5 comments about The West of Billy the Kid.

1. What lacks in this describtion in the life og Billy the Kid, is a bit more detail in the last chapters. Clearly Frederick Nolan is most interestet in the Lincoln County War - thats why I give the book 4 stars and not 5.
   
   Having said that I must hurry to make clear that this book probaly is the best biografy to read about Billy the Kid if you are just af normal human being knowning nothing first hand of the old west.
   I am such a person, and when I started reading the book, Frederick Nolan unfolded the true old west before my eyes in a manner I have never imagined anyone would be able to. He writes in a nice easy-to-read way even for a guy like me who hasn't got english as my first language. He mannages to tell all the details of the story in such a way, that it is easy to understand what was going on, and why people were acting as the were - and that is a very big accevement as some subjekts in the book - for exampel the Lincoln County War - is af very complicated affair involving many different persons.
   
   Frederik Nolans mission with this book is to show us the kid as he were in the old west as it was in the late 1870ties. And he succedes. He shows us a young man with a difficult childhood who has driftet from one bad area to another only to end up in the lions cave - Lincoln County - where a great cattle-war is about to break. And from their on his fate is seeled. Being the one he is with the past he has - he has no chance of avoiding bekomming a part of the war, and in the end one of the most feared - and wanted - outlaws in the territorry.



2. Frederick Nolan has established a book on "Billy the Kid," which out does most before and after it's initial publication in 1999. An easy to follow book for all readers that tells the true story based on documentation and "real" proof to the life and death of "Billy the Kid." Bye far the best out there on this subject matter. Purchase it!!!
   
   Mike Koch, Author of "The Kimes Gang."



3. Fred Nolan is one of the most recognized and popular historians of the old west, but where he makes many of his mistakes is by repeating too many things written by previous authors without sufficient evidence. I find most of his statements impossible to prove incorrect, but there are a few problems in his writing. Also, the editing of his book has a few flaws in that there are many glowing contradictions within the book. But, if you can figure out where the errors were made, the rest of the book is interesting and appears to be factual. In comparison to the other books currently on the market on Billy, this is one of the better ones, especially if like good pictures..



4. Nolan does a great job in describing the events of Billy the Kids life. One of the best historians out there. i would recommend this book for all who are interested in Billy The Kid. Unlike the book written by Jim Johnson this book is full of facts.



5. Several years ago while at work, it became evident that at least for several weeks Billy Joels'well known song, "The Ballad Of Billy The Kid" was getting airplay at the same time each week. We could almost predict it and kind of expected it.I had heard it before but never really listened to it closely.Now, I was paying attention to every line as others may have,and took it for fact.This was right up until I heard a well known disc jockey discount the song and state that much of what was in the song was not fact at all but just made up ,fabricated and just literal allusion. At first I was taken aback, a little annoyed, but then I realized that Mr. Joel had to rhyme his words and possibly used what worked and to hell with the facts,which of course, was his prerogative.In doing so however, he did Billy The Kid a great injustice.Now I became curious for real facts about Billy and I did some searching and boy was I astounded at what I found.His life was nothing at all like the song or even what I had thought Billy the Kid was like based on my general knowledge of him picked up along the way.I envisioned a killer cowboy,a bank robbing,train robbing outlaw terrorizing the early west.Well,I have since developed an enduring respect for him after reading a very accurate and truthful history of him as written by Frederick Nolan.This book reads like a Russian novel.There are so many characters and people involved in the Kids world it boggles the mind.This book is completely filled with photos,maps,references and mini histories, one doesn't know where to begin. It does get jumpy at times where I felt lost in all the action but each chapter ends well seemingly tying up all the loose ends.How these guys did it and why anybody would go west is beyond me.But go they did and it was less than placid. The early west was a dry, dusty violent place and the Kid was right in the middle of it.His beginnings were confusing from a historical point of view due to lack of information and it seems he rarely experienced any lengthy periods of true peace.He always had to scrape for an existence,fight for scraps and he did defend himself as any respectable person would.He killed when absolutely necessary and was not the sociopathic killer history's tall tales have made him out to be.He had emotion,compassion and youthful exuberance and was well liked among his peers and was respected as well for his sense of fair play and justice.This it seems, was all for nought for his death was both tragic and violent at the hand of Pat Garrett who has his own version to tell and did for profit.He lived his life as best he could under the circumstances and remains a tragically misunderstood chapter of our midwest history. Just a blip on the radar, but a person who stood fast for his rights and was cheated out of a fair shake on more than one occasion. Nolan reflects that and is honest in his assessment of just what is truth and what is fiction.He attempts to dispell the myths and report the events down to their absolute truths without using dramatic,theatrical scenes.I did alot of research on Billy and boiled down the real books on his life.This book glared like a beacon for its honest assessment of just who and what Billy Antrum,and then Billy Bonney and then who became finally, Billy The Kid, was and what his life was from its mysterious beginings to its abrupt yet vague end.If Billy the Kid is a source of mystery that needs to be cleared then Nolans book is it.It is clearly evident that he did his research and would not fabricate facts to enhance the history.I recommend this book to Mr. Billy Joel.Perhaps he could compose a second edition more accurate to poor Billy Bonney to give him proper justice.As a book about the man and his times I highly recommend it.It is an arduous but fun read and when you hear the above noted song you will smile to yourself and know better and perhaps hold a place in your heart for the young man that history crucified perhaps a bit prematurely.The book is tops if you need or want to know Billy the Kid.

5 comments about Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (Bluejacket Books).

1. This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.



2. This is the best book written about the story of World War Two from the perspective of the American military commanders. It won an award from the Society of American Historians called the Francis Parkman Prize for historical excellence. This book is a World War Two classic. You will not find a better one-volume profile of the American commanders in WWII.
   
   Roosevelt was great at picking the right people for the right positions, such as George Marshall, five star general. In Washington D.C., he was the overall commander of the United States military during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever. Read about him in the book.
   
   Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt told Marshall that he was thinking of hand-picking Dwight Eisenhower and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower. It was a great moment of self-sacrifice for Marshall.
   
   The information in this book on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book.
   
   Another great leader that FDR hand-picked was admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict.
   
   But the best part of this book is how the American commanders led America to victory in World War II. This is great history. It looked very uncertain for years. All of them, including FDR, did a great job. Read the book.



3. Eric Larrabee not only gives the facts about these men and what made them tick, he backs it up with real OFFICIAL memoranda from the time, often from more than just 2 or 3 sources. His study of Douglas MacArthur is outstanding. What MacArthur apologists won't tell you is that this book is required reading at all US military academies. It should be required in all high schools as well. Well written, well done!



4. I purchased this book many years ago when it was first published, but only recently got around to reading much of it. I was extremely impressed at the author's critical analysis of the major players. In terms of detailed biographical sketches and rigorous organization, it lapses from time to time and often spends several pages in diversions about subordinates. What was particularly strong about Commander in Chief, however, was the perspectival discussions on the talents and importance of individual flag officers. I was particularly impressed with the discussion of Eisenhower which was the best I've seen. Larrabee actually gives him more praise and regard than his own son did in the recent Ike: the Soldier. For once, Eisenhower comes across as a powerful and commanding figure in his own right, rather than as a fortunate protege of General Marshall. Indeed, Larrabee explains in a perfectly plausible fashion why Eisenhower was a better choice for overall European command in 1944 and beyond. Although it does tend to wander at times, Commander in Chief is finely written and makes for enjoyable, informative reading. I recommend it highly.



5. I picked this book up not by choice in the beginning. I had to have it for a WWII class; I thought the book was going to put a strain on my already hectic schedule. Not the case at all.
   
   This book was outstanding and Larrabee did an excellent job showing the mental, physical, and emotional strain on our leaders. The book is written in profiles so the book started with FDR and worked its way to Lemay for the ending. The profiles do not have to be read consecutively. The profiles were great descriptions with the Vandergrift profile being my favorite. Larrabee did an excellent job describing the Marines battles through their leader General Vandergrift. The profile on FDR showed that he had more strengths than weaknesses. The only apparent weakness being his health. Larrabee does an excellent portrayal of all the leaders and seemed a bit put off by Macarthur. Macarthur's profile was definately the most damning one in the book.
   
   I agree with the one review that says this book should be read. This was a time when our country was united as one. Larrabee also does an excellent look at the Japanese command in the book. He has an in depth history of the Chinese Burma theatre. The book is a great starting point with WWII because the foundations are laid in leadership. Larrabee shows that the war was one with the competence of many great leaders during that time.
   
   He also lead me to ask myself one question. Could FDR run his type of war in present time. I mean he did intern and imprison thousands of Japanese on the West Coast that had done nothing at all. He attacked Germany who never attacked the U.S. It was Japan who struck us on Dec. 7, 1941 not Germany. FDR saw the impending danger of Hitler and struck his head before there was a chance for attack. Maybe History needs to be read more often so future mistakes are not based on lack of knowledge. Also Larrabee shows that FDR did have enemies and the Chicago Tribune leaked a war plan against the Japanese. Thank God the Japanese did not heed this plan.
   
   Larrabee shows there is always opposition against our leaders. FDR had the fortitude to stand up for what he believed and protect the world. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in leadership or WWII.

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

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



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



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



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



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

3 comments about The Memoirs of Catherine the Great (Modern Library Classics).

1. Catherine the Great has long suffered from mixed press. Jeesh, I mean there was the fact she almost certainly had her demented husband, who just happened to be the Czar, conveniently snuffed, she enacted brutal laws in retaliation for a wee bit of disloyalty on behalf of the Russian peasantry, and, well, let's not forget that nasty rumor about how fond she was of horses. Ahem. But you know, this was also one of the greatest rulers in Russian history, a pen-pal of Voltaire, hand-picked agent of Frederick the Great, and above all else, an improbable survivor against whom the deck was stacked pretty high.
   
   I think Catherine used these memoirs to sway the public's feelings about her. That's a nice way of saying I suspect the ol' gal fibbed a time or two. But so what? This is still an invaluable first-hand account of a time and place about which we might otherwise have known far less than we do, but for courtesy of her gifted prose. Sure, Catherine wasn't perfect but she wasn't a monster, either, as so many other Russian rulers have been. She had a good sense of humor, she liked to read and she made an art of political pragmatism. Catherine also tried to do what was right (especially what was right for her) and early in her reign, this German on the Russian throne brought about a number of amazingly liberal reforms that ended laws that were suffocating Mother Russia, even during the Age of Enlightenment.
   
   I say, let historians debate all they want, Catherine deserved to have her say and her point of view is privileged. If for nothing else than the details of her era, this memoir is worth its weight in sable and caviar.



2. This rather large collection can be very absorbing in spite of its "pedestrian" style. Even a bad translation (which it likely was not) couldn't be an excuse to call it good writing, but memoirs are not really known for being Pulitzer material. "Alibiographies," these are sometimes called, and the stories in "Memoirs" are very often told by Catherine to make herself a favorable picture. As historian Will Durant says about the work, it is not so much false, as it is partial. Truthfully, though, it would be hard to name any other autobiography that did not do the same. The most glaring difference between "her version" and the "world's version," for example, has to be her thoughts and descriptions of her husband, Czar Peter III. The reader will find this easy -- and interesting -- to spot all through the memoirs!
   
   Durant also implies, though, that Catherine's memoirs fills many gaps, at least as material for further reading. No matter the partiality shown in the book, it is blindingly clear that Catherine was head and shoulders above almost all her contemporaries in intelligence, energy, curiosity, and shrewdness.
   
   A word of personal annoyance with this book. It took more than three-quarters of the pages to run across the telling of her first non-husband love relationship. Even then the fateful paragraph was extra-long and in an unexpectedly different style, and had to be read twice to catch on. All that work for so little naughty information!



3. Very interesting insight into the mind of a strong woman that lived long ago. Human nature never really changes does it? :-)

3 comments about Janette Oke: A Heart for the Prairie.

1. I was thoroughly inspired by reading this book. It seemed to me to be a little slow developing at the beginning, due to a fairly complex family history. Even this should be interesting to people who like history from the perspective of people who lived it. It is well organized, and provides a good description of the environment that nurtured this God-inspired writer. Janette Oke's life experiences are so easy to identify with, and her dependence on God so well portrayed that it is an inspiration to me. It is also fascinating to learn how one of my favorite writers arrived at her mission in life.



2. The story of Janette Oke's life told through snatches of stories. This book is packed with little stories and references to events in Janette's life. It reads almost as a family history or a remembrance book. Illustrated with a few pictures in the middle, it gives a good overview. The book is simply told, as most of her fictional books are. I only wish there had been more information about her as a writer.



3. Simple, written with love, interesting, good pictures. It is amazing her life and dedication. READ IT!!!

5 comments about Warrior: The Legend Of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen.

1. Not your typical Capstick book, this focuses more on the military wars and campaigns in Africa from a British poit of view.
   Still very interesting.



2. This is a very bloody book, but so was Africa in the 1890-1920 timeframe - A Post-Bellum backwater - and one wonders why the British or the Germans were there.
   
   The best passsages cover Meinhertzhagen as a leader of men - his boldness and his careful calculations, as an intelligence operative and officer - his gaining entry to a Russian fort is hilarious, and his observations of Post-Bellum Africa - where the slave trade has collapsed and the Boer War is over with.
   
   In the end, all things written and done by Meinertzhagen must be judged against his role as a British Intelligence Officer - his diary entries, his "ornithology", and his whereabouts and actions. The one true constant is his devotion and loyalty to the Empire and his empathy for the downtrodden and unjustly treated.
   
   The dispatch of men with "amateur" interests is an old, old ruse that reaches as far back as Aristotle's trip to Thessaly if not further.



3. Col. Meinertzhagen was one of the greatest warriors of his day, a Richard Burton, Lord Stanley and Lawrence of Arabia all wrapped into one. He was also a fascinating individual who was a big game hunter and at the same time a man who collected one of the greatest bird collections for museum use at the time. An expert therefore on birds and a jungle fighter against Leetow-Vorbecks Germans in German East Africa(Tanzania). He led Africans in many fights of the First World War and was most well known for leading secret British septerfuge missions against the Turks in Palestine, leading to the capture of Beersheba. In the 1930s he was an admirer of fascism but hated the Nazis for their racist policies. In the 1920s he was also a great admirer of ZIonism and claimed to be an essential element in the founding of Israel, a fact overlooked today. He was a great warrior and this book tells his story full of bravado. The book concentrates also on his big game hunting exploits, but it is afanciful account.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. A very disappointing book - it should be subtitled "a mini biography of Peter H Capstick." Capstick is arrogant enough to think that the reader will be just as interested in him as the they are in Meinertzhagen! It is not well written as Capstick rambles off on tangents (usually about himself) at very regular intervals. He professes to be an expert where he clearly is not eg he disputes the well known fact that anti-malarial drugs can mask the symptoms of the disease.
   
   A great pity that a potentially interesting book has been spoilt by a self interested author!



5. An almost uncritical biography of the subject, and a shamelssly uncritcal preudo-autobiography of the author. All cited sources are in Meinertzhagen's own publications. Barely worth the effort of reading.

5 comments about Charles Darwin (Very Interesting People Series).

1. This is one of the best biography books that I have ever read. It is factual and beautifully written



2. Un libro estupendo. Erudito ,informado , ameno y riguroso.¿Que mas podemos pedirle a Janet Browne?



3. Exceptional book, if in doubt, buy it. I knew it would be great after reading so many positive reviews, for some years, and was not disappointed. Unlike some overly detailed biographies, every word seems worthwhile here, from that first glorious sentence to the last. Here is the great adventure story of all time, biology-wise. All I can do is add my two cents worth to what is said elsewhere, don't miss this one.



4. I actually first checked this book out from my university's library and liked it so much that I went ahead and bought it for my personal library. Browne explores Darwin's life in the text in an extremely compelling and easily comprehendable manner. While I don't believe Charles Darwin: Voyaging is explicit and detailed enough to negate the need for true Darwin enthusiasts to discover Darwin for themselves through reading his autobiography, collected correspondence, and great scientific works (The Origins of Species, Descent of Man etc...) I do think the text accomplishes what it was meant to do--give those curious about Darwin's life and works the basic overview they need before pursuing the topic in more depth.



5. interesting biography of the life of Charles Darwin...great insights on his childhood and early experiences.

1 comments about Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (England's Forgotten Queens series).

1. Anne Neville is one of the most poorly documented queens of England; Hicks originally doubted that he could find enough material. I applaud his effort, but 4 stars is somewhat generous: I award it for the uniqueness of the work and the lovely cover. This book should be of interest to the people interested in the Richard III controversies. The history and politics that determined the course of Anne's life are not well explained; anyone unfamiliar with the Wars of the Roses may want to read up on them first. Since the people mentioned here were the main actors, a few encyclopedia articles would probably be enough for a start.
   
   The book begins slowly with a chapter on Anne and Richard as fictionalized by the unavoidable William Shakespeare. Is there a law in the UK that the Wars of the Roses can't be discussed without extensive reference to the Bard? Hicks next tells us about Anne's noble ancestry; the reader should consult the genealogy at the end of the text to keep all the Richards, Annes, Isabels and Cecilys straight. Hicks might at least have included the stories about her semi-mythic ancestors: Guy of Warwick and The Swan Knight since he mentions the names. After this, Hicks launches into Anne's life history and the book is fairly good until after Anne is widowed.
   
   The rest of the book is chiefly concerned with the (dubious) dealings of her second husband, Richard, Duke of Gloucester; Anne is scanted. One would think that the death of her sister Isabel would be an event in Anne's life, let alone the attendant drama of illegal executions leading to a confrontation with Edward IV and Clarence's death, but it is mentioned almost parenthetically in a discussion of inheritance. Certainly there is room for more information: the book is only 215 pages, much of it is redundant: on p.71 Hicks tells about the consanguity between Clarence and Isabel. On pp.132-133, he gives us similar information about Richard and Anne, much of it the same. Since Clarence and Richard were brothers and Anne and Isabel were sisters, the reader probably knows a lot of this from p.71; the problem with their being cousins is obviously the same, only the issue of now being additionally related by marriage is added. Then on pp.143-144 he recounts it all again and recaps it on p.205.
   
   I belong to the Richard III Society; that does not require me to think of him as a saint (I checked before I joined), but a lot of this is silly. Hicks seems torn between trying to be fair and trying to find almost any excuse to scald Richard. This accounts for a certain amount of the redundancy: issues may be visited twice, once with a neutral interpretation, than again with an anti-Richard interpretation. At least he does include the neutral interpretations.
   
   He claims that their marriage was scandalous to their contemporaries, without quoting any who were scandalized. Related multiple times, Anne and Richard required dispensations to marry. Hicks argues that this may have been impossible, then mentions cases where such permission was granted. Proper documentation has not been found, but the marriage was accepted by their contemporaries. Hicks cites the property settlement as proof of a lack of proper dispensation, since it provides for the event of the marriage being annulled. As I recall, so did the marriage agreement for Richard's nephew, the Duke of York - this was outrageously unfair to the bride, but was this a standard provision for princes? There is also what I call the Obvious Problem: if the settlement makes it obvious that there was no dispensation, why didn't their contemporaries realize this? It was an Act of Parliament: how secret can it have been? I am much more cynical about dispensations: I think they involved more money & politics and less theology than Hicks seems to.
   
   There is no evidence that Richard and Anne married chiefly for love, but as Hicks mentions, that was typical for their time and it made sense for them to join forces. Anne had a vast inheritance which she couldn't access, Richard was possibly the only man with the influence to get it. I do not see why Richard shouldn't have fought for Anne's share, nor do I see how this necessarily "exploited" her; Hicks finds it unseemly. Anne probably wanted her share for herself (to the extent that married women had any control), and her heirs as much as Richard did.
   
   He makes provocative statements such as: "One must moreover deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial sentence and registration would result today for any man like Duke Richard [then 19] guilty of having sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl, but fifteenth century standards permitted such relations and indeed regarded them as normal and legitimate." [p.130] That's certainly having it both ways! Hicks has already told us, without any evidence of disapproval, that Margaret Beaufort was married at 12 [her husband was about 25] and a mother at 14. Anne was a already a widow before she married Richard: at 14 she had a consummated marriage with 17-year-old Edward of Lancaster. It certainly wasn't necessary to tell us again that early marriage was common; Hicks apparently just wanted to associate Richard, and only Richard, with sex offenses.
   
   On the other hand, while discussing the possibility that Richard poisoned Anne, which Hicks certainly should, he surprised me by concluding that she probably wasn't.
   
   Given the lack of personal detail for Anne's life, I think that it would have been better if Hicks had spent more time describing the usual life of a woman of her status, details of pageants that she may have attended, etc. One of the pleasures of reading biographies of ill-documented people is that the authors, not having to cram in a large amount of material, often create a better picture of the age than they do with major figures.

5 comments about Lennon Remembers.

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

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

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




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



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



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



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

3 comments about Within the Whirlwind.

1. Eugenia Ginsburg was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in 1937 on a false charge of terrorism at the height of the Stalin purges. In her first book 'Into the whirlwind' she describes her arrest, her interrogation, her mockery of a trial and two years in solitary confinement in prison. She was then transported to Magadan in the far East of Russia to a labour camp, and the first volume ends as she is beginning to cope with the undescribably harsh conditions in the camp.

   'Within the whirlwind' describes the next fifteen years until her return and rehabilitation. She describes how her life was saved by gaining work as a nurse in the camp hospital where she met her second husband.

   This book leaves the reader astonished how Evgenia could describe her life with such humour and at the same time with such human understanding. All the time, however, the reader is reminded of the inhumanity, lying and deception of the Stalin regime.

   At one stage, the vice president of the USA, Henry Wallace, visits the camps, and the prisoners are removed and the guards temporarily take their place and manage to convince the gullible American that the camps are manned by well fed and enthusiastic pioneers.

   Eugenia returns to Moscow, her life destroyed, having lost one of her sons. She ends on a note of optimism, that the truth will be told in her native land. She died however in 1977 and never saw her books published in her native land nor the destruction of the communist regime.

   This book is now out of print, which is a pity. Everybody interested in Russia should try to get hold of a copy and read it and ponder on the demons that helped produce the country as it is today.




2. This book shocked, sickened, and inspired me. I never realized how terrible Stalin's purges were until I read Ginzburg's historically accurate and emotionally compelling memoir. Unforgettable characters, disturbing mental images, and harrowing brutality made up the Soviet Gulag and Ginzburg's book showcases them beautifully! Outstanding memoir!!



3. Eugenia Ginzburg was the first Russian Communist to write extensively about being caught in the "meatgrinder" of Stalin's purges. It took her a long time to figure it out: "We were creatures of our times, of the epoch of magnificent illusions."
   
   "Within the Whirlwind" is the second volume of her memoirs. I have not read the first, but the editors say she pulled her punches then, hoping for publication at home (which didn`t happen). She avers that this volume is only the truth. Not the whole truth, she admits, but nothing but truth.
   
   This seems credible.
   
   At least, her memoir is readable. I forced myself to go 100 pages in Solzhenitsyn's "GULAG Archipelago," but it was unreadable. Ginzburg's memoir is windy but readable, basically a series of vignettes of encounters during 18 years of exile/imprisonment in the Soviet Far East.
   
   Her pen portraits of fellow zeks (political prisoners), free workers, apparatchiks, common criminals and commandants are deft, though there is no way to be sure how realistic they are. Each story has a point, often about little expressions of humanity or courage breaking out in what was otherwise a hellhole.
   
   Like all memoirs of the great slave societies of the 20th century, Ginzberg's is shaped by survivor bias.
   
   Although she spent some time in the more brutal camps -- felling trees where the temperature came to 40 below, on little food -- her background (teacher of literature, musician) got her easier posts most of the time, where she ate somewhat better and had some shelter. Also, she was never beaten or tortured.
   
   The same survivor bias shows in memoirs of prisoners of the Germans and Japanese. The ones who did not get jobs in kitchens or offices seldom survived to write memoirs. (A.J.P. Taylor accepts that 2 million died building the White Sea Canal; they left no memoirs.)
   
   The capsule story is that Ginzburg had two sons. One died of starvation in Leningrad. She adopts a foundling daughter and falls in love with a German doctor. After her final release, she stays in the east because Anton, her new husband, has not yet finished his endless sentences.
   
   Later, when they are allowed to go back to European Russia, where Ginzburg's first, undivorced husband turns out to have survived both the Germans and the Russians, she skips over whatever arrangements were worked out.
   
   Among many interesting tales, there are some broader generalities that come through that might surprise American readers.
   
   One is that not everybody in the GULAG was an innocent zek. There were huge numbers of what Ginzburg calls common criminals, a not unexpected residue of tsarism and civil war. The zeks were terrorized by the criminals, in some ways even more so than by the Party.
   
   During the war, the zeks were wild to fight the Germans. The notion, promoted today by some neocons, that the Russians would have revolted against Stalin if given the chance is not supported here.
   
   In the end, Ginzburg takes a lenient view of her persecutors, viewing the common run of them as misguided, weak, ignorant. Her hatred is reserved for the few actors at the top.
   
   Thus she excuses herself from a great earlier crime. She and her first husband were stalwart Communists until the knock on the door in 1937. In an epilogue, Ginzburg says she did not know much about what had been done to the kulaks.
   
   In one sense, this may be believable. She was teaching literature in college far away in Kazan. In another, it is not. The drumbeat of hatred against the kulaks and wreckers was part of her daily life. It required a determined failure of imagination to avoid drawing conclusions.
   
   Even after her first 10 year sentence, she was still failing to imagine. And that, to me, is the heart of the book -- a failure to imagine.