4 comments about Fire: From "A Journal of Love" The Unexpurgated Diary of Anaïs Nin, 1934-1937.

1. As follower of Anais' Diaries (expurgated or not) and her novels I would like to express my admiration and my curiosity for her amazing literature and her rare personality, motivated again by "Fire". I believe that Anais was able to enjoy sex simultaneously with several men, each one of them however, playing an appropriate , no transferable, role: Hugh (husband),Joaquin Nin (father-lover),Eduardo Sanchez (cousin-brother), Henry Miller (friend-lover), Gonzalo More (lover-friend) and others. Occidental society usually attribute this promiscuous behavior only to men.As Anais shows, this may happen also among ladies, perhaps more often than accepted . Indeed, these "faults" may be heavily damned and punished by society when perpetrated by ladies. Probably Anais was the first woman , brave and courageous enough , to describe her own experiences and feelings about eroticism and sensuality written from a female point of view. Actually, looking at her inner mirror she describes herself with delicacy , ever avoiding disgusting pornography. I believe that Anais spent her life searching a Big One Love . As a result she found many "Love" and many Lovers . The sum of them never reached totality. Her Love was her fantasy and her invention, hence endless and inaccessible. On the other hand, in this and other books Anais masterly present unknown, almost domestic features and characteristic of the personality of several men and ladies who were outstanding representatives in art, literature, theatre, politics as Neruda, Alberti, Dali, Allendy, Rank, Gore and others.



2. Anais Nin was raised a devout Catholic and to earn her family's love she was expected to be demure, self-sacrificing, hard-working, and chaste. When her father abandoned the family she assumed, as children sometimes do, that he had left because she wasn't "good" enough. She played the role of "good girl" for twenty years in response. Then all hell broke loose.

   What I believe is different about FIRE is that it reveals Anais's explorations and experiementation with her inner "bad girl" in a way that she had only just begun in HENRY AND JUNE and INCEST. In it she is still married to Hugh and involved with Henry Miller, but in FIRE she has a relationship with the famous analyst Otto Rank that takes some treacherous twists and turns. Her writing is as wonderful as ever. For the Nin fan, this diary is yet another must-read.




3. "This is not a lie. I was starting to tell lies and struck a truth! Very often I tell lies that are deeply true."
   -Anais Nin, January 17, 1937

   Diary opening with a visit to New York accompanying Dr Otto Rank. Searches for release from Rank. Back to Paris, Henry, Hugh, and to find Gonzalo More. Desriptions of interior worlds built for Hugh, Gonzalo, and Henry. Beautiful. Houseboat on the Seine, "Nanankepichu", Villa Seurat, Louveciennes.




4. This book is not as compelling as "Incest", but it's still Anais: still burning, still feeling, still wholly human, with all flaws and wishy-washiness included. But again, I warn away people who may not be down with heavily sexual content. If you are, though...

5 comments about Cleopatra - A Biography.

1. When it comes to ancient history, Michael Grant is the greatest! I've read several of his other books and he never fails to amuse and inform. His book on Cleopatra is informative as well as entertaining. Cleopatra was a Greek Macedonian ruler of Egypt with a deep love for culture and powerful men. Her liaisons with Caesar and Antony are very well described, as are her achievements as queen. Mr. Grant is truly the greatest!



2. Cleopatra is a fascinating figure... renowned as a patron of arts and learning, a gifted linguist, and a canny politicians, she is too often remembered as a sex kitten. Grant cuts thru the myths, pro- and anti propaganda to deliver what is probably the best biography on Cleopatra. Writen by one of the marquee lights of classical history, the book is written in academic style, although for the most part it is highly readable. To be honest, I found the first preliminary chapters to be somewhat slow going, but once the story begins it takes off like a grand soap opera. Not as splashy as some other works on the great queen, this is *the* place to go for a detailed, comprehensive look at Cleopatra.



3. It's the splashiest period of all ancient history... a near Jerry Springer opera of lust, betrayal, and tawdry affairs. And yet, Michael Grant makes it about as dull as he possibly can.

   He presents a very factual and well-researched account, though I take exception to several of his assertions and theories, including the one where he asserts that Octavian wanted Cleopatra to commit suicide because he was afraid the Romans would want to free her as they did her sister Arsinoe. Arsinoe was just one random Egyptian princess who defied Julius Caesar. Cleopatra was the occidental temptress who had ensnared and ruined two of Rome's best men. She was probably the most vilified and hated of all Rome's enemies in history, for with Cleopatra, it was intensely personal. The very idea that the bloodthirsty Romans would have a sudden sentimental streak towards her is pretty laughable.

   But on the whole, his theories are soundly researched and well justified, even when I disagree with them. The book has some lovely portraits and a more in depth examination of Cleopatra's forebearers than is usually presented in her biographies. Moreover, he has an excellent perspective on the supposed 'inevitability' of Cleopatra's loss, and how the world may well have been different had things gone another way.

   It's a reasonable and scholarly work that makes a fine addition to my collection. If you're looking for something to move you, you may prefer Margaret George's "The Memoirs of Cleopatra".




4. I'm not a classicist as some of the other reviewers on this site appear to be, but as a layperson I can say that this book was pretty interesting. There are some boring parts, as others noted, but what biography does not have some boring parts? Here's what I found especially interesting:

   Grant gives readers a good idea about how most of the chronicles he consulted were written from one perspective or another and thus tended to be sentimentally biased in one direction or another. Grant points out significantly that as "Westerners" we have clung most closely to the "Occidental" version of matters, rather than anything leaning toward the other side, the "Orient." He points out consistently how ancient writers who disliked Cleopatra changed facts around to disparage her, while the opposite was true of those who liked her.

   The point being, it seems, that you have to take your history with a grain of salt (just as we do the news from the various modern media). Some reviewers seem to feel that Grant himself is slightly biased, in Cleopatra's favor, but as long as we're aware of it, we can perhaps discern the bias and read other viewpoints to get a well-rounded sense of what actually occurred.

   The other interesting point was how many people, mostly men presumably, died during these ancient wars. And how little their deaths accounted for anything. In other words, life was a lot cheaper then than today. In Cleopatra's time, only the top dogs had the sense of individual rights that most of us have today. Is that progress?

   Grant's book, of course, is thoroughly documented for those wishing to do further investigation.

   Diximus.




5. There are naturally times in this book when it reads like a soap opera, but this has got to be the most detailed, believable, and scholarly work on Cleopatra I have ever read. Such is the background Mr. Grant gives on her father Ptolemy Auletes, the Roman situation with Egypt, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty for the first half of the book I almost forgot who it was about.
   
   As with most ancient people little is known of Cleopatra's early life, but the author reconstructs it as best he can, and gives us a view into her world and her mind from her early years to her final days. Included, of course, are detailed retellings of her affairs with Caesar and Marcus Antonius, her fiasco of a marriage to her brother, and the common opinion of her held by the Romans, Egyptians, and even the Jews of her period.
   
   This book really repaints the stereotypical image of this fascinating, but indeed deadly woman. She was, of course, not an Egyptian but a Macedonian by birth and a Greek by language and upbringing, and was known not so much for her beauty as for a combination of her magnetic personality, her keen intelligence, and her large, bent nose; this final feature is depicted in all the few contemporary portraits of her.
   
   Overall this is an excellent and scholarly reference to the life of Cleopatra and the Egypt and Rome of her day, and is not at all dry but an absorbing read. Very highly recommended!

5 comments about Nazi Hunter: The Wiesenthal File.

1. First of all, I'd like to state the book (most of it) was quite riveting. Levy begins with a look at Wiesenthal's experience as a young Jew in pre-war Europe. He later chronicles Simon's life during the war in the camps and his search for his family after the war. The stories make for fascinating reading. Then, Levy writes how Simon got into the business of Nazi hunting.
   
   The chapters describing the hunts for Adolf Eichmann (and the rivals between Mossad and Wiesenthal), Josef Mengele, and Franz Stangl were absoluting quality reading. After the chapters on these three Nazis, and the brief chapter on the concentration camp guards, the book takes a different path and describes the ordeal of Raoul Wallenberg. Although Wallenberg was not a Nazi, but a humanist dedicating to saving the lives of Jews, I had to ask myself what this chapter was doing in the book. Nevertheless, it was quite fascinating to read about the ordeal Wallenberg faced and to read what actually happened to him during the war, and especially, after the war.
   
   At this point, you can quit reading the book. The next chapters dealt with Bruno Kriesky and Kurt Waldheim. I didn't have a clue who Bruno was. (I believe he became chancellor of Austria during the '70s). Why was he in this book? As far as I can tell, it was due to Simon and Bruno not liking each other. Bruno was a Jew who claimed that he was not a Jew and tried to distance himself from Jews during the war. He didn't kill any Jews, so why have his story in this book? It's wasted space.
   
   As far as Waldheim is concerned, the jury appears to be out as far as his guilt is concerned. There never seems to be direct evidence pointing to Waldheim as to whether he was responsible for killing partisans (or at least KNEW some killings took place)
   in Yugoslavia. Waldheim's superiors (during the war) say that he did not have the authority to kill or order killings; a sargaent who reported to Waldheim said that he did. Some say he was present at the time the killings took place; others said he was not. Some say that as part of intelligence, and as a lowly lieutenant, Waldheim would not have known about partisan killings. Others said how did he not know? If no one knows the truth, why read it about in this book? Even the Yugoslavian government has refused to prosecute. So, I may ask, why fill 150 pages of this book if there is no conclusive evidence that Waldheim is guilty? The later part of these chapters were very boring. The book was about hunting murderous NAZIS, not about people who were ashamed of being Jewish or about German Army officers.
   
   The book should have included the hunt for Nazi Klaus Barbie and other Nazis who eluded capture for many years. Then, I would have rated this book 4 stars. But, to include chapters on Bruno Kriesky and Kurt Waldheim? A real time waster.



2. I was quite disappointed by this book (I hesitated between 2 and 3 stars, and finally opted for 2, to balance the enthusiastic reviews that this book gets)
   When I started reading it, i had great expectations. Here was a book that would tell me the story of Simon wiesenthal, a survivor of the Holocaust that swore to hunt Nazi around the world, and bring them in front of justice.
   The description of wartime and the horror of concentration camps is quite good (although anything written by Primo Levi is much better). The wartime life of wiesenthal himself is well described, although it sounds a little romanticized. It could have set the ground to understand what drove this man in his postwar hunt. But that's where the disappointment comes : it doesn't. The book goes back and forth between a mere collection of facts and a blindly admirative account of Wiesenthal's life. Whatever Wiesenthal says is right, whatever Wiesenthal does is great. What this book lacks is independant investigation. The author seems to be satisfied with Wiesenthal accounts on pretty much everything in the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say Wisenthal lied on anything. But a biograph should not rely solely on the testimonies of his subject. And when he does quote somebody else, the quote is not properly referenced (there is a certain flakiness in Levy's journalistic methods).
   Rather than giving fuzzy criticism, let's look at one particular example:
   Page 136 is symptomatic of the lazy writing in this book : the first part of the page is a long citation of Annah Arendt, explaining how Eichman got out of Europe after the war (Levy doesn't give the reference of the quote). Then he goes on to quote an ecclesiast who helped Eichman getting out, testifying how he didn't realized that the person he was helping was a Nazi (Levy also ironizes about the fake innocence of the priest). Here, once again, we don't know where the quote is coming from. Did Levy directly asked the ecclesiast ? I doubt. More probably Levy got this quote from Wiesenthal himself (probably from one of his books). This is symptomatic from this book : it comes so close from a direct testimony of Wiesenthal that he even forgets to remind us when he actually is quoting him. So then, why not just reading one of Wiesenthal's books instead?
   This is just an example taken randomly. Other -more serious- points on which Levy doesn't take much distance from Wiesenthal include :
   -when Wiesenthal proposed that Eichman be dressed a a Nazi during his trial (page 156, Levy qualifies this idea as "emotionally right", I personally find it grotesque)
   -On the controversy between Wiesenthal and Israel's secret services as to who took the most important part in Eichman's capture (once again, all we have his Wiesenthal point of view, taken for granted).
   
   The function of a biography (and this book is advertised as a biography) is to give a balanced, honest account on one man's personality, not trying to hide its complexity. On that regard, Alan Levy partially fails.
   As I read again my comments, I realize that I have been a little bit harsh. The book is not bad, it is just that it is written more like a thriller than a book on history.



3. This book is well intentioned and should certainly be read, but it is not a work of scholarship. It is poorly written too. It is frustrating.
   
   The book does not live up to its title. The author reveals little of Wiesenthal's files. For that, it is recommended you turn to Wiesenthal's books.
   
   The book is poorly structured, bounding together several biographical entries, largely unconnected with one another. Some entries span a few pages, others span over one hundred. The main entries concern Eichmann, Wallenberg, Mengele, Stangl. Raoul Wallenberg the hero finds himself squeezed between mass murderers Eichmann and Mengele.
   
   This is the sort of book that makes you want to read more, to look up details, to check facts, to find out more. It creates needs more than it satisfies them. It is a frustrating book.
   
   The book is well intentioned, but poorly written. It consists of a string of assertions that are not backed up by references. It suffers from the weaknesses of an eyewitness account, except that the writer, Alan Levy, has not witnessed anything himself. And he does not tell us where his facts come from.
   
   In several places, Alan Levy corrects Simon Wiesenthal. Wiesenthal's writings are full of mistakes, we are told. Alan Levy compares the two versions of Wiesenthal's memoirs to show how his views have changed over time. He corrects this or that assertion, but because he never tells us where his facts come from, this is a useless exercise bordering on the profane.
   
   Simon Wiesenthal was not a scholar and he has often been wrong. But this is mostly because he relied on eyewitnesses' accounts and anonymous denunciations. It is also because, driven as he was by a desire to bring to justice nazi mass murderers, his strategy was to keep the hunt alive by publicizing believeable nazi spottings as well as not-so-believeable spottings. What reasons does Alan Levy have for writing such a sloppy book?
   
   This is a frustrating book because it is full of facts we would like to check, but cannot because there are no references to the sources.
   
   Turn instead to: Raoul Wallenberg, by Sharon Linnea. Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder, by Gitta Sereny (this is a biography of Stangl). Mengele: The Complete Story, by Gerald L. Posner. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, by Hannah Arendt. The Sunflower, by Simon Wiesenthal.



4. This is an unusually well written book. The sections on Weisenthal's early years are fascinating, but ultimately, this is not a biography, as it is the story of Weisenthal's " clients " which is the most haunting. Don't agree with other reviewers that the book is non critical of Weisenthal - within a supportive framework, the author makes it quite clear just how hopelessly wrong Weisenthal got it on Mengele, and there are plenty of quotes from his detractors, including leading Jews.
   
   One of the best books on the Holocaust and its aftermath I have read.



5. "Nazi Hunter: The Wiesenthal File" by Alan Levy looks at the life of Holocaust survivor, author, and Nazi Hunter, Simon Wiesenthal. The book describes fascinating accounts that go from the extremely sad, to the morbidly funny. There is a tension within, and for those who read Holocaust accounts, this book offers something that few others can: justice. One of the more amazing moments came when, in the case of Adolf Eichmann, Wiesenthal, used a studly friend nicknamed 'Manos' (Spanish word for hands) to seek out Eichmann via. seducing the war criminal's former lovers in order to get informmation. This vignette fits in well with Wiesenthal's life, because we find out that Wiesenthal was not only a Nazi hunter, but also a political humorist.
   
   Levy also demythicizes Wiesenthal, who seems to have occasionally manufactured facts in his quest for Nazis. These manufactured facts, however, are a pieces of a bigger picture painted by Levy. The author is to be commended for his research into Wiesenthal, especially because he seems neither committed to defending, nor debunking his subject.This reviewer does think, however, that Levy more often than not gives Wiesenthal the last word when criticism of his subjects arises.
   
   The structure is by sections, each focussing on the life of one person: Wiesenthal, Mengele, Eichmann, and others. With each story, we find a personal history and a psychological profile of the characters, followed by an account of what happened to them after the war. We also find some very interesting speculations, and, in many cases, evidence to either support, or argue against the speculations, most of which were made by Wiesenthal. One of the strongest sections is on Raoul Wallenberg, a man who saved tens of thousands of Jews and who disappeared into Soviet prison camps. Although the evidence presented about his imprisonment is scant, it brings to life an historical figure who should occupy the same household name status as others, including Oscar Schindler. Some critics point to lack of hard evidence by Levy in his descriptions of such characters as Wallenberg or even Mengele. This critic disagrees. Levy provides enough information for the reader to reach a conclusion on his own (please forgive masculine pronoun) without being pounded over the head with an argument.
   
   One of the stronger aspects of the book, to me, is the use of photographs. Although few in number, the pictures tell us a lot about the characters. Eichmann, the handsome and proud young Nazi, and a later photo of him in court looking more like an unemployed accountant. The younger Mengele, witht he gap between his teeth and the deranged elder Mengele, whose mustache comes into the narrative later in the story. Nazi, Franz Stangl, who is shown holding his daughter, and the mighty Raoul Wallenberg, whose face defiantly faces to the left, where other pictures of Nazis reside.
   
   The last one-third of the book loses its steam when it goes away from Wiesenthal's hunt for Nazis and into some of his high-profile rivalries. But any adept reader can skim those pages and still come away satisfied.
   
   Nazi Hunter is portable in its function. It can be taken to the beach, read in bed. It's narratives are well-written and engaging, yet they do not gloss over the profound moral obligations that are placed upon the reader. Who was responsible? How do behind-the-scenes tensions affect the lives of good people and the fate of evil-doers? How should the world move forward in the wake of a tragic period in history? Although about 500 pages in length, it is a page turner, yet, it is insightful in its explanation of different character types who emerged out of World War II, and, in the humble opinion of this reader, a great read for anyone interested in Nazi Germany and what happened to the perpetrators after its demise.

5 comments about Beyond the River: The Untold Story of the Heroes of the Underground Railroad.

1. So you think you know all about the Underground Railroad, the secret network that fugitive slaves used to escape bondage? Try this quiz:

   1. Once they reached one station of the UGRR, how did fugitives reach the next station?

   2. What role did women and children play in the UGRR?

   3. What religious group do you associate with the UGRR?

   So those questions are easy? Try these:

   4. What connection did Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, have with Ripley?

   5. How many years did the citizens of tiny Ripley, Ohio serve as major players in the Underground Railroad?

   Ann Hagedorn answers all these questions and more in Beyond the River. In her skillful hands, a century and a half fades away and the people of Ripley spring to life. By day, they live a surprisingly civilized life-- none of those rustic log cabins and barefooted trips to the outhouse that you read about in many attempts to bring history alive. By night, the sophisticated network of friends and neighbors bands together for one purpose: "a solemn promise to fight slavery until it is dead or the Lord calls me home."

   As a girl in the 1960's, I traveled through Ripley, Ohio a couple of times a year to visit my grandparents. I knew a little about the Rankin family and the Underground Railroad from reading the historical marker near Rankin House, but until Ann Hagedorn's book, the story of Ripley was lost history. Read Beyond the River the first time for the gripping story, the second time for the historical accuracy, and the third time for the inspiration to make our world a better place.




2. This is a great read, suspenseful and thoughtful, one of the best page-turners I have read in a long while. I strongly recommend the book to anyone, of any race, of any religion, and from any part of the U.S. It has made me reflect on what 'weak' creatures most of us are when it comes to moral risk-taking, and how courageous other Americans in the past have been. This is a book that will make you feel very humble about how 'morally righteous' you really are.

   Unlike one of the other reviewers, I have enjoyed reading the 'large blocks of text'--the original written voice of the people livng at the time, and their [lists of] names make the events very real. These folks were a whole lot more articulate than myself--read this book!




3. Ann Hagedorn offers the reader a captivating perspective on America's struggle with slavery in her work, "Beyond the River." The uniqueness of her work eminates from two particular aspects of her work, both of which begin with the way she takes her subject out of the macro world of politics and economics into the smaller world of the lives of the people effected by the souths 'peculiar institution.' Looking slavery through the eyes of individuals, the reader gains a far greater appreciation of the suffering, torment, and most of all, the fear generated by those who stood in opposition.

   Interesting also is the location the author focuses on, the Ohio River where on one side men are free and on the other live in chains. Most texts present slavery at great distances, like The Carolinas an and New York. Here we see just how intimate the slavery and the abolitionist could be and the blood spilled by both sides.

   Most importantly, Hagedorn writes in a cool clear voice that is enjoyable and informative. She delivers facts and passion in the same sentence without ever becoming melodramatic or shrill. Readers who enjoy this fictional work may also want to look at "Cloudsplitter," Richard Bank's novel on The Brown family's war on slavery.




4. Beyond the River was just named one of the American Library Association's Notable Books for 2004. The annual list is highly regarded and identifies 25 very good, very readable and very important books.

   This is a tremendous honor for Beyond the River and one that is richly deserved; this book lovingly weaves together tales of the abolitionist heroes in the town of Ripley, Ohio in the years leading up to the Civil War.




5. Author Ann Hagedorn, who moved "on location" to complete her research and add inspiration to her writing, offers a rarely seen individual account of the underground railroad. Most other books on the topic take a view from 50,000 feet. Hagedorn focuses in on one river (the Ohio), two states (Ohio and Kentucky), and one man (John Rankin). The abolitionist work of this Presbyterian minister (whose letters about abolition are a crucial primary source) serves as the backdrop and foreground for Hagedorn's exposition. Though focused on Rankin, the author does not fail to provide compelling real-life stories of many other "key players" both slave and free. For a compelling, unique read of the courageous men and women conducting the underground railroad, "Beyond the River" is the book to read.
   
   Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction , Spiritual Friends, and Soul Physicians.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.



2. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



3. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



4. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



5. This is a tiny book that one can easily read in a few hours, apparently intended for those (90%) of the current US population for whom the name of Ulysses Grant is unrecognizable. And as usual for a British author writing about American history, many of the facts are wrong and he feels compelled to compare Grant and his other American examples to British figures like Churchill, Wellington and Montgomery.
   
   That being said, this would be a reasonable book to give a 8th grader to hopefully interest him in American history. The writing is crisp and the prose flows easily.
   
   Author Korda essentially relies on two (count 'em, TWO) sources for most of his work; the highly controversial McFeely with its many errors and the 1928 work by Woodward. It does not seem as though Korda read Grant's superb autobiography, but he presents a very sympathetic portrait of Grant that might inspire further interest in his subject.
   
   The best parts of the book are the author's depiction of Grant's childhood, his personal bravery, rock-solid marriage, liberal attitudes (at a time when the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats conservative), and the close of his life when he wrote his autobiography. It is well-known that Grant was an abject business failure, putting the interests of others over his own, and showing a great deal of undeserved trust and loyalty. Although Grant was an extreme example of a military man unable to function as a civilian businessman, one should remember that others such as Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing, Lee etc, were never so tested. An uncommonly brave man, Grant saw and understood the tragedies of war and in spite of personal feelings was able to do his duty to the best of his abilities.
   
   Author Korda mentions one of Grant's problems that has been overlooked by almost all historians and needs reinforcement. Grant suffered frequently from debilitating migraine headaches, even almost missing Appromattox as a result. Grant needed his wife or Rawlins when he was incapacitated by a headache, and they kept him isolated in a darkened tent or room until the headache ran its course. Literally all of these episodes were recorded as Grant being drunk or sleeping off a hangover. The incidence of Grant's drinking was probably a small fraction of what was reported, if at all. It must be remembered that at the time, drinking was not considered as bad as having a mental disorder (like having frequent migraine headaches) and Grant himself apparently used drunkenness as a reason for his incapacitation rather than mentioning his headaches.
   
   As far as judging Grant as a military commander or President, this book is simply inadaquate in scope to support the author's conclusions. Nonetheless, he does not miss a reasoned and defensible scholarly analysis by far. Grant did very well in the Civil War, displaying excellent strategic and tactical sense, and a firm understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. At Belmont he was only forced to withdraw when his green troops fell away to plunder the Confederate camp, and his campaigns against Fort Donelson and Vicksburg did not offer much opportunity for criticism. He avoided defeat at Shiloh, won easily at Chattanooga, and was the Federal General to finally bring Lee to bay.
   
   Historians have severely criticized his long casualty list in the 1864 campaign against Lee, but it must be remembered that Meade was in tactical command of the Army of the Potomac, not Grant. An often overlooked item was Grant's elimination of prisoner exchanges. Those exchanges worked to the disadvantage of the Federals due to their numerical superiority. Grant's decision was also more humane; as he said, otherwise the only way to deny the Confederates its soldiers would be to kill them (thus raising battle deaths on both sides.)
   
   As President, Grant was a calming influence, and he did forestall another war with England over Canada. This is an episode overlooked by historians, but Palmerston had once thought of offering Canada to the US in return for recognizing the Confederacy and Canada was definitely in play. Following the Civil War there was a great deal resentment against England for aiding the Confederacy and meddling in US internal affairs, and war over Canada could have easily resulted. Yes, financial scandals rocked Grant's terms of office, but there were also many positive things that Grant contributed. Unfortunately, scandals are much more popular among writers wishing to sell books. A modern reader must surely understand that.
   
   There are many mistakes in the book that are jarring. George B. McClellan is repeatedly given as McClennan and the author makes statements such as; "No American ex-president had ever fallen so low, and except for Harding and Nixon, none would ever again." Well, sorry to say, Harding died in office and would never become an ex-president. Also saying that "...MacArthur can be thought of as a latter-day McClellan,..." is simply ludicrous. And finally, is it required for a writer to include a criticism of Bush "(...a sentiment that might usefully have been followed 133 years later by President George W. Bush)" to get good reviews from the media? Ok, I get it!! You hate Bush! Now can we please produce a scholarly historical work of times and personnel before the 21th century without making negative comments about Bush?
   
   I finished the little book conflicted over this author's reasonable and sympathetic presentation of a much-loved American hero of the 19th century but containing his condescending British Empire attitude and contemporary political opinions. In short, the author lost my good offices at the end. I can readily see why this book is rated from 1 to 5 stars. It all depends on the reader, so I compromised with three.

1 comments about Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love.

1. It was dangerous to be married to Henry VIII. His first wife was cast away and died prematurely; the second was beheaded; the third died in childbed. When Henry was casting about Europe for his next wife, Christina of Denmark is supposed to have quipped, "If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England's disposal." Fortunately for his fourth wife, she was merely divorced (and outlived Henry); but the fifth was beheaded; and the sixth too had a brush with the king's deadly wrath. Only by her wits did Catherine Parr survive.
   
   In the first biography of Catherine Parr (1512-1548) in a quarter century (since Anthony Martienssen's), Susan James approaches her subject as more than just the sixth queen of Henry VIII (which is the context of books like Antonia Fraser's, Alison Weir's, and David Starkey's). The present book is a new, slightly shortened edition of the 1999 biography Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. The footnotes of the earlier book have been relegated to the end, and gone is the last section on Catherine's brother William Parr after her death, as are the appendices, including the love letters of Catherine and Thomas Seymour and a discussion of the painting previously thought to be of Lady Jane Grey. What remains is a lively (if abruptly ended) account of Catherine Parr's life, rich in detail about her before, during, and after her reign as queen.
   
   It is a Victorian misconception that Henry married Catherine for her nursing abilities--but she was well-versed in the medical arts of that period. She also had a humanist education normally given to noble boys at the time, since she was tutored in the same group as her brother, her sister, and their cousins, all under the keen eye of their mother Maud Parr. (Maud had been widowed young and took advantage of the independence this allowed; she was also a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon, who, ironically, was probably Catherine's godmother.)
   
   Rather, Henry became genuinely attracted to Catherine when she was still married to Lord Latimer (her dying second husband) and in the service of the princess Mary. No doubt it helped Henry with his competitive spirit that Sir Thomas Seymour was also courting the soon-to-be widowed Catherine. And it was perhaps key that Catherine (unlike Anne of Cleves) didn't offend Henry's sensitive nose: "she carried with her small jewelled boxes of lozenges flavoured with liquorice or clove or cinnamon for sweet breath."
   
   The notion of Catherine as Henry's nurse gives the impression--wrongly--that she was secure in her position. She certainly found her niche in the royal family, making peace between its warring members and restoring her stepdaughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession (she'd had practice with her Latimer stepchildren, and this part of the traditional view is correct). And she made a good and competent regent when Henry was making war in France--almost too good, though, because her conservative enemies (including Bishop Gardiner and Thomas Wriothesley) began to conspire against her. Ever since the break with Rome, Henry had been growing steadily more conservative in his religious views, although he tolerated Catherine's progressive beliefs and her choice of his younger children's tutors (enthusiastic reformers). She'd had to keep her beliefs secret during her previous marriage, especially when she was a hostage in the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace protesting Henry's dissolution of the monasteries. But now as queen, she felt the freedom to read forbidden books and argue with the king--tendencies that the conservatives exploited in their efforts to overthrow the queen.
   
   When the conservatives contrived to have Catherine arrested, she had her forbidden books destroyed and then took to her bed, sick. She was probably more sick with fear than anything, but the ploy brought Henry to her, and she expressed her fear of his displeasure and eagerness to make amends. The next day when she was permitted to visit him, Henry baited her for another argument, but she demurred, saying that she had only argued with him to distract him from his health troubles and to learn from him. This savvy appeal to his self-concern and vanity had the intended effect, and Henry received her back into favor--and into his bed. Wriothesley and the guards were not informed, and when they came to arrest the queen, Henry publicly humiliated them. The conservatives thus fell from power, and into their place came the reformers, including Edward Seymour and John Dudley, who would wield power during Edward VI's reign.
   
   Catherine, too, had influence with the new king, until she alienated him by her ill-advised affair and hasty marriage with Sir Thomas Seymour. It was, finally, a marriage for love long frustrated--but it was fateful all around. Catherine herself died in childbirth (and the child appears to not have survived infancy); Thomas Seymour went to the block; and her stepdaughter Elizabeth suffered a blow to her reputation and nearly lost her life.
   
   Susan James has written an excellent scholarly biography of Catherine, illuminating her motives and passions and highlighting her influence on the future Elizabeth I (who shared with Catherine a particular "restraint in the face of religious excess"). Catherine Parr comes across as a formidable woman, a match for Henry VIII, and a role model for her stepdaughters.

5 comments about Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Library of Religious Biography Series).

1. Excellent book As a school board member this book is important to show the importance of saving public education to perserve the American EXperiment. Jefferson was always in favor of a public educational system as a means to perserve the wall of separation between church and state. I would recommend this book for anyone who is oppossed to vouchers and charters schools



2. Thomas Jefferson's thinking hovers over many of today's debates regarding separation of church and state, school prayer, the place of public education, and the place of faith in our own lives.

   This is an excellent exploration of the complexities of Jefferson's beliefs and the even more complex world of how his writings and thoughts continue to impact America today.




3. This book is an excellent compliement to Charles Sanford's "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson." Whereas Sanford does a scholarly review of the content of Jefferson's religious ideas, Gaustad in this book gives the narrative and context for how Jefferson applied his ideas concerning religion and religious freedom. Most interesting to me in the Gaustad book were the accounts of the political fights Jefferson and Madison waged for religious freedom during the early years of the Republic. Gaustad filled in the historical gaps and gave me context for understanding how momentous the struggle truly was. Also brought to life by Gaustad are the correspondences between the aged ex-presidents Jefferson and Adams about God and religion. I highly recommend this book to those interested in the history of ideas and freedom of thought.



4. Sworn on the Altar of God is an extremely informative look at Thomas Jefferson's faith. As one of the Founding Fathers, politicians and people of faith have so often tried to understand Jefferson's faith. In truth, he was a deist and a rationalist. Understanding the implications of this faith have great ramifications in our current times, especially in relation to a government which seems so intent on glorifying evangelical fundamentalism at the expense of reason. I feel that Jefferson would have been appalled!



5. Gaustad, Edwin S. Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 246 pages. Notes on the Sources, index.
   
   Sworn on the Altar of God, is a religious biography (as the subtitle implies) by Edwin S. Gaustad, the critically acclaimed professor of history at the University of California, Riverside. He has written other historical books (also with good reviews I may add) such Documentary History of Religion of America, and in this book he scores again, only if it were a biography of Thomas Jefferson rather than a religious biography.
   
   Gaustad uses many of Jefferson writings and includes it in this biography with citations and context of when it is being said. He does this in a way that makes this book appealing. Right from the start though I noticed a flaw, he states his opinion as fact which is also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. He states "Thomas Jefferson was the most self consciously theological of all America's presidents" [Gaustad, preface XIII]. This is contested by many people today who argue that Abraham Lincoln (a well known deist who spoke on God often) and / or George W. Bush (though I don't agree nor do I wish to resort to argumentum ad populum fallacy) is / are the most self consciously theological of all presidents. While this book isn't supposed to be arguing for ones view, I can forgive this. I liked how in the beginning he pointed out the misconception that everyone has today about Separation of Church and State, in the fact that it is not in our constitution but rather it was just a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists [preface IX]. So he expected to catch the viewer's attention by pointing out that misconception (though I already knew that fact) and worked. The books title is based on the quote from Thomas Jefferson "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny of the mind of man" [189]. He goes on to explain Jefferson's life from child hood to death and how he was very Anglican in his birth but went astray from his roots when he got older during The Enlightenment. He explains that he did this because he read many of Joseph Priestley's and Thomas Paine's works and wrote back to them (in secrecy) with open theological discussions. He does a good job doing this due to his extensive work he put into going out and getting all of Jefferson's writings.
   
   What my main quarrel is with this book, is the fact that only a portion of this book actually is actually a religious biography of Thomas Jefferson. The only chapters I found interesting and valuable (that actually pertained to the title) were chapters: 1, 2, 5, and 8. The other 4 chapters were a complete bore and filled with clutter that has nothing to do with religion and never built up to anything associated with religion. Let me give you a fine example, in chapter 6 "The Educator", all Gaustad talks about is James Madison and Thomas Jefferson building the University of Virginia and what his rules were, and to be more specific, one page is even devoted to his architecture from Monticello and how he applied it to the University of Virginia [174]. I noticed what he tried to do in this chapter, he opened up with a quote from Thomas Priestly about creation and man, then he stuck a bunch of clutter about the establishment of University of Virginia then at the end he puts "What sounded like freedom to Jefferson could sound like Unitarianism to others" [180] even though he hardly touched on that aspect in the chapter itself.
   
   What I like about the 4 chapters that actually related to the title of the book was that it delves deep into his feelings and his theological thinking. Chapter 2 "Student of the Enlightenment", explains his reasoning behind accepting reasoning over scripture, for instance "But those facts in the Bible which contradict laws of nature which must be examined with more care" [33]. Chapter 5 "The Religious Reformer", completely goes through Thomas Jefferson's work The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth with a fine tooth comb explaining what verses he cut out and what he kept. His book is a rehash of the 4 gospels that cuts out all miracles and supernatural and leaves the morals for him to study on his own. This work has now been put together and published as The Jefferson Bible. Chapter 8 "A Religion for the People" focuses on Jefferson's feelings against other religions and explains how he ended up intensely disliking the Anglicans because of their doctrine and charging him as a heathen around election time. It also explains how he liked the Quakers because they possessed no doctrine (thus accepting reason over scripture) but were mainly peaceful.
   Overall, this work by Gaustad does a good job portraying Jefferson's deism and his thoughts on prayer, but the few chapters that actually were related to the title could have been made into a pamphlet or an online article rather than a $14.00 book. It is very mainstream friendly, but I would recommend anyone JUST interested in Jefferson's religion to read the book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson by Charles B. Sanford instead.

3 comments about Charles Goodnight, Cowman and Plainsman.

1. Being a shirtail relative of Charles Goodnight, Ihave been anxious to learn more of him. My mother was a Goodnight, but not a direct descendant. More like a great-great niece. Would like to here from anyone who may be related. The book is very informative. I have an early copy from about the 1940's.



2. This book is not only about Charles Goodnight, but it is an excellent source on the history of the Panhandle, especially the settlement of the Palo Duro Canyon. You'll learn about the land, the wildlife, and the men who came to tame them both. It's an excellent biography, and should be required reading for anyone who lives within a hundred mile radius of the Palo Duro canyon.



3. 
   
   My first indication this book existed was a chapter, entitled The Making of a Scout, that Ole Hosstail (Joe Austell Small) ran in TRUE WEST magazine back around August, 1966.
   
   Charles Goodnight was many things in the Texas Panhandle, pioneer, ranchman, Indian fighter, homesteader, leader and all around man 'with the bark on. One of the outstanding things he did, among all his other activities, was his work with the Bison (buffalo) saving a herd but also in achieving the 'cattalo' a cross between range cattle and the bison.
   
   This book was already 20 some years old when it crossed my trail, and though I have a good hardcover copy, it is a second printing. But no matter which copy one may have, it is definately a prime source of information and no small classic in its own right.
   
   In September, 2007, the University of Oklahoma will publish a newer biography of Charles Goodnight by William T. Hagan. Though having much fewer pages it will no doubt be worth having on a reader's western shelf as well.
   
   No matter what your western reading interest concerning the west, Charles Goodnight is almost a must read.
   
   Semper Fi.

5 comments about The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (2nd Edition).

1. Edmund S. Morgan is simply a wonderful historian and writer. As I get older I find I appreciate a writer who can get to the nub of his subject without blathering on for hundreds of unnecessary pages. This excellent short biography concisely tells the story of Winthrop's leading role in the Massachusetts Bay Colony established during the Great Migration of Puritans. Great books challenge us with new insights. Read this book and leave your preconceptions of Puritans behind.



2. Short and sweet is the word. Morgan is a first-rate historian who, unlike some of his colleagues, can write in an engaging way that draws in the average reader. This book will not only shed light on Winthrop, but is also the best description of puritanism that I have come across. If you want to understand this influential movement, and one of its most important leaders, here's your book.



3. This book is a good overview of Puritanism in England and New England in the first half of the 17th century, especially the role of John Winthrop in establishing a Puritan commonwealth in the vicinity of Boston, Mass under the auspices of the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1630. Little time is spent on day-to-day living conditions in the new Mass. Bay colony - and they were harsh.
   
   Much of the book is concerned with the subtle but explosive differences in Puritan thought that Winthrop was forced to deal with: Separatism, Presbyterianism (hierarchical, inclusive) vs. Congregationalism (flat, independent, & exclusive), or such deviating thought as Arminianism and Antinomiansim. In some cases, diffident residents were banned from the colony, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson.
   
   In addition, the author shows the gradual inclusion of adult male church members in the governance of the colony from the original conception of only the few members of the Company exercising absolute control. The author maintains that the basics of church-state separation existed, yet there is no doubt that both sectors were concerned with rooting out and punishing ungodly behavior. The author shows that the survival of the colony owed a lot to Winthrop as he resisted tendencies of some towards separatism and purity - in other words, fanaticism. At times he was voted out of the governor's office, but the colony always returned to him.
   
   A rather understated aspect of the book is any real feel for living in a totally religious community under constant surveillance and the superiority of those who wish to judge who had been saved or not (or worse). Somehow the spread of that mindset into representative government is not especially heartwarming. The myopic idea that a pure, godly community, superior to others, could be established plagues us even today.



4. An interesting look at the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the remarkable character who lead it for most of its first couple decades. It seems easier for many people to view the Puritans as stereotypes rather than real people, but they're more interesting as flesh and blood human beings living in the real world. Considering their importance to American beginnings, it's probably wiser to try to understand them as real people. They were amazing in some respects, misguided in others, but they got New England going, along with Harvard, Yale and a powerful commitment to literacy and education. They also started representative government in the New World, at least in the northern British colonies, and they had a leader of rare abilities in Winthrop. This is a part of American history that's perhaps more relegated to either caricature or the dustbin than any other, and that's to our loss in understanding our roots and their continuing effects on our society.



5. This brief and dense history of John Winthrop's Boston is a must-read for folks interested in colonial life in America. Beginning with the formation of the Massachusetts Bay Company in England, and following them to the new world and the new struggles that accompany their arrival, historical juggernaut Edmund Morgan paints an unfamiliar picture of John Winthrop.
   
   Often depicted as a fundamentalist zealot, Morgan's Winthrop is a more pragmatic puritan - one willing to make compromises in favor of trade, diplomacy, or popular support. Winthrop's struggles with his own people are also highlighted throughout the book, particularly in the roller coaster of on-again, off-again governorship between him and his rivals.
   
   The book also clarifies the objectives and different types of puritanism, which I, as a student of history, found very helpful in understanding the religious landscape of Englands both new and old.
   
   The one downside to the work is the style in which it's written. As an early work of Morgan's, he had not yet found the compelling, conversational voice which he is today known for, resulting in an academic tone that makes reading a bit tedious at times. Regardless, the thorough research and interesting subject matter more than makes up for it.

3 comments about Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of the Troubadours.

1. Jean Markale, a controversial French author retired to Celtic Brittany, has a background in writing about ancient, iconic feminine qualities. Markale's earlier titles suggest how he might approach Eleanor of Aquitaine. He had already written: 'Women of the Celts' (1987), 'The Great Goddess: Reverence of the Divine Feminine from the Paleolithic to the Present' (1999), and 'Cathedral of the Black Madonna: The Druids and the Mysteries of Chartres' (2004).
   
   Regarding those mysteries of Chartres with its womb-like labyrinth and Black Madonna, Queen Blanche of Castile encouraged the funding-drive for Chartres' new cathedral: she also donated windows. Blanche was a grand-daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine whom the old queen personally selected and escorted across the Pyrenees to marry the heir to France. Young Blanche (12) and Eleanor (78) travelled north together from Burgos to Poitou in the spring of 1200. Months in private company with Eleanor must have helped to form and harden young Blanche's character. Markale knows the royal family lines through many centuries, and one suspects that he had been closing in on Eleanor as a subject for years before he wrote this book.
   
   In her time Eleanor of Aquitaine embodied, and knew that she embodied, iconic feminine qualities (the 'feminine ideal'?) that Markale treats in 'Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of the Troubadours'. Modern society celebrated these qualities in, say, Jackie Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana. And Eleanor? In his third section, Markale shows how a troubadour press corps amplified Eleanor's persona. Here, with her coterie of troubadours, comes the twelfth century's "great goddess" and "reverence of the divine feminine." Markale may be controversial, but not necessarily wrong. He is entertaining and he captures the labyrinthine spiritual complexities of Eleanor's times.
   
   Robert Fripp,
   Author, Power of a Woman. Memoirs of...Eleanor of Aquitaine
   
   P.S.: Why did Markale's English-language publisher use an image of a woman clad in fashions of the early 1500s to adorn the cover of this book? The illustration (she may be Eleanor of Spain) does nothing for a fine book.



2. Eleanor of Aquitaine has been noted for her political achievements - yet here the focus is on her spiritual influence, nature and side, which considers her as a figure restoring a feminine face to medieval religious life, representing female power and leadership. Collections strong in medieval studies, both at the high school and college level, will find this a different kind of biographical coverage which examines the spiritual representation of Eleanor of Aquitaine.



3. Jean Markale presents us with a very in depth look at Eleanor of Aquitaine, mother of King Richard the Lionhearted and King John and wife to both the King of France, Louis VII and the King of England, Henry II.
   
   The book is in three parts. The first part of the book is an in depth biography of the Queen, from her early youth thru her death. For those who would not be familiar with Eleanor, this section of the book is a must read. Mr. Markale does a wonderful job of making this a most interesting read, including all the references and all the stories that make this woman one of the most interesting historical figures of the time.
   
   The second part of the book takes a look at the instance of her divorce from Louis VII of France. While there is much speculated about this, it is the single most important piece of history at the time. It set the stage for the events that followed.
   
   There is much discussion here about what the duties of a Queen were at the time. The discussion follows the concept of "courtly love" or "fine amor" and also discusses the "indiscretions" that were alleged of Eleanor. There is evidence presented that there may have been many things going on at the courts at that time, and there is evidence to suggest that Eleanor was not only aware of it, but that she played it to her advantage. She was a maker of history, not just an observer.
   
   The final part of the book looks at the phenomenon of the Troubadours of the time, and how they played an important role in not only creating the literature and developing the culture of that time, but also how they played a part in communication and how they were responsible for the myths that were developed. There is some very interesting discussion of how one story of Tristan and Iseult becomes the story of Arthur and Guinevere. And how all these stories are most likely about Eleanor herself, or at least inspired by her.
   
   For the history alone this book is worth the read. Jean Markale is a wonderful weaver of story and history, and his style never bores. It is a credit to John Graham, the translator, that the material is kept as Mr. Markale intended; to weave the story, to look at the plots, subplots and court intrigues and yet still be interesting and involving the reader in the thoughts, the plot twists and assisting the reader to understand the conclusions that Mr. Markale draws. The last part, on the Troubadours, is an added bonus to the book looking at yet another aspect of the history at that time. It plays an important role as to how we see Eleanor today.
   
   If you are into medieval history at all, you will not want to pass up this book and it's valuable content. Eleanor is a singular figure causes history to change at this point in time and her impact cannot be ignored. And the presentation by Mr. Markale is just the vehicle you need to make it interesting and enjoyable to read. medievalcrusadesbabe