5 comments about Gift of Power: The Life and Teachings of a Lakota Medicine Man.

1. This book was totally amazing. Written in Archie Lame Deer's own words. Archie really takes us deep into the Lakota culture and brings us into the world of American Indian life. The style in which Archie teaches instills in the reader the importance of laughter to the American Indian people as a way of dealing with the horror dealt by the government and settlers throughout history.



2. This is a first-person account of the life of a "medicine man," or Native-American shaman. The style is personal and engaging. This is a good introduction to the topic for the novice.



3. If you like me, before I read this book, are naive to what true American Indian culture is all about (or maybe you won't realize how naive you are until you read the book), then this biography of Archie Fire Lame Deer, a Lakota Indian is definitely an excellent crash course to bring you up to date! Much of American Indian culture, especially their religion and intense beliefs about people, animals and our earth make a lot of sense to me. So many suppressed or simply not understood parts of this culture are clearly explained and described in fascinating detail. Though I don't plan to change my personal Christian beliefs, I'm moved by the depth and intensity of this culture; Archie Fire's descriptions moved me to intense shame regarding the many horrible things that were, and are still being done in the name of Christianity to this culturally rich, intelligent, colorful and generally peaceful people (Archie Fire Lame Deer, somewhat similarly, also expresses his shame of so many false medicine men promoting Indian religion & culture). And we claim to be a free country guaranteeing freedom of religion? As has become apparent to me, so many things that we believe to be a part of our white North American cultures are actually rooted in American Indian tradition. I say thanks very much to Archie Fire for recording this valuable, enlightening information for we, the unindoctrinated. I wish him and the American Indian people the realization of all of the wonderful dreams described here (as I wish to share in them also).



4. Growing up nurtured in the many faces and realities of nature - and the beauties & dangers therein - provided a school of knowledge for Archie Fire Lame Deer. Along side of this, were the brutalities and horrors of another type of school; this school sought to shame, beat, and abuse the native spirit out of him. This place was one of the many much written about Christian Indian Schools. Within both settings were men who set examples for Archie of humans who realized they had to do nothing else but provide him with acceptance and kindness: his grandfather and a priest at the Indian School. Archie was sent to this school by his Grandfather for the knowledge to be gained there. Grandfather was a Shaman;he knew that Archie would be one someday,too. I think the real reason he sent him to that school was to expose him - first hand - to the ugliest parts of human nature that he knew about. Archie going to Indian School was tantamount to hurricane Katrina being stopped by the frivolous levy systems in New Orleans. Despite all this violence, Archie was able to learn...the kindly Priest at the school was there, right on time, to provide support when Archie needed it most. After freeing himself from this place, his journey was soaked by alcohol. It accompanied Archie everywhere: with lots of women; in lots of fights; in just as many jail cells. It then took him to Hollywood where he became a stuntman. Under all of this was his calling as a healer and a Shaman: this is a terrifying calling. The physical and emotional demands are overwhelming. Here are the facts: only someone willing to throw away, time and again, friends, relatives, jobs, and opportunites is fit for such a job. It seems that such a person would be a narcissist; on the contrary, this kind of person walks with death and loss every day. They have no ego; they have no feelings. We have called them sociopaths. The difference between a sociopath and someone who grabs THE GIFT OF POWER is simple; the former dies or goes insane, while the latter somehow recognizes the destruction in him/herself - and in the wake they cast - as only another possession to be tossed aside. Then that empty hole is filled with the GIFT OF POWER. Archie's natural Father died. In this dying he passed the gift on to his son. Archie was born and raised in the Badlands; but other lands were just as bad. There is beauty in the Badlands...you just have to recognize it. This book should be on all required reading lists.



5. Stepping Off the Edge: Learning & Living Spiritual Practice
   Archie Fire Lame Deer is the son of John Fire Lame Deer and succeeded him as head of his spiritual lineage upon his father's death. A "modern" medicine man with an incredible life story. He's funny, charming, impactful, tells the truth. If I were making a list of "must meet" holy men, he'd be on it.

5 comments about Walt Whitman's Memoranda During the War.

1. This collection of notes by Walt Whitman written during a period of time when Whitman was visiting war hospitals and camps is superb.

   Whitman gives one a glimpse of the war that is photographic and poetic. Its attention to detail, and sympathetic approach must raise a lump in the throat of even the most hardend reader.

   He shows you the places, the times and the players. He lets them speak their stories through his lines. Through sadness he exalts them.

   This book should be a required reading for all highschool or college American History classes.




2. I read this book while also reading "Don't Know Much About the Civil War" and Lincoln's letters and speeches. What a wonderful view into the century that gave rise to this great one. If you are planning to cover the civil war, or even the nineteenth century in America, this would be a central piece to help modern readers understand that time. Whitman's prose style is very modern.



3. How great that this amazing book was liberated from the dusty
   shelves of the Library of Congress rare books collection.
   In a weird way, it's sort of like Walt Whitman's "On The Road,"
   except HIS On the Road was the Civil War. It's a touching, sad,
   glorious & never boring book. Perhaps the most incredible thing about the prose is how "modern" it reads; and isn't it sad, about humanity in general, how Walt's accounts from 1862-1865 are still TOTALLY relevant today, in 2005; and will probably remain TOTALLY
   relevant for as long as human beings occupy this blood-stained planet.



4. Walt Whitman, upon hearing the news of the wounding of his brother George at the battle of Fredericksburg , took off from New York City to find him on the battlefields of Virginia. After discovering him at a hospital, and spending time with his company, Whitman decided to live in Washington DC. His sojourn there, which last many years, is brilliantly recounted in the simple book "Memoranda During the War".
   
   While working at the Patent Office during the war, Whitman volunteered much time caring and tending the wounded at the many Civil War hospitals that sprang up to take care of the men. Whitman would bring the men simple treats, such as fruit, or paper, or things to read, and spend hours tending to these brave men. This book is a recollection, however brief, of those times he spent caring for the men, including some important events of the time.
   
   While people learn about the history of the Civil War by memorizing dates and places, they often miss the impact of the Civil War. Whitman's book brings the impact of this war into real contexts. Even he, in his writing, says that the true reality of this war may be unknowable to those who would never see it. Whitman attempts to correct this by telling stories of the wounded soldiers he tends; stories of battles; and a particularly gruesome story of a raid gone bad and its horrific consequences.
   
   Whitman's prose is succinct and touching. The few soldier's lives he manages to capture on paper, some in just a few sentences, are compelling. Anyone wanting to understand this war certainly should spend an hour with Whitman as he describes his small part in this grand conflict, for with his words, comes a grander understanding of this war.



5. From 1862-65, Walt Whitman visited hospitals, camps and fields of hospital tents, over six hundred visits or tours and ministered to 80,000 to 100,000 wounded and sick. He wrote letters for them. To his dismay, he found far more Union Southerners, especially from Tennessee, than he expected. After the Battle at Columbia, Tennessee, no Rebels were left alive. "They let none crawl away, no matter what his condition."
   
   Hero stories are almost always myths. MEMORANDA DURING THE WAR is made up of articles published in the New York 'Weekly Graphic' and published in 1876 to go along with his special "Centennial Editon" of 'Leaves of Grass.'
   
   "I shall not easily forget the first time I saw Abraham Lincoln. It was a rather pleasant spring afternoon on 19th of February, 1861, in New York City." Whitman was from Brooklyn, New York. "The figure, the look, the gait, are distinctly impressed upon me yet; the unusual and uncouth height, the dress of complete black, the stovepipe hat..., the dark-brown complexion, the seamed and wrinkled yet canny-looking face, the black, bushy head of hair, the disporportionately long neck...." He describes Lincoln as having eyes with a deep latent sadness in the expression. Mrs. Lincoln, too, when she ventured out always wore black.
   
   At the first Inauguration, Lincoln's carriage had been surrounded by a dense mass of armed cavalrymen eight deep, with drawn sabres; and there were sharp-shooters stationed at every corner on the route. Four years later, he was in his plain two-horse barouche with his ten year old son, with no soldiers, only a lot of civilians on horseback, with huge yellow scarfs over their shoulders.
   
   April 14, 1865, a day to be remembered, as President and Mrs. Lincoln attended a performance at Ford's Theatre; at intermission, a shot was heard. Booth, dressed in plain black broadcloth, bare-headed, with a full head of glossy, raven hair, and his eyes like some mad animal's flashing with light and resolution, yet with a strange calmness, jumps to the stage holding a large knife. After he sprains his ankle, he turns around and looks at the audience his face of statuesque beautuy, lit by those basilisk eyes, flashing with desperation...launches out in a firm and steady voice the words, "Sic semper tyrannis."
   
   At the Cemetery in Andersonville, with its thirteen thousand graves, on the slope of a beautiful hill in June, 1875, he wrote: "And now, to thought of these -- on these graves of the dead of the War, as on an altar -- to memory of these, of North or South, I close and dedicate my book."
   
   Whitman was an old man with a bushy white beard and white hair in the photograph by Matthew Brady in 1863. The first part by Peter Goviello appears to be a thesis on this particular book. He is an English professor at Bowdoin College, and previously published INTIMACY IN AMERICA: DREAMS OF AFFILIATION IN ANTEBELLUM LITERATURE. I didn't know there was such a thing, but then I took English Lit. and learned American Lit. by typing the exams for my college teacher/husband who taught both.

5 comments about Billy the Kid: The Endless Ride.

1. If you want to read the politically correct version of the story of Billy the Kid, this is your book. Starting with his tortured, self-consciously folksy writing style, the author does everything but call his readers "podner" to show he is a real buckaroo, podner, who's "miiiighty familiar with the story told him by his grandpappy and reckons he kin share it wif you". It is ridiculous and not even done well enough to bring sufficient entertainment to the project to cover his almost complete lack of original research.
   
   Mr. Wallis appears to have read a number of books on the subject, communicated with the living authors and considered that sufficient research to enable him to write this less than engaging book. In the fashion of modern historians, the book is suffused with his liberal, "I hate America and its history" views clearly there so he can have some credibility with academics who will endorse anything that judges the past by present standards. The settlement of America was not carried out by pipe smoking professors, tut tuting about the morals of their betters. It was conducted by men and women of strength and toughness and the ability to fend for themselves in wild places without institutions to protect them.
   
   But Mr. Wallis will have none of that. To him, the frontier is a dark and threatening place only because those darned white people from the east came out for the sole purpose of killing Indians and oppressing all other non-white people so they could steal from them for their own part. The pioneers, to Mr. Wallis, were gratuitously violent; apparently stupid and just plain evil. And life in the west was poor, nasty, brutish and short. It had no further significance to the author, such as, oh, I don't know, the creation of a great nation.
   
   Mr. Wallis finally gets to the story of Billy sometime around page 150 of his 250 page book. The first 150 pages are contemplations on American history, speculations about what might have happened (as opposed to renditions of what did happen) in various parts of the West, listing of theories as to who Billy's mother was and where she came from, quotes from famous authors with whom he has corresponded all spiced up with his silly opinions on race relations, gun control and pretty much every other political issue never relevant or addressed in the context of the 19th Century western United States.
   
   The worst aspect of this silly book is that it adds absolutely nothing new. If you read Utley's book, you got all the information you would get in this one (without the political diatribes). If you read any good book on the Lincoln County War you get more information about Billy than you get in this one. Readers who read newer books on subjects about which they have previously read expect that the author would have taken the time to do more research than earlier authors and that there will be new information to be had. Not so this one. This one is basically a compilation of what has been written before jumbled into one badly written, worthless book. In reading this book, I lost hours I will never get back. Don't waste your $17.13 on it. Mr. Wallis should retire and do something for which he might have more talent. Say, writing letters to the editor of his local paper.



2. Michael Wallis offers a book - "Billy the Kid" - to prove not much is known about Billy the Kid. The Kid (name not certain, Wallis says) was dead before he was 22. There usually is little enough to say even about the greatest in our histories from the years of childhood and adolescence. There is not much factual to say about The Kid. Anyway, no one was watching him closely or chronicling his deeds.
   
   What is known is not sensational. Even The Kid's murders do not rival the records laid out by Charlie Starkweather or Charles Manson.
   
   Wallis introduces a score or more of men (mostly) who associated with The Kid, or knew of him. His account becomes a maze of names for one-dimensional characters.
   
   Reviewers agree Wallis' account probably is the most factual in print.



3. I wanted to like this book. The author, with his subtitle and thesis ("The Endless Ride") implies that he's going to look into not only Billy himself, but his myth and legend. Instead, what we have here is a lengthy biography replete with guesswork and innuendo, and lots of padding, some of it vaguely worthwhile, some of it not, really.
   
   Billy was an interesting character, if only because of how little is known about him, and how many people have been almost hypnotized by his mythical persona. I was hoping that the book would concentrate on this aspect of his life: instead, it spends most of its words discussing the life and the possible origins of Billy. The author is well-versed in the story of Billy's life, and in the circumstances of his fame and death. He's also very conversant in the various rumors, stories, and theories about Billy's origins and roots. That's all very well and good, but beyond that there isn't much here, to be honest. For one thing, the book isn't as long as it appears. The publisher used pulpy paper, which makes a 328-page book look longer. They put a picture at the front of each chapter, and inserted a large picture section in the middle of the book. With chapter breaks (which result in blank pages frequently) and other devices, this book isn't really that long.
   
   Much of what's in the book isn't directly related to Billy anyway. Imagine my horror when in the first pages I ran across a reference to America's "love affair with guns," turned to the bibliography, and discovered Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America" in it. For those who aren't aware, Bellesiles was the darling of the gun control set when he released "Arming America" in 2001, right up until it turned out he'd fabricated or distorted much of the evidence for his thesis, which identified a large conspiracy among 19th-Century gun manufacturers to fabricate a "frontier myth" which would include settlers who carried guns, when (according to Bellesiles) everyone went unarmed in the frontier era. Anyway, Bellesiles lost his job teaching at Emory University, and the Bancroft Prize his book won was revoked, the first time that's ever happened. No historian, including most of the liberals who were supporters of his, takes him seriously any more. Unfortunately, Wallis appears not to have gotten the memo.
   
   The PC angle of the book turns out, in the end, to be not quite as bad as you'd think. Wallis uses Bellesiles for context, but when he discusses the Lincoln County War, he becomes much more common-sense-oriented. He basically thinks that the whole war was between two groups of greedy oligarchs who used the various gunmen as pawns in a deadly game of Monopoly. That might not be a completely fair opinion, to those who have a side they root for in reading the history of the war, but it's always been closer to my opinion than anything else I've read. I don't think it particularly PC: the author makes it clear that both sides engaged in back-shooting, skullduggery, and general viciousness.
   
   I generally enjoyed this book, within limits. I wish the author had been a little less interested in injecting his 21st-Century politics into a biography of a 19th-Century person. It also could be a bit better organized. There's a lengthy passage at the beginning where the author discusses Billy's origins, and then later in the book there's a chapter where the author skips back and discusses the possibility of Billy being part Mexican-American. All, or most, of this would have probably been better-placed in an appendix. Frankly, you wonder what the point to the publication of this book was: there's almost nothing here, that I could see, that's not contained in Utley's book. That being said, this isn't necessarily a bad book. Recommended, but only guardedly.



4. Henry McCarty/Billy Antrim/William Bonney/Billy the Kid is biographized here, in an OK attempt to weed out the myth surrounding this very young man's very violent life.
   
   Wallis spends much time talking about what isn't likely to be true and bemoaning the lack of verifiable information about the life and actions of his subject, and not enough time talking about those verifiable facts.
   
   Wallis does place The Kid in the context of his place (a fluent Spanish-speaker who loved and was well loved by the Hispanics of his stomping grounds, Wallis mentions but is ambivalent about recent research that suggests that The Kid may have been part-Hispanic) and time (in the Lincoln County War in which he was just one participant of hundreds but the only one convicted, Wallis believes The Kid was--intentionally or otherwise--made the fall guy for the political and business interests who "won" the "war"). However, the last two years of The Kid's life, when Wallas says "William Bonney's activities can be documented week by week and sometimes daily," are accorded a bare 30 pages out of a 250-page book with lots of images and white space.
   
   So, Mr. Wallis, if you can document your subject's activities on a daily basis, in a biography in which you claim to separate the fact from the myth and constantly bemoan the lack of fact, one not use the ones you have to the fullest?



5. This book presents the most detailed record of the Kid's background-family origins, early life, locales, and influences on his behavior that I have ever read. Michael Wallis is a master at presenting "the whole story" plus the many photos of the characters in the Lincoln County War, from the Robert G. McCubbin collection add tremendously to the story. This is a very good book, enjoyable to read, and presents a detailed, factual picture of the subject.

5 comments about Stephen Sondheim: A life.

1. Meryle Secrest presents a balanced, authoritative, comprehensive view of Sondheim. Secrest does "get" Sondheim: the man, the composer, the lyricist. She also "gets" his musicals, both as chronicler and as listener. Virtually all Sondheim screenplays, plays, musicals, and individual songs are intelligently discussed. Extensive and intimate interviews with Sondheim provide the basis, but alternative outlooks from his principle collaborators, associates, friends, and enemies also appear. (Insights of his peers are not present since Sondheim has no peers.) The book carries an inside, but not reverent feel. Sondheim's troubled relationship with his mother leading to extensive therapy, his difficulty in coming to grips with his homosexuality, and his periods of self doubt and perceived failure are sensitively covered. Secrest does not hesitate to call attention to perceived shortcomings, but her undisguised love and admiration for her subject continually shine through. The book is geared toward an audience with a serious interest in Broadway musicals with emphasis on beauty and meaning in lyrics. Secrest does footnote her interviews and references meticulously, but I would also have enjoyed a discography and a listing of his songs by musical as elements of an appendix. I especially enjoyed the insight on Leonard Bernstein.



2. The prospective purchaser of "Stephen Sondheim: A Life" is likely to be misled by this remark: "people seem to be missing the point--this isn't a critical biography, but a personal one". In fact, until she undertook to write it, the author of this book had no personal or professional relationship with its subject whatsoever. It is a thing anyone sufficiently motivated could throw together, and I can't in good conscience recommend it. I can and do recommend Craig Zadan's "Sondheim & Company", and for those interested in musical theatre in general, Richard Rodgers's "Musical Stages" and Alan Jay Lerner's "The Street Where I Live".



3. Secrest has written a book on Sondheim that skims the surface and gives a broad overview. It rarely has insights, however, except a few "anaylses" of the musicals themselves that often border on the ludicrous (such as how many references to S&M there are in his works). There are misspellings of people's names, wrong dates, and some confused plot descriptions as well. But most of all, she seems too polite and distanced from her subject, offering facts but not insight or exploration. I'm not asking for National Enquirer-style dirt, but there is more on the inner-workings and intrigue of such works as "Merrily" in Craig Zadan's "Sondheim & Company," which unfortuantely is out of print, I believe. Furthermore, Secrest is often a confusing writer. She switches pronouns without always making it clear who is now doing the talking, or includes an out-of-context quote without explaining its meaning or context. She also repeats herself in several spots, making me think she revised one segment while forgetting what she had written just a page later or earlier. In short, this book needed an editor, as well as a more probing and insightful author. Most biographies suffer from excessive speculation. This one has just the opposite flaw.



4. If you want to learn about Sondheim's life in detail, this is the most thorough account. Although there are books that are mostly about his work in which you can also find biographical information, this is the first and (thus far) only biography. That's the only reason why I'm giving three stars to this generally shoddy book.

   What's wrong? First, there is an astounding number of factual errors.

   In addition to the outright errors, Secrest also makes many misleading, imprecise, or incomplete statements. Loose ends and chronological confusions abound.

   Some of the people Secrest quotes also make statements that are factually incorrect, and neither she nor her editors (who must take a good share of the blame) caught these mistakes. All of this suggests that she knows little about musical theatre in general or Sondheim's work in particular. She actually gets major plot details of Sondheim's shows wrong. Unbelievable.

   There are also numerous places where she makes statements that contradict what she writes elsewhere.

   All these problems seriously call into question how much of the material here that isn't public knowledge can be trusted. You end up wondering how someone who is so clearly unqualified persuaded the people at Knopf to give her this assignment, much less how she got Sondheim to cooperate. She must talk well, but she certainly doesn't write well.

   Which brings us to the final problem: She isn't a very good writer.

   Still, if you want a Sondheim bio, this is it. Since Secrest had access to Sondheim and to many of his friends and associates, I'm sure that some of what she writes is accurate. But if you read this, you should just realize that a good deal of what is here is unquestionably wrong.




5. I bought this for my boyfriend, a huge Stephen Sondheim fan, who has already read planty about Sondheim's works and life. He could not put this book down. I have not read it myself, but when he can't put a book down, I know I picked out something good!

3 comments about Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.

1. I met the author through a friend, and was intrigued at the wonderful conversations I had with Striner. As we discussed "Father Abraham," which at that point had not yet been released, I was very anxious to get ahold of it. Having finally acquired the book, I am nothing but impressed at the detailed information that backs every assertion made, and the very much conversational style writing that Striner uses. The book is an easy read and really gets the gears turning in your mind.



2. It has become fashionable in recent decades for historians and commentators from the extremes of the ideological spectrum to depict Lincoln as a cautious racial conservative, even a racist, only brought in the end to reluctantly embrace the destruction of slavery as a measure to win the Civil War. In such a view, Lincoln is far from the traditional "Great Emancipator"; instead he is limited to following in the wake of those persons more forward-looking, more morally courageous than Lincoln himself. Richard Striner's book persuasively demolishes such a picture and, on the contrary, portrays Lincoln as a dedicated enemy of slavery (and a friend to racial equality, at least in 19th century terms) who labored consistently and at great length to at last crush the hated institution. Striner does this with a careful survey of Lincoln's career from his earliest political days until his death. And Striner boldly takes on each of the quotes from Lincoln speeches and writings that are usually used to "reveal" Llncoln as a racial conservative who adopted emancipation much against his real will, showing those quotes in their broader contexts, describing not only what else was going on at the time and what else Lincoln was simultaneously doing, but also examining those quotes in context of what else was said in that particular speech or document. Lincoln was a politician of great skill, willing to publically advocate a course seemingly adverse to his real goals but, in the long run, laying down a pathway towards accomplishing those goals. And, perhaps more than any other American president, Lincoln was a master of language, sometimes crafting a phrase, a sentence, or a paragraph that superficially says one thing while meaning, upon close examination, something else.
   
   Stiner also provides a valuable look at the very real fears that Lincoln and his associates had in the years leading up to the Civil War that slavery was on a road towards expansion, not extinction. Moreover, Striner shows that the South's leading spokespeople on the subject of tariffs (sometimes cited as the "real" underlying cause of Southern secession, instead of the uncomfortable issue of slavery) privately admitted that their real concern was slavery, with tariffs providing a convenient stalking horse at a particular moment. The shadow of slavery lay darkly over antebellum America, and Striner's book retores the portrait of Lincoln as a dedicated leader in bringing the country forward to the end of the "peculiar institution".



3. I picked this up in a general English language bookstore here in Bangkok, without any expectations, encouraged only by the fact that James McPherson strongly recommends it on the back cover. It's a beautifully researched, well-written, engaging, and convincing overview of Lincoln's attitudes to slavery and emancipation.
   
   The author has a strong thesis and a clear point of view, but whatever your views on Lincoln are at the start, you won't feel bullied (always my experience when I read anti-Lincoln books). The author demolishes all the old arguments for the view that Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery.
   
   The opening chapters were the best and clearest single summary of the build-up to the civil war that I have yet read.
   
   Let me mention two things that I did not understand before I read this book, that I now understand fully, and that most people still have serious misconceptions about.
   
   First, it is often claimed that the civil war was at least partly, and perhaps mostly, caused by an argument over 'tariffs' and only partly by the debate over slavery. Striner points out that John Calhoun, the most famous opponent of the tariffs, was at first very much in favor of them. He later reversed his position. Why? Because it dawned on him that federally funded projects might not just lead to things like roads and railroads (which he was in favor of), but also to publicly funded emancipation of slaves (which he was against). People like Calhoun also felt (and stated at the time) that the tariff issue was just a test case for blocking the power of central government in general, and that their only goal in blocking that power was to prevent any future constitutional interference with slavery.
   
   Second, I used to think that Lincoln 'only wanted to save the union' and saw emancipation as a means to that end. I now see that that was a very simplistic view. The threat to the union only arose in the first place because of the argument over slavery. Lincoln was against its expansion into new territories, because he (rightly) felt that its expansion meant its perpetuation, while its containment in the slave states held out the possibility of its extinction. Through his entire political career after the repeal of the Missouri compromise, he was driven by that desire to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery.
   
   Once his election had caused secession (because of his anti-slavery stance) he then insisted on saving the union, but not if that meant compromising his goal of extinguishing slavery, his original purpose in entering politics in the first place. His goal was to preserve a union still dedicated to what he considered its original principles of human equality and freedom. This account of his thinking seems to me to make far more overall sense.
   
   If you are cynical about Lincoln, or about politics in general, read this book and feel free to take a more positive view.

5 comments about John Hancock: Merchant King And American Patriot.

1. events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.



2. So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

   His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

   So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

   But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".




3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. My own ancestor Major Reuben Colburn, a patriot from Pittston, Maine was a close friend and business associate of Hancock. While his Maine dealings are only mentioned in passing by Mr. Unger, his research is impeccable and after all the story is, and has to be, told from Hancock's point of view. This is what he was doing during the formulation of our country in legal form. It was surprisingly anti-Adams but I believe this is normal in competition for fame, ideas and recognition both then and now.

   General Washington and Benedict Arnold employed Colburn to supply and lead a 1100-man army to capture Quebec City in 1775. The mission failed and Colburn was stuck with the bill. He died broke as did Hancock. John Hancock was beloved in New England and Unger portays this with great accuracy and flair. He was big in our family, staying at Colburn House when in Maine seeing to his landholdings. One of Colburn's few surviving letters is addressed to Hancock from Pittston in 1786.

   Hopefully my new book "Patriot On The Kennebec: Major Reuben Colburn and the March To Quebec 1775: His Life and Times," will join this one on a new mission to educate the public about our collective roots as Americans. Both men risked everything to start America, and to them we owe everything.




4. Perhaps my expectations were set too high by the biography I read on Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I found Unger's book on John Hancock easy to read, interesting, but lacking of facts and objectivity. I got the impression that the author did not like any of the people involved in the American Revolution. Is this author a Tory? His descriptions of people and things were often shallow and repetitive. For example...Unger used the description of a livered carriage with four horses for Hancock throughout the book many, many times, but does not describe once what this really means. How many servants were working the carriage? Were they slaves? Were they in uniform? If so, what colors? How fancy? The book does not describe in much detail the relationships Hancock has with other founders other than Sam Adams whom he paints extremely negatively.
   
   Plus, Unger gets at least one important historical fact wrong. Here's what I got from Isaacson's book: John Hancock, declared at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together." To which, Ben Franklin replied, "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In Unger's book, he attributes the first quote to Franklin not Hancock and omits the second quote all together - which is the famous line!
   
   It just seems to me the author was sloppy in research and lazy in writing this book. If you can't find anything else about Hancock, then the information is interesting - I did find out that the Declaration was signed by one person - Hancock for the first month of its existence and that they created 13 originals - one for each state. It's a very quick read, but don't rely on this book as the final answer on what went on during the Revolution.



5. His name is known to all, being a common part of the vernacular and synonymous with ones signature, yet, he remains largely unknown to history other than the placement of his signature upon our Declaration of Independence. The mysterious identity that is John Hancock is well presented here in JOHN HANCOCK: MERCHANT KING AND AMERICAN PATRIOT by Harlow Giles Unger. This is perhaps, singly, the most informative tome to date on Hancock's life and career, yet is not without criticism.
   
   Unger deftly replicates all the trappings of a good biography here, beginning with a good genealogy of the Hancock family and their path to prominence and prosperity, at least for parts of the family. The occurrences which set into motion, John Hancock's life being dramatically altered by being taken under the care of his childless and wealthy Uncle Thomas and Aunt Lydia, are well documented here. The book goes on to lend a credible chronicle of Hancock's life; his rise to wealth and prominence, his early involvement with the Sons of Liberty, his entrance and influence in the political spectrum, which covered the last three decades of his life and the many struggles, both politically and personally, of Hancock's life. Unger takes particular care to illustrate Hancock's benevolence to the less fortunate.
   
   Though I have a lot to say in favor of this book, there is also much to take exception with. For example, Unger, himself a correspondent for the London Times Herald and overtly unsympathetic to the Colonialists cause, states that Gen. Amherst's plan to send smallpox laden blankets to the Indians in 1863 was rejected, however, Amherst himself admitted in a private letter that infected blankets had indeed been a part of the British arsenal put into use against Pontiac and the Indians. Unger also continuously and viciously attacks revolutionary advocates such as James Otis, Patrick Henry and, in particular, Samuel Adams, who is the recipient of endless attacks of vitriolic banter throughout the book. Though the relationship between Hancock and Adams was strained, the authors' incessant loathing of Adams eventually detracts from the overall work.
   
   These shameless attacks diminish this otherwise valuable resource that accurately touches on an endless array of historically significant events, such as early disputes on the issue of slavery, Benjamin Church's betrayal of the patriot cause, and John Dickenson's invaluable dissertation on the Townsend Acts, just to name a few. Overall, I believe this a worthy read, accurate on most accounts, but would have been far better had Unger saddled his disdain for the patriot cause.
   
   John Hancock is certainly worthy of the praise of a grateful nation and a man we tend to know little about and often, overlook completely for his sacrifice and dedication to the liberty of the states. Perhaps in the near future, publishers will see fit to provide us with a more balanced biography on this great patriot, but until then, this book will have to suffice as the best source available.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com

3 comments about No Time for Fear: Voices of American Military Nurses in World War II.

1. This book is excellent to get a real feel of what being a World War II Nurse was like. The book shares the best and worse times experienced by Nurses from around the world during very difficult days of War. I have attended signing parties and the experience and warmth is outstanding. A must read book for all World War II history readers who want to understand the real heros just doing their jobs of saving lives.



2. This is a wonderful look at the dedication, work and hardships of the nurses of World War II. Some of their stories have never been told and it was hard for me to put the book down. Their work was demanding, difficult and exausting but the book also tells about the fun and even some romance. Many were killed and captured. Women in combat is not a 21st century idea!



3. The voice of women veterans is one too seldom heard. Now, with WWII veterans dying at a rate of over 1,000 per day, those voices will all too soon become silent. WWII was the first time women joined the military, and they encountered prejudice and hardships every step of the way. The nurses who served in the military witnessed horrors that many of the men encountered, but with much less preparation and little resource for healing after the war. All but forgotten for the roles they performed, this book brings to light their stories as they can only be told- by the women veterans themselves. Much of the information is rarely found in available books, and "No Time for Fear" is an excellent resource for that information- particularly on the women who served aboard hospital ships and those who were taken as prisoners of war. The personal accounts tell stories of war as well as stories of the lighter side of day-to-day living that was the human side of life as a nurse in the military.
   An excellent overall account of WWII military nursing, and one that will likely encourage the reader to delve deeper into our nation's history of female veterans.

5 comments about Judge Sewall's Apology: The Salem Witch Trials and the Forming of an American Conscience.

1. This is a well-researched and revealing account of the inner experience of a wealthy and powerful member of the Boston community. Largely based on Samuel Sewall's voluminous diaries, it covers his life from birth to death. It goes into detail about all sorts of events in Boston and Newbury.
   
   The cover blurb ("The Story of a Good Man and an Evil Event") and the title inflate the importance of the notorious Salem witch trials in the book. The publisher can be forgiven for this exaggeration: scandals grab public attention just as much now as then. If the witchcraft "angle" induces more people to take a look at this interesting book, the exaggeration will prove worthwhile.
   
   The witchcraft angle made me pick it up. I live scarcely a mile from the homestead of one of the women accused in that terrible crisis, and I am quite interested in what happened.
   
   Sewall was a Puritan magistrate. They sat in a panel over various trials, including the witchcraft trials. The nuances of Sewall's interior experience of those trials are revealing about the late Puritan age's issues of gender, social standing, and economic class that underlay the witchcraft panic: it started among women in run-down rural Salem Village (now Danvers) and was prosecuted by men in wealthly Salem Town. Both Sewall and his biographer convey an understanding of these struggles straightforwardly without polemic. Francis just tells the stories, and resists the temptation to draw simple moral lessons from what happened. By doing this he cuts through the illusion that Puritan culture was morally simple-minded and brings it to life.
   
   The people of the Puritan Commonwealth felt the presence of God looming over them with a clarity and intensity that is very difficult for us to understand in the 21st century. Those people thought their culture was destined to be the fulfillment God's divine Providence. Everything that happened, from earthquakes to the birth of infants to the attacks of Native Americans, they understood as expression of God's approval or disapproval of their personal conduct. Sewall was a diligent student of meteorology. He repented and apologized for his role in the witch trials partially because he saw signs of divine disapproval in the elements, and believed that the trials were a sign of collective delusion.
   
   Sewall's accounts of trying to persuade his contemporaries of this position are especially revealing about the complexity of the American attitude towards official mistakes and misconduct. He worked hard to declare a day of public fasting and repentance five years after the trials. He tried to get Minister Cotton Mather (that ghoul!) to write a declaration for the fast day specifically acknowleging the collective evils committed during the trials, but Mather would not go beyond broad generalities.
   
   Sewall's acceptance of personal responsibility for official misconduct is as American as roast turkey and apple pie. Unfortunately, so is Mather's refusal to accept it. This fine biography presents clearly that contradiction in American character in all its complexity.



2. Is it not important to make history interesting to read? This book is so boring, misdirected and verbose I couldn't finish it. Rather than talk about the issues of the title, Francis spends more time going on and on about what Sewall had for dinner, what he paid for land, his romp through London and wars against Indians.
   
   I appreciate the accuracy and thoroughness of his research. But his inability to focus and put words together that are fun to read make this book painful.



3. Francis does an admirable job helping us understand the motives and conflicts of the Salem Witch Trials. To modern eyes the events are so unbelievable, so heinous and illogical, that it's difficult to explain without resorting to religious mania, stupidity or superstition. Seen through the eyes of Sewall, we get a glimpse of the society which could be enlightened in so many ways and so backwards in others. Fascinating read.



4. Richard Francis's book is a great read! Puts the idea of the American conscience into a better perspective. The primary sources are great and the character of Judge Sewall comes alive and we see the ideas of early Puritanism melding with the upcoming ideas of American Benevolence and Sentimentalism.
   
   I recommend this to anyone interested in more detail on the interworkings of the Salem Witch Trials.



5. Just a wonderful book. I had never heard of Judge Sewall and was incredibly enthralled by the facts surrounding his personal life and the with trials

5 comments about The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius Of The Golden Age.

1. I've been a fan of Hibbert's historical works for many years and this is a solid one-volume introduction to a woman whose fascinating life almost seems made for the movies (as it frequently has been). However, specialists in Elizabeth should be aware this is definitely an introduction and does not go into the depth that authors like Alison Plowden bring to their multiple volumes. And I did find - having read a great many books on Elizabeth - that there was an indefinable quality to Hibbert's work that became slightly irksome. In the early 20th century and before, it was standard convention to write about Elizabeth's prevarication, her changes of mood and occasional bad temper, and the despair of her (all male) counselors, as a typical example of an emotional women who happened to be queen. I've even read volumes which imply that Elizabeth's reputation is largely due to her male council keeping her feminine weaknesses under control. Only in the past decades has that slightly condescending tone been dropped and Elizabeth seen for the statesman she was (albeit, still a difficult woman!) I detected the slightest hint of that condescension in Hibbert's book, particularly in his later chapters dealing with Elizabeth's agonies in deciding how to deal with Mary Queen of Scots. For that reason only, I rate it a "4" and not a "5." With that slight caveat, an excellent introduction overall.



2. This is a biography of Elizabeth I, The Virgin Queen. And that's exactly what it is. Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry the VIII is a legend, which Mr. Hibbert attempts to address. Often, this is a dry and, at times, tedious read. However, the details of Elizabeth's physical appearance, politics, and idiosyncracies are extremely interesting. The author details life with Elizabeth and her court, including both of the Queen Marys, Robert Dudley, Sirs Walter Raleigh and William Cecil and others.

   The time line is obscure - Mr. Hibbert jumps around quite a bit and it can be confusing to the reader that isn't paying exacting attention. I wouldn't recommend it to a casual reader looking for a lot of melodrama and action. But, all in all, this is a good read for those who are interested in Elizabeth I.




3. This book is a good general introduction to Queen Elizabeth. Hibbert always paints a portrait of his subject, rather than discussing every detail of the person's life. Since most biographers write too much, we should all be grateful to Hibbert. He does a great job of describing Queen Elizabeth's decisionmaking process, her interactions with her advisors, and her reluctance to marry. He also explains the religious issues that surrounded the time briefly yet thoughtfully.



4. The name "Elizabethan" invokes a vision of an era of sumptuous dress, religious strife, European conflict, and the flourishing of the dramatic arts. The Virgin Queen is a study of the ruler for whom the time is named, and her rule, which lasted for an almost-unprecedented 45 years.
   
   Hibbert takes a primarily episodic approach to Elizabeth's life, from her birth as the unwanted daughter of Henry VIII and his second, ill-fated wife, Ann Boleyn. When Henry finally produces a legitimate male heir, Elizabeth is reduced from "princess" to "lady." After her unpopular, Catholic half-sister Mary ascends to the throne and she is vaguely implicated in some plots against the new queen, Elizabeth is imprisoned despite her seeming subservience and her pleas of innocence, devotion, and loyalty.
   
   Raised away from the court by hired nobility and taught by Cambridge scholars, Elizabeth appears to be both demure and autocratic. The important point is "appears," because, while Elizabeth in her correspondence is deferential and in her appearance demure, her peers invariably see her as withdrawn, haughty, and "proud and disdainful"-traits that "much blemished the handsomeness and beauty of her person" (Sir William Sidney). Mary, not unjustifiably paranoid, does not believe in Elizabeth's humility, honesty, or loyalty. Hibbert's portrayal of Elizabeth, who craves the adoration of peers, councilors, and subjects alike, seems to support Mary's assessment.
   
   Elizabeth proves to be arrogant and autocratic, allowing no one to question either her or her rights as ruler. She is keenly aware of the importance of having the support of the populace, which she enjoys in contrast to the despised "Bloody Mary." She ignores the advice of privy council, however, when it suits her, occasionally to the detriment of her popularity.
   
   Hibbert does not explain why or how Elizabeth, kept out of the way during the reigns of her half-brother and half-sister, became so popular. This points to one of the flaws of Hibbert's episodic approach; recounting Elizabeth's life in terms of "Subjects and Suitors" (although not all of them), "Papists and Puritans," "The Queen in her Privy Chamber," "Traitors and Rebels" (again, not all of them), and so forth, veils or distorts much of the historical context of Elizabeth's development and reign. Within one chapter, she may be young at one point and in late middle age at another. With England's changing allegiances and relationships with France and Spain, it is difficult to track what is happening at a given time and why. Elizabeth's most noted accomplishment, England's defeat of the Spanish armada, is covered briefly and superficially, almost as an aside, leaving the reader with the impression that it was happenstance that no one, including Elizabeth or the privy council, had much to do with; it just happened, with little explanation.
   
   The tale of Elizabeth's suitors can be equally confusing. Hibbert describes her negotiations with Henry, Duke of Anjou (later Henry III of France), when he was 20 and, "in fact, twenty years younger than herself." A few pages later, Hibbert discusses her negotiations with his younger brother Francis when Francis is "not yet nineteen" and she is 39, yet it appears that the talks with the older brother occurred first, which would make sense. Even more confusing, the negotiations with younger brother Francis continued until she was 45 (they would be the last hopes of getting her married).
   
   Elizabeth's treatment of religious conflict is glossed over. While Mary is noted for her brutal repression of Protestants, Elizabeth, at least in this biography, is a conservative Protestant who fears and loathes radicals of any kind, Protestant or Catholic. During her reign, repression is focused primarily on the rebellious poor; she is less interested in punishing the wealthy nobility than in grabbing their riches.
   
   As portrayed by Hibbert, Elizabeth is a parsimonious, greedy, emotionally needy woman who wishes to rule absolutely but who cannot make a necessary, definitive decision, such as signing the death warrant for her conniving cousin, Mary Stuart. The privy council, led by Lord Burghley, the Earl of Leicester, and others, devote much of their efforts to manipulating this indecisive autocrat into decisions they want and to making sure that she cannot renege on them-an ironic situation for the woman who says to Burghley's son, "Little man, little man, the word must is not to be used to princes."
   
   There are several weaknesses in addition to the episodic structure. For example, the queen herself is not quoted often enough in key areas, yet Hibbert devotes one-third of a page to Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem speculating about how she might have felt during her confinement in the Tower of London.
   
   Most notably, however, the book's subtitle is never explained-neither why the era is "golden" nor why the queen was the "genius" of it. While the biography makes it clear that Elizabeth had a strong personality, as did her parents, the nation's successes seem to have been the work of the privy council under the leadership of Lord Burghley and of adventurers like Sir Walter Ralegh. Elizabeth is not shown even to have played a role in, for example, nurturing the famed playwrights of the time, such as Shakespeare, Marlow, and Beaumont. The subtitle implies that Elizabeth's brilliance inspired a benign, cultured age, while the text shows a woman so cold and petty that, when her best friend and seeming lover Leicester dies, she worries only about controlling his estates and monies, and so indecisive that her own privy councilors avoid working with her whenever possible. The age itself is brutal, with the crowd "disgusted by the spectacle" of a drawing and quartering performed, against tradition, while the victims are still alive.
   
   At best, The Virgin Queen is a brief, superficial biography that leaves the reader hungry for more-more about Burghley, Leicester, Mary Stuart, and others, but not about Elizabeth herself, who somehow becomes a supporting player in her own biography.



5. Hibbert provides a factual and rivetting narrative on the life of Queen Elizabeth I, one of England's greatest rulers, and the last of England's Tudor rulers, with emphasis on her personal life, character and personality, and particular quirks.
   
   The prologue summarizes the reign of Elizabeth,especially relating to Elizabeth's mother Anne Boleyn right up to Boleyn's execution.
   
   She was brought up in various households, at different times, including that of her younger half-brother Prince, Edward the son of Jane Seymour and after King Henry's death, the household of Henry's last wife Catherine Parr.
   She was heard, in later life, only to refer to her mother twice. While she proudly referred to herself as the daughter of Henry VIII, she was never ashamed to be a Boleyn and kept a ring that contained a miniature of Anne Boleyn. she also, on occasion used her mother's symbol, the falcon, a bird of pray in which the female bird is larger than the male of the species.
   
   At the time of her mother's execution Princess Elizabeth was two years and eight months old. She was a pretty child far more closely resembling her father than her mother, with her red hair as opposed to her mother's darker colouring.
   She was soon stripped of her title of princess and declared illegitimate.
   Elizabeth who was an incredibly bright child, did not notice that her mother was gone but she did notice the change of her name. She apparently said to her governess. "how haps it governor, yesterday my Lady Princess, today but my Lady Elizabeth?"
   
   Elizabeth must have grown up under great trauma , her mother executed when she was three years old, on her father's orders, all but rejected by her father and declared 'illegitimate.'
   
   Elizabeth was well educated by her governess Kat Ashley, she was an accomplished poet and writer, she was taught several languages, spent several hours a day reading history and could play several musical instruments. She was said by her tutor to have read more Greek every day than many church prebendaries did in a whole week.
   
   At the age of 14, living in the household of the Queen Dowager Catherin Parr, Elizabeth was seduced by the Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour, and the author describes something of the sexual games and romps between Elizabeth and Sir Thomas, sometimes involving Elizabeth's governess Kat Ashley. Elizabeth was only a child and certainly could not be held responsible for her involvement in this fling.
   
   She chose a moderate path being a sincere and devout believer but rejecting both the fanatic Roman Catholicism of her sister Mary and the severe Puritanism of some fierce church reformers.
   AS monarch she was to preside over an England with greater religious tolerance than it had ever enjoyed before, with both Protestants and Catholics as her chief office bearers.
   
   After the accession to her tyrannical older sister Mary, , who had hundreds of Protestants burned to death, hence earning her name 'Bloody Mary' Elizabeth, who was then nineteen, came under suspicion of involvement in treasonable plots and kept in a state of and was closely watched.
   She was for a time imprisoned in the tower of London where she wrote "Much suspected by me
   Nothing proved can be,
   Quoth Elizabeth, prisoner"
   Queen Mary's death, in 1558, was surely a great relief for both Elizabeth and the Protestants of England.
   She succeeded to the throne of an impoverished divided country, menaced b both France and Spain, and with the able assistance of William Cecil (later Lord Burghley), she overcame all her difficulties including a religious settlement, fending off England's enemies and building up England's strength including it's navy. The book describes life in Elizabeth's court, and how she gained the love and adherence of her people. Elizabeth was the greatest and the best loved of all the English monarchs. The author describes how Elizabeth was intelligent, self-willed, brave and astute, but as regards her to her marriage and her foreign and religious policies she avoided decisions as long as possible.
   
   The author describes Elizabeth's refusal to sign the warrant for the execution of her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. To the privy council she asked "Can I put to death the bird that to escape the pursuit of the hawk has fled to my feet for protection. Honour and conscience forbid."
   
   Mary's constant plotting made the decision inevitable and Elizabeth was practically forced by the council finally to sign Elizabeth's execution warrant, but with great anguish and remorse.
   
   Much is described here of the Queen's court favourites who she lavished attention on, such as Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex, but she never allowed them to influence the nation's affairs, for she kept her own council trusting no one entirely except perhaps Lord Cecil.
   The author expertly describes how she rallied the nation to England's defence during the invasion by the Spanish Armada in 1588.
   Who can forget her rousing speech to the people of England defending her country's sovereignty:
   "I have...they shall be duly paid to you."Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general2 shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people"
   t is aforeshadow of Churchill's speech we he told Britain that "We will defend our island whatever the cost may be." Churchill: A Life
   Another great women leading a nation besieged by bloodthirsty enemies intent on her destruction was Golda Meir My Life
   The book richly and beautifuly details, how above all how Elizabeth possessed a dazzling personality that won men's devotion. She expressed this to herself when she said to her last parliament, as the author recounts, "This I count the chief glory of my crown , that I have resigned with your loves".
   
   
   It as a very smooth read that remains interesting throughout and brings colour and excitement to a very exciting time in England's history.
   
   
   
   

5 comments about Ten Green Bottles: The True Story of One Family's Journey from War-torn Austria to the Ghettos of Shanghai.

1. 
   Ten Green Bottles is one of the most powerful, emotional, fascinating and beautifully written books I have ever read. Where has this author been?
   
   The story begins in the early 1920s in Vienna where a five year old Jewish girl, called Nini, begins to experience what it is to be the youngest of three sisters. It is written in Nini's voice and throughout the book you seem to live every moment of her life as if you were in her skin. You laugh, cry, feel and experience everything that happens to her as if it were happening to you, yet the book is non-fiction.
   
   The story tells of her life in a growing family and the hardships of her mother in raising her children and carrying on their business after her father's death. As Nini grows into her teenage years, your senses are filled with the excitement of Vienna and the thrill of skiing in the mountains nearby. Then the Nazis come and everything changes.
   
   As Jews are now considered vermin, they must flee the city or they will surely die. With the help of a gentile lawyer they are able to leave Vienna for Shanghai. On arriving in this no-man's land with almost no money, they find themselves in the middle of another war between China and Japan. Living in squalor and trying to survive, their life is made even more miserable. Japan, an ally of Germany, forces them and about 20,000 other Jews into a small ghetto with over 100,000 of the poorest Chinese. The story tells of their life and the life of the Jewish community as they try to make it through to the end of the war under the most deplorable conditions imaginable. They are eventually liberated by the Americans and stay until the Communist takeover in the late 1940s when they leave. The story ends with their exceptionally well written arrival in the white winter of Canada where they do not have to fear anymore.
   
   I read a lot and to me this book was a literary masterpiece. I also learned about a very interesting part of the Holocaust that I had not known.



2. This story about the experiences of a Viennese Jewish family in Shanghai perfectly fulfills two raison d'etre of books - on the one hand it allows the reader to enter a time-warp machine and be transplanted to another time and another place and vicariously live through the emotional upheavals, the smells, sights, sounds and most importantly the feelings of fear, frustration, Angst and yes, fortunately also joy, of the main characters. Vivian Kaplan is a master of setting the scene and allowing the reader to slip into the protagonist's skin. I have lived and worked in Vienna and also in Northern China (albeit at a much later time) and Vivian's writing rings true. The chapters in the book are like 3-D images conjured up for the reader (and would make a very gripping screenplay). The other raison d'etre of books is to preserve and hand down important happenings and narrate them in a gripping and thought-provoking manner. The manner in which the Jews in Austria and elsewhere were treated by an Austrian madman who managed to come to power in Germany should never be forgotten. More importantly, we all need to be vigilant that such events happen less and less frequently in the history of humankind. Although familiar with the story of displaced Jews from German-speaking countries as I (like the author) am offspring, I was unable to put down the book. What Nini Karpel's mother had to experience in one short lifetime is more than most people should have to live through. The book also helped me understand the initial inertia of many Jews in Vienna to the anti-Semitic flare-up in the 1920s and 30s. "Oh, we've seen this many times, let's just lie low and wait for it to blow over". Writing in the present tense made the story more immediate. However, despite the fact that the book had its share of gruesome scenes, overall the manner in which Nini viewed the world seemed overly rosy-colored and syrupy sweet. The naive tone that permeates the book distracts from the serious situation in which these refugees find themselves. Even a five-year old would know better than to state 'we are awed by the changes in the baby within his first year. Every day he seems to learn some new word...' p.5. Should the book get reprinted, I suggest a German-speaking editor correct some of the German words. The great Ferris wheel in Vienna is no 'Reisenrad' p.77 and the 'Fuhrer' should be spelled 'Fuehrer'. But overall we are better off for having another story capture the senseless suffering human beings will inflict upon one another.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed "Ten Green Bottles". Unlike other books on Shanghai of that period, I particularly relished the intimate glimpse of the extreme wealth and decadence that was ongoing alongside the abject poverty of the immigrants that fled Europe. Much is written here of how people of many nations with unimaginable wealth made Shanghai their "sumptuous playground" between the stench and filth of the city.
   
   In particular, the author's description of the Bolero Club through the eyes of Nini, who worked as a hostess there, was so exciting and so descriptive and so alive that I was sure I was in the room with some of the most powerful men and glamorous women of the time. Her detailed description of the opium den next door, a "grand salon" established exclusively for the very rich, is breathtaking.
   
   This book is a must read for anyone who wants to live the Shanghai of World War II from its lows to its highs.



4. The story of the blind hatred and inhumanity whipped up by the Nazis needs to be told - and told often. But it deserves a more nuanced telling than this single-dimensional presentation. This account is all bright colors (first quarter) and darkness (remainder), with little in between.
   What is particularly striking is that the narrator makes no effort to relate to the suffering of Shanghai's indigenous Chinese population. Her flat and parenthetical references to the pervasive poverty, disease and oppression reveal little or no interest in the historical or social context that created such dreadful conditions, not to mention any empathy with the people so afflicted. Its detachment is disturbing. Could it be that one's humanity is so degraded by abuse that one cannot see beyond one's own suffering? Perhaps, but without any attempt at explanation it comes across as heartless indifference.
   As a tribute by a daughter to a mother and a family who endured hideous persecution the book is a worthy effort. But in providing any real insights it falls sadly short.



5. The account of a Jewish familys' descent in Vienna through the Nazi hell to the foreign shores of Shanghai is interesting from an historical perspective. The writing is amateurish with the point of view jumping around and the verb tenses as well. It could have used a good editor.