5 comments about Peter the Great.

1. I love to read history and have numerous books about many people and events that happened throughout history. But this book has to be my absolute favorite. Peter the Great was an amazing person and led a life without one dull moment. Once you start reading this book it will be difficult to put it down. Even though he did not live into old age, he lived a life full of adventure and you will never be bored while reading this book. You will find that Peter the Great is one of the best leaders of all times and I often wonder how Russian history would have evolved if Peter had lived to be eighty. It is too bad the man cannot be cloned.



2. Much like Pierre Berton's great Canadian history books, Robert Massie brings history to the "people" with Peter The Great. In this long but highly readable biography, Massie illumimates the distant past of a backward nation which grew into a major European power under the energetic Peter. We read about the palace intrigues in the Kremlin in Peter's early years, his rise to power, and his historic trip "incognito" through Holland, Austria and England. A major part of this book is devoted to the Great Northern War with Sweden, and the fascinating character of Swedish king Charles XII. I knew very little about that attempted invasion of Russia, and Massie paints a vivid picture of the Swedish campaign. The author also brings us inside the Ottoman Empire and the life of the Sultans and Grand Viziers. He puts Peter's life in context with the greater world and shifting alliances of Europe.
   
   The brutish nature of life in Russia in this era is not glossed over. So many labourers died in the construction of Peter's centrepiece city St. Petersburg, and the cruel punishments of the time are depicted. Overall, this is the type of historical biography they don't write anymore. History can be and should be written to appeal to a broader audience, and also to tell things as they were, without resorting to revisionism. Books such as this encourage readers to explore history more.



3. In short, I am an amateur historian of Russian history and found this biography to be very detailed, thoroughly researched biograaphy while at the same time reading as a top notch novel. I can't recommend it more. If you are interested in the man, this transitional period in Russian history or are after a great read, you won't be disappointed. Enjoy!



4. Massie's work of Russian history is one of the fines biographies I have ever read. It keeps interest start to finish. It never gets boring at all, and that is important since the book is over 800 pages! Massie delves into the experience that made the man who is Tsar Peter The Great, yet at no time does it ever let down. It is exciting, readable, and very human. I enjoy Massie's book, and I intend to read more of his works



5. I teach history and have read a lot of books. This is the best history book I have ever read. Massie does such an amazing job at bringing the reading into the age. Peter was a fascinating man. Massie makes you understand what made him also great.

5 comments about The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America.

1. The Metaphysical Club is a brilliant, ambitious book - the chronicle of pragmatism's rise as a governing philosophy in the decades following the Civil War. But for all its virtues, I'm surprised this book won the Pulitzer Prize. This is pretty dense stuff. Despite Louis Menand's engaging writing style, I had trouble keeping up with his exploration of emerging philosophies in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think I got the gist of it: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., William James, John Dewey, Charles Peirce and others were struggling to come up with a guiding philosophy to a deal with a world that (as Darwinism showed) is all the time changing right under our feet. They realized that hewing to rigid principles and old certitudes was futile, even dangerous. Together, they created pragmatism, in which keeping the public debate and political process open to dissenting views trumps any underlying theoretical framework, which, after all, might be proven wrong by the next round of scientific research. Today's heresy is tomorrow's truism. I realize that I might be making this book sound like drudgery; it's not. Menand is a great storyteller in love with the stories he's telling. The Metaphysical Club is filled with long-forgotten incidents and thinkers, many of them cranks and weirdoes who were always interesting and often brilliant even when they were dead wrong. Little gems are scattered throughout. Did you know, for example, that we owe the notion of academic freedom partly to a racist professor who wanted to expound his noxious views denigrating Asians and other immigrants? Reading this book, I came to realize how much I owe my own evolving worldview - a clumsy attempt to figure out how to live decently in a world where almost nothing is certain -- to Dewey, James and Holmes.



2. Louis Menand's "The Metaphysical Club" poses a somewhat interesting quandry: is it a biography of C.S. Peirce, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Dewey? Is it a biography of the philosophy of Pragmatism? "The Metaphysical Club" can best be understood as an account of how the cluster of ideas that came to be called pragmatism was forged from the searing experiences of its progenitors' lives.
   
   Menand, whose prior work includes Pragmatism: A Reader rightfully begins his inquiry into the "birth" of pragmatism with Ralph Waldo Emerson. The driving force behind transcendentalism, Emerson can also be thought of as a progenitor of pragmatism. Menand does well to depict not only the intellectual connections between Emerson, Perice, James, Holmes and Dewey but also the personal connections between them. I do object though to the use of "The Metaphysical Club" as the fulcrum of this connection as it gives this "club" (which existed for about 3 months and of which Emerson and Dewey were not members) undue significance. Menand provides also linkages between the personal lives of the progenitors and the evolutions of their ideas as a way of depicting that ideas are not forged in a vacuum.
   
   The unabridged edition would get 4 stars from me with the major drawback being the undue significance Menand places on "The Metaphysical Club."
   
   The abridged audio edition on the other hand is a confused disconnected mess. I found myself cringing mightily when the narrator, Henry Leyva, repeatedly mispronounced the name of C.S. Peirce - repeatedly mispronouncing it as "Pierce." If "The Metaphysical Club" were a mere work of fiction, perhaps this mistake could be shrugged off, but in a purported work of intellectual history, it is inexcusable. The text itself fluctuates between fluidity and disorganized and a reader without a great deal of background in pragmatism would find himself utterly lost in the inelegant transitions the abridged edition makes.
   
   Though I would recommend "The Metaphysical Club," I cannot, in good conscience recommend the abridged audio edition.



3. I bought this book looking for a description of the philosophy of the American pragmatists - William James in particular, but John Dewey as well. This book includes both those figures, as well as Oliver Wendell Holmes and others. The book goes into a lot of detail on the era in which they lived (which the author believes is necessary to understand their philosophies - fair enough) as well as considerable detail about their personal lives. Also relevant.
   
   I liked a lot of the information contained in the book, and thought it was worth reading to get that information. What I didn't like was the organization of the book - the author introduces a new character, then goes off on multiple tangential histories. By the time he gets back to "the point", I was often lost and had forgotten where he started.
   
   Overall I felt this book was worth reading, but I didn't get as much out of it as I think I could have if the structure had been a little more straightforward.



4. While the title of this book might grab your attention, it is it's subtitle, "a history of ideas in America," that really embodies the subject of the book. Louis Menand's "The Metaphysical Club" is a well researched and thoroughly engrossing history of America's vangard of intellectual activity from right before to right after the American Civil War.
   
   Following the lives primarily of the James', Holmes', Louis Agassiz, the Pierces, and John Dewey, Menand explores the root of 19th century American philosophy and science, with touches of law, math, psychology, and every other subject one can think of, within the context of Civil War influence in a way that can be described only as masterful.
   
   My only criticism is Menand's seeming devotion to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and John Dewey, whom I believe sometimes unnecessarily overshadow Willliam James and Charles Pierce.
   
   Regardless, it is an entertaining and truly educational read.



5. This book is an amazing tour through cultural, legal and philosophical ideas in America from the Civil War through the First World War. It does so in narrative and (mostly) chronological order, making it much more compelling than a textbook. The narrative form also helps expose the conditions that allowed certain ideas to flourish, rather than presenting a simplistic view of x followed by y followed by z. As a bonus, the reader gets to enjoy a well-painted picture of the elite intelligentsia and some window into daily life in America at large during these time periods.
   My only complaint is that it occasionally wandered or backtracked and I was never sure whether newly introduced ideas and people would remain important or central as we moved forward.

1 comments about The King and the Cowboy: Theodore Roosevelt and Edward the Seventh, Secret Partners.

1. David Fromkin is one of my favorite historians. After a stint as an expert in International Relations, who wrote on the subject (The Independence of Nations), Fromkin settled down as a historian, particularly of the various crises surrounding the First World War. Fromkin's best work is without question his 1989 opus A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. A well researched and detailed study of the emergence of the modern Middle East, it is an example of everything history should. Even his weaker historical works, such as The Way of the World: From the Dawn of Civilizations to the Eve of the Twenty-first Century and Kosovo Crossing: American Ideals Meet Reality On The Balkan Battlefields, are illuminating and well written.
   
   Fromkin's last work, 2004's Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, was one of his better books. Although it was based primarily on secondary sources, it distilled a mass of scholarship to offer a lucid and intelligent account of the Great War's outbreak.
   
   Fromkin's new book "The King and the Cowboy" can be seen as a prequel of sorts to "Europe's Last Summer". Most of the latter book is a detailed account of the immediate origins of the 1914 crisis. In "The King and the Cowboy", Fromkin traces the emerging of the war coalitions as Germany's power in the continent rose, leading its neighbors to align against it.
   
   Unfortunately, "The King and the Cowboy" is the weakest of the six Fromkin books I have read. Like "Europe's Last Summer", it is based almost entirely on secondary sources. Unlike "Summer", it neither summarizes the findings of a vast literature for a popular audience, nor forwards a challenging thesis. All that the book offers is a triple biography of Edward the seventh, King of England, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Theodore Roosevelt, and a problematic - and razor thin - thesis trying to tie them together.
   
   The beginning is agreeable enough; Fromkin offers a biography of Edward the VII, who was born as Albert Edward, and was known to everyone as "Bertie". Fromkin juxtaposes Edward's life with that of his nephew, Wilhelm ("Willy"). Contrasting them makes sense, as their antagonistic personal relations - Willy had hated Edward - mirrored the relations between their countries, which grew further and further apart. Unfortunately, Fromkin never really delves beneath the skin of his characters, and we are left unable to understand Willy's hatred of his uncle. Bertie's feelings towards his cousin remain equally mysterious. Fromkin's discussion of the political realities of the 19th century is quite interesting, but unfortunately all too brief - Fromkin's focus is on the sexual escapades of Willy and Bertie - which, beyond informing those of us who did not know that the shenanigans of the British Royal family did not start with Prince Charles and Princess D, do not tell us much.
   
   Nonetheless, the biographies of Edward and Wilhelm at least connect to each other. Why Fromkin decided to cram American president's Theodore Roosevelt's life into the same book is a mystery to me. The subtitle declares Roosevelt ("Teddy") and Edward to have been "secret partners" - so secret was their partnership that they didn't know they had one. Fromkin brings no evidence that Edward and Roosevelt saw themselves as partners, thought about each other in friendly terms, or even thought much about each other. As far as I can tell, they have never met.
   
   So what is the link? Apparently, Roosevelt and Edward cooperated in aligning the United States with Great Britain and the latter with France, in a grand coalition against Germany. Fromkin also gives Roosevelt a lot of credit for the conference in Algeciras in which Germany tried unsuccessfully to split France from its European allies. Edward is also, rather inexplicably, given much credit for the joining together of Great Britain and France.
   
   This strikes me as wrong on all accounts. The relationship between the United States and Great Britain grew warmer before Roosevelt rose to power; His Secretary of State, John Hay, started the process while serving in President McKinley's cabinet (see Warren Zimmermann's First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power, a far better account of Roosevelt and of the British-American rapprochement)
   
   Was the successful (that is, pro-French) outcome Algeciras conference Roosevelt's handiwork? I think not. German's statesmen felt that they could ply France's allies away from it by pointing out France's violation of its treaty obligation in Morocco. But Morocco, as Roosevelt informed Wilhelm, was simply not important enough to effect anyone's strategic calculations (p. 198). And the strategic calculus of the early twentieth century was very simple. Germany was a rising and aggressive power; if it was not already Europe's most powerful state, it would be so soon. Fearing its aggression, its neighbors hang together desperately. Nothing France could have done in Morocco, an insignificant country, was worth splitting away from Germany.
   
   Did Edward VII play a large part in Britain's foreign policy? Again, I doubt it. Fromkin does argue that "the actions of monarchs still had an impact [in the 1900s]" (p. 218), but the only way in which Edward seemed to have influenced British policy was by getting his friends appointed to high rank in the Foreign office. This is not an achievement to slight, but Fromkin does not offer evidence that Edward's men were more pro-French than the rest of Britain's diplomats. Again, it seems that the rise of Germany, and especially Germany's construction of a great fleet, pushed Britain into France's arms. Fromkin also argues that Edward's speech in Paris wooed the French; But surely the French, having lost Alsace and Lorraine to Prussia in the last war were positively disposed towards the United Kingdom - the enemy of their enemy - anyway.
   
   I found Fromkin's thesis of a "partnership" between Edward VII and Theodore Roosevelt far fetched, and his research far from satisfactory. Ultimately, only Fromkin usual graceful writing salvages this otherwise hopeless book.

5 comments about Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography (Anchor Books).

1. If you want to learn about and from Graves, then you will love this book. The Great War was a turning point for the generation of Robert Graves just as post September 11th is a turning point for the current generation: nothing can ever be exactly the same, but it takes a great poet to put those changes into context for the rest of the world. Graves was that poet for his generation.
   Misunderstood early in life, at times labeled a subversive, after ninety years, he departed this world as a wise sage. This is the story of his early life, including his experiences in the Great War. It is a must read for any ex-soldier and for anyone who wants to understand the core of Graves' thought.



2. Obviously a must read for all Graves fans and pre-world war Britain. Later chapters will be worth the wait for World War I fans. The reading is clear, fluid, and to the point; making it am excellent reference to the war. I gave it four stars since I am not a Robert Graves fan; although he seemed like a nice bloke.



3. it is the first time i have purchased a product from internet and ofcourse i had doubts if i came across with somthng wrong,problem..
   at first,i was not sure in giving my credit card numbers but later,i understood that there is no neeed to worry about this subjet.
   in addition,i am really happy to get the product before the date that amazon.com has informed me.
   i really want to thank amazon.com for sending the book that i couldnt find in anywhere..



4. It took me years to get around to reading this, but, "better late than never." For me, GOOD-BYE TO ALL THAT turns out to exceed its reputation. It is a classic memoir by a very singular, honorable, intelligent, and compassionate man. It also is a classic first-person account of trench warfare in World War I (since the book originally was written in 1929, that conflict is referred to simply as "the War").
   
   Graves appars to have been unusually self-aware and unusually honest, both with others and himself. For me, it is that personal characteristic that most stands out. But certainly GOOD-BYE TO ALL THAT is also noteworthy as an account (one of the best ever) of the otherworldliness of war as experienced by a front-line combatant. It also is notable for shedding light on the English preparatory school world and the ubiquitous class divisions of English society in the first quarter of the 20th Century. Adding to the general interest are Graves's friendships and interactions with other notables of his era, such as Siegfried Sassoon, John Masefield, T.E. Lawrence, Edmund Mallory, Thomas Hardy, and Walter de la Mare.
   
   Although quite well-written, GOOD-BYE TO ALL THAT seems to have been written almost effortlessly. There are few marks of labored craftsmanship, and the narrative is relatively informal, almost as if it were being told with wine after dinner. As with the best of memoirs, it is neither scholarly or pretentious. To give one example of its style, I offer the last sentence of the book:
   
   "And if condemned to relive those lost years I should probably behave again in very much the same way; a conditioning in the Protestant morality of the English governing classes, though qualified by mixed blood, a rebellious nature and an over-riding poetic obsession, is not easily outgrown."



5. GOOD-BYE TO ALL THAT is the autobiography of the 34 year old Robert Graves, who, at this book's 1929 publication, was a former army captain who served with distinction in The Great War, an emerging poet, and a father, separated from his wife, with four young children. As a Yank, I'm not quite sure where Graves fit in the English class system of his day. But his family was distinguished and comfortable and Graves endured the bullying at Charterhouse, a prominent English public school.
   
   Certainly, the two great themes of GBTAT are life in the British army in World War I and the friendships of Graves, the poet. For anyone with special interests in the war, I recommend Chapter 15, where he describes his participation in the disastrous Battle of Loos, a poorly planned and executed debacle where many senior officers showed haughty indifference to the plight of the common soldier. Those interested in the lives of poets might read Chapter 28, where Graves describes the many poets living in his midst at Oxford in 1919. Meanwhile, Chapter 29 offers profiles of T.E. Lawrence, his friend, and Thomas Hardy, who Graves visits while biking with his wife.
   
   Graves's style in GBTAT is fabulous. This style is very efficient--he never lingers--yet also slightly discursive. This has the effect of building a rich texture around the distinctive theme of each chapter. In Chapter 9, for example, Graves describes his experiences as a rock climber. Here, his subject is the techniques and dangers of this sport, as well as its sometimes eccentric practitioners. But, he also works in a story about George Mallory, a mountaineer who died on Mount Everest, who was a friend and teacher at Charterhouse. This allows Graves to comment on the grim culture of the public schools of his day, where the beneficent Mallory was wasted. At the end of this chapter, my marginalia reads: fluid and very interesting.
   
   Likewise, Graves's voice is also fabulous. Basically, he is an honest observer, always near a center of interest, who is never seriously political. As he writes, he both sketches the traditions of his era while he personifies the aspirations and experiences of his rising generation. Once in a while, there is a dated remark. But even this adds to GBTAT, since it helps Graves summon and explore a vanished world. A great work!

5 comments about If I Die in a Combat Zone : Box Me Up and Ship Me Home.

1. I've not read a ton of war books and picked up this one because it was on some list of best books of the century or somthing like that from Time. War must not change much, becuase the narrator in this book seems to be saying so much of what I have heard from soldiers coming back from the Iraq, etc. Lots of boredom with moments of great fear peppered in. I like this book a lot. The author's writing style is very matter of fact, but with as frugal as he is with his words, he says tons.



2. Being much more familiar with Tim O'Brien's fiction, one may not know what to expect in his memoir about his tour of duty in Vietnam. Written in the same style with a wry sense of humor, O'Brien challenges the war in a way few have.
   
   Courage and morality are continuing themes that O'Brien explores through his actions as well as literary quotes. It is very clear that O'Brien was uncomfortable with the war even before being drafted. He even contemplates going AWOL. In a paradox, he lacks the courage to go to war or escape going to war. Nothing is more powerful than the last chapter. Going beyond patroitism and rituals, O'Brien is numbed as he returns home. The war has left a mark that is difficult to fathom.
   
   Tim O'Brien does not flinch at the brutality of the war nor the American soldiers. Major Callicles seems straight out of Catch 22, yet he is all too real. The cruelty to a blind civilian has the ability to disgust. While making a statement, O'Brien's writing is both enlightening and entertaining. It is a remarkable perspective on a disastrous war.



3. Tim O'Brien fan and have not read this book? You will not be disappointed. Never read O'Brien? Get ready for a mind trip that will leave you addicted to what great literature is all about.
   Stunning and moving memoir of O'Brien's Vietnam years. It will move you. Period. If it does not, then you are not human.



4. More or less everything I know about the Vietnam War I have taken from American movies. This, I accept, is not the ideal grounding on the subject. If there is a decent Vietnamese account, on celluloid or in print, then I have never come across it. Not that I have been looking that hard.
   
   Tim O'Brien's book is the first piece of non-fiction I have read about the conflict. Written in 1968 as the grunt's eye view, I am sure it was hard-hitting and thought provoking at the time. Now, if I am being really honest, it seems a little tame. Perhaps the movies have numbed me when it comes to Vietnam. Maybe I have just grown up in a world where far worse things happen. I am sure the failing is all mine.
   
   It is a well-written book, I just couldn't connect to it in the way I have done with his fiction. I loved July, July and would happily recommend it to just about anyone. If I Die In A Combat Zone has perhaps become less shocking as the years have gone by. But it might just be me that thinks that.



5. In this memoir Tim O'Brien recounts the testing of his moral principles and the continuing broadening of his understanding of the concepts of courage and bravery. The author successfully presents the reader with compelling insights into the moral dilemmas encountered by a young man dealing with the entirety of serving as an American soldier in Vietnam, including, the draft, the expectations of family and a small mid-western town versus his views on being a part to an immoral war. Throughout the book he struggles with what it means to be courageous and brave. Mr. O'Brien imposes the time line of his experience over these struggles with his internal demons, and sets those struggles against real combat and real casualties. He captures the daily tedium, punctuated by brief episodes of terror with the matter-of-fact style of Solzhenitsyn's "One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich." He is skillful in capturing the reader in the milieu of complex ethical uncertainties and the brutality that was Vietnam. This is apparent by Chapter 10, where he rocks the reader back on his heals with a very direct and simply-written two-page chapter.
   Though it was written by a 21-year-old, this book may be the seminal Vietnam Era corollary of Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," written when Crane was 24.
   
   Chip Auger - 7th Marines, RSVN 1967-68

5 comments about How to Draw Animals.

1. Every artist should own this book, it has great instructions, and illustrations, of animal structure, shapes and design



2. Helpful when you must insert animals into a painting or drawing; well put together and a good variety of animals.



3. The book was in fair shape. A little disappointed because it was less than advertised condition. But not enough to make an issue of it. It was OK.



4. While Jack Hamm is quite well-respected, I have to recommend The Art of Animal Drawing: Construction, Action Analysis, Caricature (Dover Books on Art Instruction, Anatomy) for anyone considering this book. While this book does have a lot of useful information (like demonstrating the position of the ankle in different animals), some of Hamm's drawings are lifeless, stiff, and sometimes downright awkward-looking. This is most likely due to the use of taxidermy models (in some cases photos of taxidermy models) as the base for his drawings. This is most evident in some of his more exotic animals where the faces look malformed.
   
   Even by looking at the images provided here, there is a bit of a difference in the feel his sketch images when compared to his finished ones. This is more pronounced in the book itself when you see the book in its entirety. The poses for the finished animals are routinely a little bit unnatural looking, just like how the lion on the front is, if you look at him long enough.
   
   Hamm's instruction itself is valuable, but the images he presents with them are not always the best. I have personally found copying the images in a drawing book to be a good study to understand an animal and get an idea of what it is and how it moves, and that is where this book falls short. Basically you end up copying a copy.
   
   I would not hesitate to recommend this to someone looking for a couple of animal drawing books, but if you're only going to buy one, Hultgren is the way to go. I speak as someone who owns both. This book has some useful information in it, but Hultgren is the one I carry around with me. In conclusion, it's a good book, but not the best.



5. This is one of the, if not THE most solid animal book there is. Packed with drawings (as all of Jack Hamm's books are)...very clear. It's the book I'd recommend first for someone who wants to learn to draw animals. I'm a professional working in animation and this is a book that all of my coworkers own.

5 comments about Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different.

1. Read "Revolutionary Characters" in combination with "Founding Brothers" for an excellent duo, and compare and contrast the two in their approaches and content. This is not a history of the revolution or a detailed analysis of our form of government. Wood has done what he claimed - a look at the character of the subjects, how that influenced their work, and how they were a reflection of, or an exception to, their times.
   
   Wood's work combines expansive praise and cold analysis. Each of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison) is portrayed as a "great man", which of course each deserved, as well as a flawed individual or thinker. The praise and the more negative comments are done with a suitable tone, neither being excessive. For example, Wood describes how Washington was not an intellectual and how that affected his role and strategy, but not in a demeaning way, as Washington obviously contributed greatly in other ways.
   
   To me, the freshest perspective was on Madison, as Wood questions Madison's actual contribution to the Constitution, with an end result that bears little similarity to Madison's intent. Wood also tackles the apparent changes in Madison's thinking about the relationship of the government and the people. In fact, elite thought vs. public opinion is one of Wood's recurring themes.
   
   Hamilton comes across as the most modern of the founders, which is hardly original, so Wood points out some areas where Hamilton may be overrated in claims regarding his vision. Hamilton obviously outshined the others in his ability to turn vision into governmental reality.
   
   Jefferson gets the least positive treatment of the six. Wood recognizes TJ for his brilliance, yet Wood considers Jefferson overrated in American culture, as his vision of the American future was hopelessly impractical and outdated.
   
   Aaron Burr takes his lumps in a succinct assessment that will be familiar to readers of Chernow's Hamilton bio. Wood includes Burr as a counter-example to the positive character of the others, with Burr as a schemer void of known intellectual political thought or vision. No detachment for the good of society for Mr. Burr.
   
   The unexpected chapter on Thomas Paine was a surprising plus, explaining why Paine is not considered a true "founder". Paine was not the gentleman or the politician that his cohorts were, instead being an early modern intellectual and professional writer according to Wood. The chapter also served as a hint of the analytical final chapter, which emphasized the transition from the brilliant gentleman founders debating among themselves to the rise of the general public as part of the political process.
   
   As Wood said in his apt closing sentence, "In the end nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise."
   
   4.5 stars



2. The chapters on each of the founding fathers Woods wrote on included a lot of detailed character information in this book. The book provided background information on each person as well as information on their character. It was interesting to read about the contributions these men made that still affect America today such as the banking system, election policies, etc.



3. Wood's argues that the difference is that these Revolutionary leaders (the usual phalanx, plus Paine and Burr as exemplars of contrast) were set apart by the first-generation gentility, expressed in 18th Century Enlightenment terms, on the outskirts of the empirical centers in London and Paris, in the formation of their public character in a country where the government became not a derivative of the populace but a lent lease from the populace who retained it.
   
   In this way, expanding literacy and political discussion and voting rights empowered and raised public opinion to the level of gentlemanly discussion (if you were a Jeffersonian Republican), or dragged discourse down to the level of the common herd (if you were a Hamiltonian Federalist), which word to describe the common mass quickly became verboten.
   
   Not that well argued or written, Woods progresses from OK thumbnail biographies to his single-chapter conclusion in generalities instead of tightly-argued theses.



4. Here's what I think spawned this book: A brilliant historian with such a wealth of knowledge about the American Revolution had all these thoughts and opinions in his head, and he just had to get them out. So he wrote them down, and poof, there was "Revolutionary Characters" by Gordon Wood.
   
   I made the mistake of reading this book soon after it was released, and I just wasn't ready for the depth of the material because it had been a while since I was in college. After reading biographies on most of the key participants, I recently looked at this book again and got more out of it. It's a very interesting analysis of eight significant figures of the era -- I believe Aaron Burr was included over John Jay because he's more interesting, not because he was more important.
   
   If you're expecting short bios on these eight men, you'll be disappointed; it offers no such thing. It's almost all analysis, and to further that point, two of the longest sections in the book are the introduction and epilogue, which are essentially all analysis. The book is incredibly wordy at times, and it often reads like it was written for history professors.
   
   Basically, this is a useful book for those with knowledge of and interest in the late 1700s and early 1800s. But it's not for the average reader, and it in no way compares to Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers," or even "American Creation."



5. As with another of Gordon Woods' works, 'The Radicalism of The American Revolution' I'm sorry to say that, in both instances, I've been somewhat disappointed by the analytical style with which Wood approaches his subject matter. Unfortunately, for me, this is somewhat akin to reading a didactic analysis of a great story rather than the great story itself and I found myself struggling with boredom and counting the pages to the end of each chapter so that I could get on to my next book in my current obsession with the American Revolution. While I do not question Prof. Wood's academic capabilities, I do think that he tends more toward historical analysis than historical narrative. This analytical style leads inevitably to conclusions and statements that sometimes appear somewhat subjective. One example is the inclusion of Aaron Burr in this collection of character analyses. On one hand, Wood acknowledges that Burr is not generally considered a 'founder' of the United States yet repeatedly refers to 'the other founders' when comparing Burr with Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. as if Burr were among them. His subsequent analysis of Burr's character as completely lacking the qualities of the true founders begs the question of why Burr is even making an appearance in this book in the first place. Another criticism I have is Wood's tendency to make passing references to individuals not generally well known to most readers, (such as the 18th century English literary figure, Samuel Johnson, to whom Wood refers three times as 'Dr. Johnson' and once as 'Samuel Johnson') without explaining who they are. This is a common flaw one finds in works by some academics who seem at times forgetful that they are writing for a readership that is somewhat broader than the professorial cliques within which they move. It is a rare scholar indeed who possesses both academic ability as well as a talent for engaging the reader. Prof. Wood appears decidedly better on the first point than the second.
   
   Also recommended: Washington's Crossing, Paul Revere's Ride'David Hackett Fischer' Alexander Hamilton 'Ron Chernow' America, The Last Best Hope 'William J. Bennett'

5 comments about Fever Pitch.

1. A 2007 summer reading list mini review
   
   If you are so passionate, it's scary about sports you must read this book. Many reviewers have said here and elsewhere that a rudimentary understanding of British Football is imperative to enjoying this book. Quite simply, they are wrong. All I knew about soccer in Britain, prior to reading this, was from watching Bend it like Beckham. However,I had no trouble following the book, as obsession translates for itself.
   
   When Hornby tries to take partial credit for Arsenal's championship seasons simply because he attended their games I related. I still feel partially responsible for the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005. The previous 2 seasons the Sox had excellent records at home but were 0-8 when I attended. The sign that states welcome to the ballpark was modified adding except Dave Roller. But that did not stop me. I bought my first and only multi ticket plan and the White Sox went on their winning journey (musical pun intended).
   
   I encourage obsessive fans of any sport to put the lessons of Fever Pitch in their arsenal (again pun intended) of sports literature.



2. I pretty much hate all forms of football. The fact that I read a book about football (to the British, that is: the rest of the world calls it soccer) from cover to cover, smirking, chuckling and at times laughing out loud, attests, once again, to the talent of Nick Hornby as a wordsmith. This book is witty and clever, incredibly insightful about obsession and definitely worth a read!



3. This is simply put, a great book. I have been a fan of football for a few years now and have to admit I am always interested to read or hear about people experiences. More importantly I was always interested in how people picked their team and the life of an English fan. This is a very well written version of how someone became a life long football fan. It will keep you laughing and show you exactly how important football and sports in general can be to people.
   
   1 Warning: Do not buy this book simply because you enjoy Nick Hornby. This is a book about a football fan, not a novel. That being said if you enjoy football, or sports, and a good witty read, this book is for you!



4. Nick Hornby's warm autobiographical book deals with his life as a football fan from 1968 (when he was a teenager) until 1992, especifically as he supported his beloved Arsenal during that time. There's some good insights about football culture (for a true football fan, football is not really an entertainment, a concept that is probably hard to understand in the US, where sports are just a part of the entertainment business) as well as football tactics (there are few good passers in the sports, he says, as hard as this might be to believe to outsiders; Liam Brady, one of his favorite players, was that rare player, a great passer). Each of the chapters (so to call them) deals with a particular football match that he remembers during that period. And along football, he also makes comments on his relationships, be it with his family or with girlfriends. What Hornby tells is the story of traditional English football in its last throes, a time when hooliganism ruled, but when it also was a genuine, integral pastime of the English people. When the Premiere League was established (in 1992, the year this book ends), and the megamoney and the huge tv contracts came along, and some clubs (like, say, Arsenal) did not put in the field a single English player, it became more of a commercial business and less of a cultural phenomenon. And while I like football, it's hard not to come out from reading this book with the impression that being a football fan at the level Hornby was is not a colossal waste of time.



5. Brillant book... Almost wet my pants a few times. I relate a million percent to the obsession...
   
   Its football... Its my life... And I am American...

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



2. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



3. In 2000, there was much talk about the "most important person of the 20th Century." My choice was always Gavrilo Princip, the young Bosnian assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, igniting World War I, which caused the Russian Revolution, Communism, and the Treaty of Versailles, which led to Naziism, World War II, atomic bombs, and the Cold War.
   
   Of course, there were other factors which formed the tragedy of the twentieth century, and perhaps some of these historical events would have happened anyway. Almost for certain, the Romanov Monarchy would have fallen or been transformed out of recognition without the help of Gavrilo Princip's bullets.
   
   Although the Ottoman Empire was always referred to as "the sick man of Europe," Robert K. Massie illustrates that Russia was not very well either, despite appearances. An obsolescent autocracy, the Russian Empire was mired in time at the dawn of the twentieth century, the great mass of its people existing much as they had 100 years earlier.
   
   Massie's theory, that the hemophilia of Alexis, the young Tsarevich, had an inordinate influence of Russian and subsequent world history, is well thought-out, though perhaps an oversimplification. Yet, it cannot be discounted. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia then for 300 years, and brought the country, by fits and starts, slowly into the orbit of the modern world. Despite this, there is much truth in the observation that "Lenin inherited a nation playing beside a manure pile and Stalin bequeathed a nation playing with an atomic pile." This is not to defend Stalinism, but only to say how little the Romanovs did overall to modernize their State.
   
   When Nicholas II inherited the throne after his father's untimely death, he was woefully unprepared to rule. Dominated for years by archconservative and anti-modernist members of his family, he did little to educate his people, provide health care, build infrastructure, or lift the heavy cloak of official repression that lay over all but ethnic Russians in his realm, or the cloak of cultural repression that lay over the ethnic Russians.
   
   Yet Massie shows us a man and a family of uncommonly kind nature in Nicholas II and his family. His daughter Olga paid personally for the care of a handicapped subject she spied from her carriage one day. The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, despite a reputation as an uncaring woman, herself nursed sick friends before the war and horribly wounded soldiers during the war. The family built hospitals and schools in and around the various cities wherein lay the royal estates. They acted to ameliorate suffering wherever they saw it, without reservation.
   
   Of course, this was the problem. They acted only on what they saw with their own eyes, never recognizing that these sufferings were endemic throughout the realm. Their myopia was part and parcel of the lives of the citified upper classes, completely divorced from the mass of agrarian peasants in the countryside, magnified by the hermetically sealed nature of being an Imperial Family, aided and abetted by sycophants and the self-serving, who kept the real world at a very long arm's length, in order to maintain their own privileged positions. Living in a bubble within a bubble, they were just not aware of conditions in most of Russia.
   
   Nicholas II ruled over the largest domain on earth. Russia today is still the world's largest nation, even shorn of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, the Ukraine, the Central Asian provinces, and (in 1867) Alaska. Sunset in Vladivostok was dawn in Brest-Litovsk. His hundred million subjects included hundreds of peoples speaking hundreds of languages, linked together by a shockingly small road and rail system. The sensitive Nicholas, had he been really cognizant of the shape of things, could have, by a single order, vastly improved the lives of each and every Russian (of course, as he noted, being an autocrat and giving orders does not ensure that they are carried out properly). His greatest failings, as a ruler, all had to do with his decisions to outwardly maintain his Imperial hautre and his autocracy at all costs in the face of cataclysmic change.
   
   This bubble-within-a-bubble existence however, could not spare them from the fact of the Tsarevich's hemophilia. A genetic disorder inherited through the female line (Alexis' Great-Grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose progeny were ravaged by the disease), it prevents the clotting of the blood. When Alexis was born in 1904, the world was a full lifespan away from the development of a usable clotting factor; most hemophiliacs simply bled out and died. The Tsarevich was protected by a full retinue, but this did not help him, and the boy was often in screaming agony and close to death from what might in another child, be a bad bruise. The Heir, therefore lived in a bubble within a bubble within a bubble.
   
   The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, was a solemn, shy, but deeply emotional and loving woman, nicknamed "Sunny" by her husband. To the world, she presented an aloof exterior, and was extremely unpopular with her subjects. Had they known the sorrows and agonies she suffered through with Alexis, her realm, and history, might have treated her far better. But the Imperial Family decided to keep Alexis' condition a closely guarded secret, fearing the destabilization of the Monarchy and Russia in the face of a physically frail Heir. This may have been the Imperial Family's worst error, as it robbed them of an outpouring of sympathy and support from a passionate populace.
   
   Alexandra turned to religion, and ultimately, to Gregory Rasputin, a filthy, degenerate, sexually perverse and personally dissolute monk of peasant extraction. Although derided by most, and called a charlatan by many, Rasputin was perhaps one of the most charismatic men in history, had a devoted following (largely comprised of Society women he'd seduced), did have the power, somehow, to control Alexis' bleeding episodes, and therefore, had the Empress's full and unwavering support in all things.
   
   The feared and hated Rasputin may have indeed been a seer or had mystical powers of some sort, judging from circumstances. Rasputin was not really political, but as his influence over the Romanovs grew, his power expanded commensurately, and he was able to have Ministers dismissed, Generals reassigned to sinecures, and policies changed according to his own whims (expressed as messages from God) or concerns. Capable Russian leaders, who did not know the basis of Rasputin's power, suspected the worst of Alexandra, and in challenging Rasputin found themselves toppled from power. As World War I dawned, Russia was upside-down, its best men in internal exile, and woefully unprepared for war. Rasputin himself counseled against war, stating that Russia would collapse from within. Nonetheless, the British, German and Russian grandsons of Queen Victoria went to war.In that war, millions died, empires fell, nations were born, ideological political systems triumphed, and the stage was set for a darker and yet bloodier future.
   
   The Tsar and his genteel family were consumed, ending their days against a wall before a Bolshevik firing squad, probably not understanding, until the end, that they had been in the eye of a hurricane that remade the world.



4. I first read Nicholas and Alexandra many years ago as a 14 year old. It was a transformative experience for me, awakening what has been a lifelong passionate interest in royal biography and Russian history. Now that I'm in my early fifties, I recently reread Nicholas and Alexandra for the first time in about twenty years, and it continues to have the same magic.
   
   Robert K. Massie became interested in the last Tsar of Russia because he, like Nicholas, was the father of a hemophiliac boy. Massie spent long hours reading about hemophilia and famous hemophiliacs, and he was fascinated by the way Russian and world twentieth century history turned on a chance genetic defect. Had Tsarevich Alexis not had hemophilia, it is probable that Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra would not have come under the malign influence of Gregory Rasputin, the Siberian faith healer who had a catastrophic effect on the Russian government before and during World War I; leading to the Russian Revolution, the rise of Communism, and the deaths of Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children. Its an interesting thesis that still holds up well, though Massie's focus on the inner tragedy of the Tsar's family tends to make him discount the many other problems from which pre-revolutionary Russia suffered. Massie also has a natural tendency to whitewash Nicholas and Alexandra (parents of hemophiliacs have a special bond with those who share their trauma, after all), by barely mentioning such negative traits as the Tsar's anti-Semitism and the Empress' many neuroses.
   
   The book remains an extraordinary work of art. Massie's descriptions of the Russian landscape and his finely drawn character sketches are wonderfully rich and detailed. He is able to explain the political and social complexities of the era colorfully and wittily, even when dealing with such abstractions as the differences between Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, and Bolsheviks. Most of all, Massie is able to make us weep for the Romanovs: a man who was a bad Tsar but a good husband and father, a woman who destroyed her family while trying to keep her son alive, and five innocent young people who never had a chance to lead happy, productive lives. Every time I read Nicholas and Alexandra I tremble again at the thought of their last awful moments, but I am enriched still more by the chance to read such a magnificent work of art and scholarship.



5. This is an all-encompassing authoritative biography of the last ruling Romanovs, and Massie has compiled a thorough and well-researched insight into the lives of Nicholas and Alexandra. Even forty years after its original publication and long after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a relevant part of Russian history. Massie is very sympathetic in his presentation of the royal family and addresses pertinent questions about the fall of the monarchy. If Alexis, the heir to the throne, had not had hemophilia, would the influence of Rasputin not have been necessary? And if Rasputin were never in the picture, would the monarchy have suffered such a tarnished reputation?
   
   The book painted a very vivid picture of the Royal Family based on hundreds of sources and letters. Nicholas is an incapable Tsar but a warm-hearted, devoted husband and father. Alexandra seems frantic and ill at ease (and often just ill) in her constant concern over the life of her son. And I love that I felt I got to know each of the children, Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexis more individually and personally. This made their demise all the more heartbreaking. This book also gave me a greater understanding of the political climate of the time in Russia and a better comprehension of the revolution and the roles of Lenin, Trotsky, and other important players (although I occasionally found some difficulty keeping the various Russian names straight). Overall, this is a captivating book and the saga is all the more intriguing because it's history. I will definitely be interested to read some of the more recent material that Massie presents in The Romanovs: The Last Chapter.

5 comments about The Tycoons: How Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, and J. P. Morgan Invented the American Supereconomy.

1. Charles Morris's "The Tycoons" is a good summation of the Industrial Revolution but is almost certainly poorly sub-titled with "How Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould and J.P. Morgan Invented the Supereconomy". The New York Times did a review on October 2, 2005 and Todd Buchholtz hit the nail on the head writing "The Tycoons is not a path-breaking work of scholarship, testing new hypotheses against freshly uncovered facts." In fact a good part of Morris's book has nothing to do with these four very important men of commerce influenced anything. Rather he does show what the principal drivers behind such an economic explosion were. His writings on the four are based upon good, but not really extensive, research. For instance, much of his writing on Morgan is attributable to the best seller by Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan. While this was certainly a terrific book, to have it as THE principal souce or one of your main topics, is to short change any serious effort at research.
   
   He manages to get a plug on the book by I.W. Brands of the University of Texas, one of our most well respected historians on the period. Perhaps Professor Brands saw something I did not. That said, it is a quick read and a rather fun one. A bit more organization would have gone a long way.



2. I picked up "The Tycoons" to read, in one place, a chatty summation of recent research about Rockefeller, Gould, Carnegie, and Morgan, but instead found myself pulled through a keyhole onto a vast landscape new to me: how America invented mass-market manufacturing. We were the first country to figure out how to make two rifles so exactly alike that their components could be mixed and matched on the battlefield. The Silicon Valley of this period was the Connecticut River, navigable down to New York with access, via the Erie Canal, to the midwest markets. This river was the site of all the key water-powered factories where early automation and assembly lines created the first mass-produced items for daily life. Besides famous tycoons, we meet the forgotten engineers and efficiency experts who invented modern manufacturing and then spread its gospel to Europe. Through this book you are present at the birth of American economic dynamism. A readable and fascinating survey.



3. This is a great book for looking at the economic history of the United States. It covers mostly the four mentioned in the title but what was really fantastic and what deserves that extra star is that it covers the economic developments on the side. It looks at how our economy outpace Europe and the shift to make America that extra superpower. WE also have a look at how our ability to move west gave us an added advantage and that we did not have to resort to colonies. While we exported much we still made tremendous gains in internal improvements. He also grasp how the development of the coronation as an institution led to the rise of clerical and accounting positions creating hundreds of service jobs. This book is incredibly well written and really holds your interest. It offered the best explanation of Gould's attempt to corner the gold market I have ever read. It is very well researched and makes references to the top economic historians out there. A must read for anyone who wants to understand how the United States developed economically



4. Alas, I should have listened to my fellow Amazoners.
   
   They tried to warn me that despite the misleading title there wasn't very much in this book about the tycoons themselves. Well, I ignored them and blew the full retail price at a local store. If you want to read in minute detail about how a variety of engineering and manufacturing problems which had plagued industry were finally solved by the great minds of the second half of the 19th century, this book is for you. If you want to read about Gould, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Hill, Stanford, and Morgan, check out Matthew Josephson's classic instead. There's very little about any of the tycoons here.
   
   The editors of this book should have insisted on another, more accurate, title.
   
   As for the book itself, it's a pedestrian-like plod through history. Some books you can't put down after picking them up. This is most definitely not one one of them. I find myself taking taking one or two week breaks in between chapters while I devour other books in two consecutive evenings.
   
   If you want to learn about the background in which the robber barons operated this may be the book for you. Just be forewarned that there's scant little about them between the covers.



5. This is a fascinating book, especially for those outside the US who may, like me, be almost wholly unfamiliar with the period of history covered. Morris is excellent at making detail interesting and compulsive to read. The book weaves the lives four very different men into a coherent story. The way in which these "Robber Barons" presage the emerge of Mr Gates (at Microsoft), Mr Brin and Page (at Google) was a very important message for me. This was something I "knew", but could not support, or articulate clearly. Morris has done the job and I am now keen to read his other books.
   William Forbes (Bedford, England)