as Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth. All these people helped create equality throughout all of the human races.

   On December 1, 1955, a 42-year old black woman, named Rosa Louise Parks, refused to give up her seat to a white man. You see, back then, white people had the privilege of sitting in the front of the bus, due to their so-called "superiority" over blacks, and blacks were sent to the back. Rosa Parks' refusal set off a 381-day boycott led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and is now considered to have been the beginning of the American civil rights movement.

   Rosa Parks' case was different from many other people who disobeyed the laws. Rosa Parks had this biblical quality, which made her a saint, somewhat divine. Also, Rosa Parks only spent 2 hours in jail, while others were in for days, weeks, perhaps even months.

   This book not only recognizes some of the most influential people of all time, but also tells exactly how black people were treated and how they reacted.

   If you are interested in finding out more about Rosa Parks and other interesting people, I highly recommend this book.




3. I do not think this is a very good book for a book report on Rosa Parks. Despite the fact the title is "Rosa Parks", I received more information on other things that were happening at the time and about other people than you did about Rosa Parks. However, this is a good book if you are doing a report or want to learn about African American History in the late 1800s and 1900s.



4. True Life: Rosa Parks
   By: Mariah Sanchious
   
   This book states all the facts about Mrs. Rosa Parks and how she basically struggled to be equal her whole life. Mrs. Parks didn't really understand in her young years, why they happened to be separated by color. As she grew older she began to learn why. Why did she make such a difference in the south? Come experience her growing up memories with me and how she had a huge impact on today's society.
   
   I enjoy this book because it notified me that people struggled to get what I have. Even though Mrs. Parks isn't before Irene Morgan or Claudette Colvin she made her stand up for her rights famous. She went through things like getting kicked out of restaurants to getting threating phone calls. She also cost her husband Raymond Parks his corner barbershop job. She also had KKK mobs running up and down the street throwing fires. She worked all the way on the opposite side of town and she walked six miles everyday until justice was served. As this happened to her, her close friend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's house was burned down. His church also got burned down while two little girls were in the bathroom. She later lost her job and her husband was abused by policeman. She was also aware that her friends got raped and murdered by policeman and nothing would be done about it. A lot of pregnant women would walk a great distance just to protest with the bus boycott. People really believed separate but equal but a lot of African American leader strived to make that change.
   
   I also enjoyed how the book gives specific details on her childhood years. Rosa McCauley was born on February 4, 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama. She had a mom Leona that was a rural school teacher, and she had a dad James that was a carpenter. In her toddler years her mom and dad separated and Rosa, her younger brother Sylvester, and her mom moved into a farm. They moved in with their former slaved grandparents in Pine Level, Alabama. She was home schooled until she was old enough to realize how the law was. At age eleven she went to an all girl's school with her friend Jonnie Carr. She continued that all girls school until she went to college. She went to Alabama State College for Negroes but had to dropout because her mom and grandmother were diagnosed with a terminal illness. That's when she got a job and married a local barber named Raymond Parks.
   
   I also enjoyed how they showed how much awards she received and how much honor she received when she died. after the Montgomery Bus Boycott,In 1979, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People awarded Parks the Spingarn Medal, its highest honor, and she received the Martin Luther King Sr. Award the next year. She was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame in 1983 for her achievements as a civil rights activist. She was aslo asked to welcome Nelson Mandela from is imprisoning in South Africa. She also received rthe Rosa Parks Piece Prize in 1994 in Swedan. She also received the highest award given by the U. S Executive Branch in 1996 called the Presedintal Medal of Freedom. She also received the highest award from the legislative branch in 1999 called the Conggressional Gold Medal. Sha also got the Windsor-Detroit International freedom award that was pesented to her at the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival. She died in Detroit, Michigan at age 92.
   
   In conclusion, I would like to say that Rosa Parks stood up for a lot of coloreds . Her and all the civil rights activist led us to vitory and achieved their goal. Those 382 days of that bus boycott proved that we are strong and can do and be anything that we want to be. I would recommend this book to anybody who enjoys learning about black history. I also would like to say that this book makes you apprciate everything you have. It also has makes you feel that your in the obsticles that happened to african americans. I think that people would enjoy this book a lot .



5. An inspirational story about the life of Rosa Parks, a mulatto woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery AL on Dec 1, 1955. Her courageous act became known as the beginning of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. Her quiet and non violent action sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycot, provided the NAACP with a model case to end Jim Crow laws in the South and gave opportunity for young minister, Martin Luther King, Jr. to display his enormous leadership potential. The story reveals little known facts about the quiet and demure seamstress. It tells of her personal struggles with racism, poverty and chauvinism. It is a heroic story of an ordinary person with incredible inner strength.

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

5 comments about Elizabeth I.

1. This is an insightful and fascinating look into the age of Elizabeth I: not only does the author explore her complex private life, but her techniques of holding and exercising power and diplomacy - always mixed together - are examined with a depth that never romanticises this remarkable leader.
   
   The story begins with a frightening look into the battle for succession. Her half-sister, Bloody Mary, at the moment is attempting to re-convert the country with ruthless brutality to the Catholicism of her mother, whom Henry VIII divorced to marry Anne Boleyn, E I's mother. Thus, E I faced not only the normal suspicion of treasonous intent between bitter blood rivals with a personal twist, but also was open in her protestantism during the bloodiest epoch of the Reformation. While E I survived and was crowned as queen, the legitimacy of her claim was always under threat - her difficult though charismatic Catholic cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, served as a living reminder of how easily E I might be replaced on the throne. E I survives, of course, and more or less triumphs over all her adversaries, but she was never bloodthirsty.
   
   Behind this basic plot, Somerset masterfully dissects the machinery of government of the time. As an absolute sovereign, E I had the last word, but she relied on a series of deeply trusted advisors as well as a network of courtiers, with whom she forged extremely close (perhaps physical) relationships. They form a fascinating backdrop as the story unfolds with their attempts to manipulate while serving her. It is as complex as a Shakespearean drama and yet Somerset is wonderfully even-handed in her treatmet of them all, from Cecil and Dudley to the deranged and dangerous step son of Dudley. E I's missteps, pride, and personal need for attention and love are criticially covered in just the right level of detail: not academically over-exhaustive, but satisfyingly complete nonetheless. After reading this, I went to the National Portrait Gallery in London and immensely enjoyed looking at paintings of virtually all of the characters. Finally, the finances of the Kingdon, so interlinked with the patronage system she managed to keep her aristocrats happy, are explained in perfect detail that is never excessive. There is also a clear explanation of E I's carefully engineered religious compromise as embodied in the Anglican Church.
   
   Then there are the details of E I's diplomacy: she held out the prospect of marriage as a tool of this, ever enticing suitors, but never quite committing. It was a brilliant balancing act, in which she often felt personally vulnerable and perhaps even hopeful of finding a love match, while ever cunningly manipulative. This was perhaps the most fascinating for me, with characters surpassing her courtiers, such as the Duke d'Anjou, who preferred men and was later a transvestite before being murdered as the French King. But there were score of others, including Philip II, her great rival in Spain and former brother-in-law, whose Armada she crippled to make England a true world power with new naval techniques.
   
   Warmly recommended. THis is a masterpiece of popular scholarship, beautifully written, and elegantly subtle as well as demandingly critical. It is the perfect supplement to those who enjoyed Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth. The only thing that I would have wanted in this is a more in-depth cultural explanation of the Age she was identified with, but that would be a book in itself.



2. This is the most substantial and elegantly written of the recent biographies of Elizabeth I. Somerset is especially good on Elizabeth's character (indecisiveness was a big element in it). The book includes excellent summaries of complicated and obscure issues like the England's campaigns in the Netherlands. You get a clear sense of Elizabeth's learning and mastery of languagde, but I did wish for more quotation from Elizabeth's speeches and letters. On that front, it's helpful to read this biography together with Elizabeth I: Collected Works, which includes modern-spelling versions of these (plus her poetry, etc.).



3. I had never read a historical biography before, and I had no idea a book like this could be such a page turner. I could hardly put it down! Somerset does a superb job placing this brilliant monarch in the context of her time period. She goes into detail about court intrigues, political strife, and personal relationships. I found the book much more exciting and dramatic than the movie. after reading this book, I felt that I understood not just Elizabeth better, but the whole Elizabethan era. To top things off, Somerset's style is easy to read. The book is well researched and objective; never over romanticizing or over criticizing. Plus, it's a thick book so you get more for your money. I would have liked to hear more about the Queen's supposed virginity (Somerset goes with the Virgin Queen angle) but I'd still pick this book over Allison Weir any day.



4. In my opinion this is the best of the numerous biographies I've read about this fascinating person. A balanced and fair, warts and all approach that allows the reader to form their own opinion. Highly recommended.



5. elizabeth was the most fascinating ,complex woman who every rule in the world.the author capture the reader's imagination by tell story of motherless princess who mother beheading darking her life,but her cunning lead her to become ruler over england for 45 years.

No comments about Mary Elizabeth Garrett: Society and Philanthropy in the Gilded Age.

5 comments about Stella: One Woman's True Tale of Evil, Betrayal, and Survival in Hitler's Germany.

1. Few can match the infamous Blond Poison, Stella Goldschlag, who stalked the alleys of Berlin seeking former friends, School Classmates and neighbers as as well as total strangers not out of loneliness but in order to betray them and send them to the Gas Chambers to be murdered in her place during the Holocaust. She well deserves her reputation as a Judas to the Jews of Berlin, the men, women and children whom she betrayed by the score to preserve her own life.
   
   This book is basicly her story. Written by a former classmate.
   
   It details much of her early life to the best of the author's knowledge. It then goes on to describe her career as a Griefer, one of the scores of Jews who openly chose to assist the Gestapo finding the Jews in hiding so to deport them to the death camps in exchange for their own survival.
   
   A career in which Stella Goldschlag was one of the Gestapo's best.
   
   One could compare her to the infamous Blond Irma Grese (who is not mentioned in this book) but Wyden shows her life was a far cry from nightmare that of the infamous Blond Beast's. She was not mistreated. Her mother spoiled her. Her father hardly interfered. She certainly had contact with better men in the beginning. A far cry from the horrors of Irma Grese's nightmare life that ultimately exploded with deadly fury upon the inmates of Auschwitz with all the savagery of a mistreated dog.
   
   When one looks at the infamous Blond Poison and her Domestic Partner Rolf Isaacson one finds no reason to sympathise with them at all. They did what they did as a matter of choice. Wyden even reports the infamous Blond Poison enjoyed her work.
   
   This is the story of one woman's choice in Evil.



2. Wyden mixes personal reminiscences about his youthful schoolboy infatuation with schoolmate Stella with a history of the persecution of Jews in Berlin and Stella's ever duplicitous role in it. Ultimately, he portrays a pathetic, lonely and isolated woman who refuses to acknowledge any guilt, real or alledged, or personal responsibility in betraying Jews to the Gestapo.
   
   This book is history and personal anecdote while concurrently begging thought provoking questions about guilt and capitulation. One could easily conclude that had Stella been born in a different place at a different time she would have been a totally ordinary person living out an uneventful life. Sometimes it almost seems that Wyden wants to believe this too. For her part, she claims that even had there been any cooperation with the Gestapo it was to spare the lives of her parents. Is she guilty out of concern for her parents (they ultimately perished) and therefore somewhat forgiven by the "I was just obeying orders" defense so frequently echoed throughout World War II and VietNam; or is she guilty because an ordinary person was born into and negatively impacted by the truly bizarre and cruel world of 1940s Berlin?
   
   Stella is ultimately a disturbing portrait of a truly personal human tragedy; her own and those who suffered for it.



3. Stella is my kind of history. First person who was there, through their own eyes. When I majored in American History I wondered what happened to the Jews who were my age during the war. Thinking that I would not have fallen in the Nazi traps which led to the camps. This book helps explain where the 20 year olds went during the war. The author was in Berlin before the war with many school friends and neighbors. The follow-up with his friends and the stories of their lives during and after the war is amazing. Riveting. I couldn't put it down and would recomment this book to anyone interested in Berlin history during the war.



4. "Stella" is the fascinating tale of a lovely, young and blond Jewish woman given an incredible "Sophie's Choice." 'Die along with your family or cooperate and save both yourself and your loved ones.' Cooperation, of course, meant cooperation with the Nazis at the lowest level. Stella would have to search out and betray hidden Jews to the Nazi death machine.
   
   Stella made her choice and I do not judge because, never having lived through the horror of arrest and threatened extermination, I don't know what I would have done. I'd like to think I would have chosen "honorable" death over dishonorable life...but...I really don't know. Nobody knows what they would do if faced with a similar fate and a similar choice. Christ said, "Let he who is without guilt throw the first stone." I wouldn't and won't throw that stone.
   
   Stella made her choice and it was a horrific one. She became a griefer and was responsible for hundreds of arrests. Hundreds died who might have survived had Stella never existed. The story implies that Stella may have taken some satisfaction in her skills. I don't doubt it. Once a person gets pointed in a certain direction she usually gains satisfaction from a job well done. Besides, there is the Stockholm Syndrome where the victim identifies with her victimizer.
   
   This story is valuable at seveal levels. It is a study of human nature under remarkable stress. It is also a study of the complexities and inconsistencies of the Nazi extermination system. Stella lived but her family died. Would she have also been killed if the war had gone on longer and her source of victims dried up? Or would she have lived like a lovely butterfly in a bottle? Would she, with her blond good looks and charm, become an honorary Aryan?
   
   I'm reminded of a story told on Heinrich Himmler. He is walking outside the wire of one of his camps one day and spots a goodlooking blond man behind the wire. He called him over so he could talk to him, "Are you a Jew?" "Yes." the clueless man answers. "Are your parents Jewish?" asked Himmler. "Yes." replied the young man. "Are your grandparents Jewish?" "All Jewish." the man replied again. Himmler shook his head, "Then I'm sorry I can't help you."
   
   This story is fascinating because it implies that Himmler may have saved the man had he proved less than completely Jewish. Likewise, Stella might have survived the Holocaust even if Hitler had won the war.
   
   Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God" on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico



5. I was prepared to loathe Stella. How could anyone turn in her friends to the Nazis, knowing they were going to be tortured and killed? How could anyone not see her as a horrific ogre, and damn her forever? Much to my surprise, as the book went along, I found I had more and more compassion for her. Let me be clear: what she did was wrong, to be condemned in the strongest terms. But, give this a quarter turn, and look at it through Stella's eyes: she was born in 1923, the only child of a well-to-do couple who doted on her. Stella was spoiled by her parents, self-centered, and in my opinion, a self-hating Jew. From 1918-22, Germany saw the assassinations of 376 bureaucrats and politicians, about one every four days. There were riots by right-wing thugs, and Jews were often attacked, all this before Hitler even came to power. Granted, a young, spoiled, self-centered child doesn't follow these things (or even many precocious nonself-absorbed children),
   but they are definately noticed in one's subconscious. It sets the psychological stage. Mis en place. By 1935, Jews were fired from their jobs, or forced to sell out their businesses for a pittance. The Goldschlags went from well-to-do to barely scraping by. When she was 20, Stella's beloved parents were scheduled for transport. The Gestapo wanted Stella to turn in her friends (the "u-boaters", Jews in hiding). She said no. Then the Gestapo tortured her. She said yes. The author gives examples of those the Gestapo approached who refused to turn in their friends. Many said no. However, none of them was tortured. The reason I feel compassion for Stella (and obviously much, much more for her victims), is she lived an over-protected, sheltered life, and was psychologically unequipped to do anything else. Let's face it, virtually none of us has lived in her shoes. I would hope that I wouldn't make her choices. I know they aren't a part of my values. But to me, Stella was a product of Nazi and Gestapo torture and abuse. What Jew did not experience trauma in Nazi Germany? How could one not be traumatized by the situation, year after year? And to be a coddled 20 year old and tortured by the Gestapo on top of that? I in no way condone Stella's actions. I deplore them. But I cannot damn her because she was egregiously exploited by the Nazis and didn't have enough of a psychological and moral foundation to do the right thing. She broke. And although most of us would say, "Oh, I'd never do that!", we have not been in that position. Maybe most people wouldn't do that, but I feel certain a lot more of us would do that , if we had lived a life similar to Stella's. That's the key. The world is made up of different people, of different backgrounds, and most importantly different strengths and weaknesses. She didn't have the character or moral fiber to stand up for what's right. Later, some eyewitnesses said she'd smile and act as though she really enjoyed betraying her friends. There, too, I don't necessarily accept that at face value. When someone lives in horrific conditions 24/7 for years, they have to sometimes delude themselves to keep from going insane. The brain cannot handle 24 hour horror for years on end. So, I say that she wasn't smiling and enjoying it, I believe that it was merely an involuntary coping mechanism. I believe this is born out when she makes friends with an older woman who eventually draws Stella out, and helps her to see that it is wrong under any circumstances. Stella arranges to have her second husband do the dirty work. After the war Stella was convicted and served 10 years. I will grant you, that compared to her deeds, that is an insulting slap on the wrists. But for those of you who are bloodthirsty in a desire for revenge, take comfort. She has been in a crueler, far stricter prison than any government institution: the prison of her mind. She has no friends, virtually sees no one, gets no joy from life, and keeps her shades drawn. The author was peeved that she still sometimes lied about her crimes, and took it to mean she had no remorse. I took it to mean that she still psychologically has the need to try to delude others because she cannot bear to admit everything to others that which she has come to admit to herself. The life she now leads is to me loud testimony that she recognizes the horrors of what she has done, and what she can never undo. I am an informal student of post-traumatic stress disorder, and Stella exhibits all the signs. During the war years she also exhibited them, too. She was a pitiful victim. She did the wrong thing, horrible, horrible things, and she will go to her death paying for her sins. This is tragic story on many different levels. She deserves this prison of the mind, but I still feel compassion for her.