3 comments about The Lord Cornbury Scandal: The Politics of Reputation in British America (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture).

1. The support community for heterosexual male transvestites in Vancouver, British Columbia, calls itself The Cornbury Society. The organization, like New York's famous Hyde Park, has taken upon itself the name of the third Earl of Clarendon, Edward Hyde, the Lord Cornbury, royal governor of New Jersey and New York from 1702 to 1708. These men, like most historians from the mid-19th century forward, believe that Governor Hyde was an exhibitionistic cross-dresser, who attended his own wife's funeral dressed in women's clothing, and cavorted about in society dressed as a woman, to the horror and condemnation of hundreds of spectators. This has been the historical legacy of Hyde for over 150 years, and it is Patricia Bonomi's task to not only refute these (and other) rumors, but illuminate the condition of politics and political discourse in the 18th century, and expose a long-standing bias in American history against royalists in general, and Tory governors in particular. She does this all in an engaging and descriptive manner, though with perhaps an insufficient degree of explanation of basic terminology and concepts (for example, she does not explain what she means by "Grub Street Press," a fundamental concept used from the first chapter forward, until page 102), and a organizational structure that seems to lack both organization and structure. There are three areas from which criticism of Governor Hyde has always stemmed. The most infamous is a portrait said to be of him, dressed in women's attire, now hanging in the halls of the New-York Historical Society, a portrait with which there is no connection to the Governor until many decades after his death. The second, and in many ways weakest, is a series of 5 letters containing rumor-mongering of the Governor's supposed cross-dressing habits. The final, and most serious, is a large group of more or less contemporary charges (primarily propagated by Lewis Morris, the man who was in line to become the royal governor of New Jersey until Hyde's father and uncle interceded) of fiscal misconduct, including accepting of bribes, mismanagement of colonial finances, and living far in excess of his position and means. Bonomi places each of these pieces of evidence into their proper political and social contexts, completely discrediting the portrait's connection to Hyde, and clarifying the difference between the rumors of the day and what actually took place. More importantly, Bonomi explains, to a certain degree, why these rumors were so prevalent, and why so many of the rumors focused on sexual innuendo. One does not need to look farther than the Monica Lewinsky scandal to see the application of Bonomi's findings to our understanding of our own time. A new form of media, greater press freedoms, and a large upheaval in the nature of political institutions and leadership are just three of many parallels between the late 17th/early 18th centuries, and the late 20th/early 21st centuries.

   One might desire more from this text, however. The balance between salvaging Hyde's historical legacy and of analyzing the social context that led to the charges against him, is heavily weighted towards the former, with only one chapter dealing with issues of sexual identity and changing morals in this period. Further, Bonomi comes across not so much as a disinterested detective, but rather as defense attorney, committed to proving that Hyde wasn't a bad guy above all else. Her analysis of the letters charging Hyde with cross dressing is primarily devoted to showing why we shouldn't believe them, and little else, and such problems are scattered throughout the book. Additionally, the book lacks something of a cohesive structure, and would do well to have a more solid introduction, any kind of a conclusion, and perhaps a glossary for those readers who aren't as intimately familiar with British political history as the author herself clearly is. Still, Bonomi's book accomplishes much of what it sets out to. It exonerates Hyde, for the most part, returning the charges against him to the context that historians have stripped them from, and increasing our understanding of the political climate of the early 18th century. It is useful for any student of colonial or British politics, and for anyone interested in the forms political discourse takes. Not to mention for all the historians who have taken the charges against the Lord Cornbury at face value and perpetuated some of the most vulgar and base forms of political accusations for their readers, out of self-interest and expediency. Despite it's flaws, this book opens the door to new interpretations of colonial and British politics, and paves the way for a more responsible historical interpretation of the American past. (originally prepared for History H398, Spring 2000, Ohio State University)




2. The author argues convincingly that stories of Lord Cornbury's cross-dressing were only rumors. She offers some explanations as to why such rumors might have started but fails to consider one plausible explanation-- they were true. As evidence that the charges were untrue, the author cites the four letters which described Cornbury's behavior. Each was written by someone who disliked the colonial governor. Cornbury probably did not attend public functions in women's clothes. Rumors do tend to be embellished with each re-telling. The fact that someone has enemies, however, does not mean he can not also be a transvestite, consider J. Edgar Hoover. The fact that his enemies would be more likely to comment than his friends seems hardly surprising.



3. The writer does indeed show how easily stories get garbled and tales get passed on as history. A great deal of scepticism or, at least, critical awareness is needed when looking at the past. This is a very readable and lucid book.

3 comments about Bemelmans: The Life and Art of Madeline's Creator.

1. Bemelmans grandson has done an outstanding job of putting together a comprehensive collection of his grandfather's works. The book includes a review of his adult and children's books, his artwork, and magazine covers, as well as a collection of never before seen photographs. It is colorful, fun, and interesting. If you are a Bemelmans fan you will love this book; if you are not, this is a great way to get started!



2. As a great admirer of Bemelmans Madeline series,this book gave me insight to its creator. It is a beautiful book, well written and designed. A great tribute to a wonderful artist and writer. Truly a book that a Madeline fan would want!



3. It's our great fortune that two books are published during the same month celebrating two of the finest children's book illustrators ever...Ludwig Bemelmans and Tomie dePaola (TOMIE DE PAOLA: HIS ART & HIS STORIES)! Both books are delights and will be enjoyed for hours and hours and hours...

5 comments about Nasser: The Last Arab.

1. Arab nationalism was a movement that has many believers, it was seen as the key which will unit the Arab nations under one banner. For over a decade it had a charismatic leader who was able to move people in a way no Arab leader has been able to do since. The book examines its leader, his dreams and nightmares. He faced enormous odds from outside powers and within the Arab world itself. No ordinary person could have withstood so much sacrifice with little to show for it, yet Nasser still keep faith that what he believed in was right.
   
   Although he never won a war nor did any of his ambitious dreams come true, the people loved him with all their hearts. Its is amazing to me that even though he failed in almost everything he tried, he was so genuine in his concern for the people that they were willing to forgive him and continue to support him till his death. There is much to be said for such a man.



2. Said Aburish's biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt 1954-1970, is an opinionated examination of one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century - a man who fifty years ago captured the imagination of the Arabic-speaking people "from the Atlantic to the Gulf". The Suez crisis of 1956 made Nasser (as he was known) an international statesman.
   
   The author, a controversial Egyptian-Palestinian journalist based in Nice, lived through Nasser's era stationed in various Arab capitals; he witnessed the rayyes in action many times. He was in Damascus as the Syrian masses descended on the city clamouring for Nasser to come out and speak to them; when he did, he "spoke to them slowly, in a voice of reason and intimacy that told them he loved them too." The world was different then.
   
   The British and French empires were shutting shop, and the US had become the new supremo of the West. Britain and France had carved up the Arab-speaking world between them, and most Arab governments were appointed or arranged by them; oil had been discovered in the fields of Arabia and Iraq; the Suez Canal was run by Britain and France, both of whom would not entrust the vital pathway to Egypt; Algeria was just beginning to fight for long, bloody independence from France.
   
   In Egypt, the pashas, who were less than 2 percent of the population, owned more than 65 percent of the land and exploited millions of peasants who tenanted for them. Furthermore, a new presence had been approved by the major powers, including the USSR: Israel. Even the pro-West Arab governments of the day couldn't stomach this new, imposed entity, and they fought its founding, but lost.
   
   It was at this time that a young army officer from an ordinary Egyptian background appeared. Aburish portrays him somewhat sketchily as a brooding, serious man, an avid reader who also enjoyed playing chess, and a practical man who nevertheless placed honour and dignity first. At first, this untested leader spoke for Egyptians, but soon he directed his rhetoric to all the Arabs. By 1958 he had become the Arab people's undisputed leader, and various governments, including local Arab ones, resented him for it.
   
   What did he want and why? What happened? How did he fare? How did he respond to new events and ideas? What is his legacy? Those are the kind of questions that any biography attempts to answer. In that respect, Said Aburish does a fair job.
   
   Nasser possessed an almost hypnotic ability to inspire his audience and gain its trust, but Aburish says he was beholden to his people's love, unable to tell them what he really thought. In terms of Nasser's capacity to cope with and manage the heavy dose of politicking that occurs in the Middle East, Aburish shows him certainly rising to its demands - and losing his self-control at times, but underestimating the regressive, conservative instinct of the Arab people.
   
   In Egypt, he ruled dictator-like even when he would have won any democratic elections easily. He discarded many opinions of the ruling circle in Egypt when he might have been better served to share his decision-making with them, and he entrusted responsibility to only those he knew to be loyal when he also knew how incompetent and corrupt they were. In pan-Arab affairs, Aburish portrays him as making policy on the hoof; he got himself involved in Algeria, in Yemen, and elsewhere when he knew that Egypt's economy was weak, and that outside forces were conspiring against him (the USA, the USSR, Israel, and Saudi Arabia).
   
   In private, Nasser smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and regularly worked very long hours; throughout the sixties he was not well because of diabetes and heart disease, yet he pressed on - and died at 52.
   
   Said Aburish's biography fails in many respects; it does not possess a timeline of events; there is no map of the region; and the key characters are not introduced beforehand. There are a few punctuation mistakes, and the text does not read well; it needed a good editor.
   
   Aburish has his issues with Islamist movements and does himself no favours by letting us know that, and not explaining himself. Indeed, Aburish fails to offer reasons why Nasser himself was never enamoured with political Islam.
   
   Overall, the biography assumes the reader is familiar with events and launches into opinion too quickly. The author does not balance well between his two responsibilities as biographer: to narrate the various strands of story and to offer insight and opinion. There are too many flaws in this biography; it needs a major revision.



3. This is one of the objective biographies about late Egyptian President and Arab leader Gamal Abdul-Nasser. Even though Said Aburish expresses his admiration of Nasser toward the beginning of the book, a statement which warns the reader of a biased account in favor of Nasser, the book eventually proves to be otherwise.
   According to Aburish, Nasser was a popular leader only and had no vision, platform or plan for the Arab world. Aburish correctly argues that Nasser had two positive sides only to his leadership: The first is that Nasser was never corrupt and the second is that his dictatorship depended mostly on his charisma.
   Nasser didn't live a luxurious life or eliminate his earlier comrades after he took over the Egyptian rule. Nasser's single-mindedness in decision-making, however, dominated his leadership. This rare influence depended on an undisputed leadership drawing mainly on Nasser's popularity and charisma.
   Through a narration covering Nasser's life since his early days, Aburish leaves then his reader to judge whether an incompetent popular leader with no platform was needed at that period of Arab history or not.
   The book is also a good read for all those who are interested in exploring the history of Egypt and the Arab world between the late 1940s and 1970.
   In terms of style, Aburish presents an easy going and attractive narrative. His sources and research are, by and large, credible.
   Certainly several pro-Arab nationalism reviewers will find Aburish's book not credible, but whoever wants to dispute this account should provide a better one instead of employing emotions only in criticizing this work.



4. This is a good overview of Nasser and his ideas, but the write can't write a decent sentence to save his life. The book is full of typos and authorial digressions, for instance when he suddenly says "Enshallah" (God willing) after predicting the islamists will have only short-term appeal for the Arab masses. I bought this because I quite liked his hatchet job on Saudi Arabia, although it was over the top. I'm glad I bought it but I wouldn't HIGHLY recommend you spend your money on it...



5. Nasser died at 52.
   During the last year of his regime he looked a haggard person who walked as though he would faint at any moment.
   In his thirties 'Fear' was never a predominant factor influencing his decisions.
   The people, though, had not been responsive enough to keep pace with Nasser's ambitions for progress and improvement.
   The man was a 'workoholic'- 18 hours per day.
   Nasser was firm (but not a dictator).
   He did not use his 'office' for personal benefits - conflict of interest -neither for him nor for members of his family.
   He's a soldier to the fingertip and, therefore, had a thorough vigilance of the 'politicians', but the dead hand of bureaucracy lingered on.
   
   After the 1967 six days war with Israel, Nasser was emotionally devastated.
   It was the feeling of impotence and frustration, that he could do nothing, which made the condition of his health so awful.
   
   I believe the author should have elaborated the above points more forcefully.........

5 comments about In Solitary Witness.

1. Most of the well-known heroes of World War II are military figures. This book tells the story of another sort of hero, Franz Jaegerstaetter, an Austrian peasant farmer and husband and father of three daughters, who refused to perform his military service in the Nazi army on grounds of conscience. He was executed in Berlin on August 9, 1943 by the Nazis for his conscientious objection, "in solitary witness" to peace. The author, Gordon Zahn, an American conscientious objector during World War II and a sociologist, does a masterful job of capturing the social and religious context in which Jaegerstaetter's refusal to fight became possible. Zahn interviewed a number of villagers in St. Radegund -- including the widow and children of Jaegerstaetter -- to gain an understanding of the development of this uneducated farmer's faith in God and his convictions against war. The author is able to unravel the mystery of how such a simple man could have withstood the criticism and ostracization of his neighbors, the disapproval of his family, and the unwillingness of his Catholic church leaders (with the exception of his parish priest) to support his objection. In telling the story of a single brave man, the author is able to illustrate the possibility for any of us to stand against the social pressure citizens of every nation feel to support their government's involvement in wars, be they just or unjust. In the Preface, Zahn notes that Daniel Ellsberg has often acknowledged that it was the inspiration he felt after reading this book that led him to release the Pentagon Papers to the media in his effort to end the Vietnam War. It is also interesting to note that this book brought Jaegerstaetter's story to the attention of later Church authorities in Austria, who have begun an "investigation" of Franz's life and death in a first step toward his possible canonization as a saint in the Catholic Church. This story told in this book has moved government and church authorities to rethink their understanding and acceptance of war; it will move any reader to do the same.



2. Zahn's meticulous investigation of the thoughts and conscience of an Austrian farmer over 60 years ago caused me to do some heavy thinking. I realized the basic ethical questions dealt with still apply today. The convictions of this simple man Jaegerstaetter have unexplainedly and very deeply stirred my heart. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't help but admire him for standing by what he believed in the face of the Nazi regime.



3. I first read In solitary witness: The life and death of Franz Jägerstätter by Gordon Charles Zahn about 15 years ago. In this fascinating biography of the Austrian peasant who refused to serve in the Nazi armies Gordon Zahn takes the reader into the heart of this Austrian peasant farmer who was the sexton of his small village Catholic church. Through his own spiritual conversion Jägerstätter learned that to be a radical Christian meant one could not cooperate with evil, even at its most innocuous level. We learn how Jägerstätter refused all Nazi family and farm aid that, by law, he was entitled. The author also explains how Jägerstätter inacted with those of other faiths, like Jehovah Witnesses, when he was finally arrested for refusing to be drafted into the German army. After being transferred from Nazi prison to prison Jägerstätter finally is sent to Berlin. And, even though Jägerstätter knew it would probably not make much of a difference like Christian martyrs before him he accepted execution quietly. Franz Jägerstätter is an inspiration to Catholics and non-Catholics. His life showed that with faith in Christ one can make the tough choices, even when those choice mean forfitting one's life. Finally, In solitary witness: The life and death of Franz Jägerstätter by Gordon Charles Zahn does a wonderful job of telling us the story of this almost forgotten Christian martyr. This is an inspiring and wonderful book.



4. In Solitary Witness by Gordon Zahn tells the story of Franz Jagerstatter. Jagerstatter was an Austrian peasant who, as a result of radical conversion, livedhis Catholic faith and put his own life on the line. The book tells the story of how Jagerstatter refused to cooperate with the Nazi Regime in Austria, even in the most innocuous of circumstances. He refused family aid and after suffering crop losses refused farm aid from the government. Gordon Zahn does a fine job of telling how Catholics and other Christians, who refused to cooperate, with the Nazis were seen. And how the Nazis treated those individuals who resisted the state. The book not only tells Jagerstatter's story, but about others who resisted because of their own beliefs, like Jehovah Witnesses. While many know the story of other Christian martyrs to the Nazi regime, like Deitrich Bonhoffer In Solitary Witness by Gordon Zahn fills in the blanks of that story of our Christian faith. This is a book that should be read by Catholics and others. It shows how one can and should live their life if they are committed to Christ.



5. I had written a review previously (see above). On June 4, 2007, the Vatican announced that the subject of this excellent book, Franz Jaegerstaetter, will be beatified -- i.e., declared "Blessed" -- and the normal requirement of one miracle attributed to him will be waived, because he died as a "martyr of the faith". This is the penultimate step before being canonized, or declared to be a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. It was Zahn's book that brought the public's attention to Franz's "solitary witness."

3 comments about Alias Paine: Lewis Thornton Powell, the Mystery Man of the Lincoln Conspiracy.

1. Without question this is the best researched study of one of John Wilkes Booth's main co-conspirators ever written.



2. Lewis Paine was a dashing young man in the 19th Century. Why would Booth tempt Lewis Paine into kidnapping Mr. Lincoln? I liked Lewis Paine since I was little. Now that I'm 20 yrs old now, I still dream of him. I know he's dead already. (Don't think I'm insane for this guy.) If Lewis Paine was like he was in the 1860's today, I'll freak out. My husband's name is Lewis but not Powell. I have collected several pics of Powell since I was 12 to 13. I drove my mom & dad crazy about Lewis Paine when I was 9. Hope you like my thoughts about Lewis Paine.

   Love, Carmen




3. I purchased this book for my husband whose great great great Uncle was Lewis Thornton Powell. It has a lot of family history that we did not really know about. His mother signed the inside of book for her grandchildren. We love history!!!!!!!!!!!

No comments about Son of Italy (Picas Series 36).

5 comments about A Diary From Dixie.

1. This primary source document is one of the best windows we have into southern society during the American Civil War. Mary Chestnut was a southern aristocrat, married to the man who was the first to resign his seat in the US Senate before the war. She knew many prominent Confederate leaders well--Jefferson Davis, John Bell Hood, and Wade Hampton among them--and was acquainted with nearly all of the major players in the war (she even spent several occasions in the company of Robert E. Lee and Joseph Johnston). Because she knew so many people, she was in a position to cast a very revealing light on the war from the southern point of view.
   
   Besides knowing so many influential leaders, Mary Chestnut also lived in both Confederate capitals--Montgomery, Alabama and Richmond, Virginia--while they were the government seats. Her husband's plantation was in South Carolina, and in fact her home in Columbia, South Carolina lay right in the path of Sherman's destructive march through the South. As such, Chestnut is poised to offer very interesting commentary on the fire that burned much of that city. Mary and her husband gave their all to the Confederacy, and lost much of what they had because of the Civil War.
   
   Several things in this journal are unique and worthy of mention. First, Chestnut and her friends are living the high life for much of the war, having parties, dinners, and luncheons and more-or-less living it up, even when the Yankees are approaching Richmond. They live comfortable lives, and, though Mary has a very insightful perspective into the suffering of her soldiers, she often spends as much time complaining about some minor inconvenience (such as being without her maid for a week) as she does deploring the sorry state of the starved and ill-clothed soldiers. Mary does what she can, and helps in many ways, but she is not willing to give up her parties, even when her husband repeatedly begs her too.
   
   This diary also provides a unique view of slavery. A staunch abolitionist, Chestnut hated slavery less for the cruel treatment of the slaves than for the insolent behavior of many of them. Her husband's slaves were well taken care of, and did less work than they consumed in goods. Mary recounts many horrific tales of what happened when the slaves were set free--a story of a white family going along a road and picking up a wagonload of Negro infants which had been abandoned by parents enjoying their freedom, for example. She never questions that slavery is wrong, but she does argue that Harriet Beecher Stowe's account of slavery was the exception, not the rule. This is an interesting perspective, whatever the truth of it.
   
   All in all, this is a great diary, and a splendid resource. Thank goodness this book has been reissued. The edition edited by Ben Ames Williams contained unsatisfactory notes, including some in which Williams shamelessly engaged in self-promotion of his novel. This book is indispensable for anyone looking for primary accounts of the human aspect of the war between the states.



2. This book deserves 5 stars for educational value alone. While it does have its slow points, I can say that I have learned more about antebellum culture and Southern war perspective from this book than any other I have read up to this point. The book gives us a glimpse into the mindsets of a demographic of the Southern population we can rarely find anywhere else, and it's incredible to believe that this work was almost thrown into the fire for fear of capture when McClellan's forces dwelt a mere six miles from Richmond's door in early 1862.



3. Mary Chesnut's diary of life in the South during the American Civil War is possibly the best of all American diaries. You could spend weeks making your way through the labyrinth of events -- trivial and important -- and personalities found in the diary.
   
   This edition of the diary is superseded by a better one: "Mary Chesnut's Civil War" edited by C. Vann Woodward which won a Pulitzer Prize for History in 1982. Woodward's edition offers a more complete text and is heavily footnoted with explanatory material. The text in Woodward includes many interesting passages excluded from "A Diary from Dixie" because of limitations of space and because some of them reflected unfavorably on the South and Southerners.
   
   One virtue of this edition is a fine foreword about the diary by literary critic Edmund Wilson, but Wilson's foreword can also be read in his book "Patriotic Gore." I recommend you read Woodward's "Mary Chesnut's Civil War" instead of this book.
   
   Smallchief



4. C-Span did a series called "American Writers" in 2001 and although I consider myself well read it was the first time I had ever heard of Mary Chesnut.
   
   This story of the Civil War, told from the perspective of the civilians at home, was a real eye opener. Mary Chesnut, the wife of a Confederate general, was well off, but even Mary and the ladies in her circle couldn't get shoes to replace their worn ones and could only afford the outrageous prices for food because they had money. One can only imagine the suffering of those less fortunate. Life for civilians was severe and the news from the front, often heartbreaking, added to their woes. This is a unique first person account of the Civil War.
   
   I remember reading that the author of "Gone With the Wind", Margaret Mitchell, did about five years of research before she actually started writing her book. I feel it is highly likely that she read Mary Chesnut's book as part of that research.



5. Mary Chestnut's diary received great exposure as a result of Ken Burns' documentary on PBS. It is well worth reading because 90% of the history we read of the American Civil War focuses on the military campaigns and the politics. Ms. Chestnut tells us more about the social impact of the war than we get from most authors. On top of that, she was a highly intelligent woman who was writing things in confidence that she would be unlikely to say outloud. She had a unique window into the workings of southern society and Confederate politics and she was completely honest in her evaluations. What we get here are very carefully worded opinions that no self-respecting southerner would have dared to admit in 1863. On the topic of slavery, Ms. Chestnut declares, "Ours is a monstrous system." Amid newspaper reports blasting Union General Grant for his brutal tactics and lack of finesse, Ms. Chestnut observes, "He has the disagreeable habit of not retreating before our irresistable veterans." All in all, hers is one of the most honest and well-written accounts of civilian life in the south during the Civil War.

No comments about The Cecils: Privilege and Power Behind the Throne.

5 comments about Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley.

1. This book is certainly not for those who are merely curious or casually interested in Crowley. Let's be frank, Sutin's biography is not light reading by any means. He gives us nearly 500 pages of details; no fluff, no sensationalism, and very little speculation beyond that which is evident by actual facts. Because of this, Do What Thou Wilt will surely disappoint those who prefer to think that Crowley was a Satan-worshipping black magician, those who place him on a pedestal as a perfected spiritual master and those who are looking for juicy tales of sex, drugs, and blasphemy. But anyone who has read Crowley's autobiographical Confessions of Aleister Crowley should read Do What Thou Wilt to balance out Crowley's own one-sided version of his life. Also, those who are already familiar with Crowley's contributions to the study and practice of the occult and who are hungry for a thorough, detail-oriented study of his life would appreciate this book. At any rate, I would not recommend this as a Crowley bio for beginners.
   
   Sutin gives us a carefully researched book. He makes no claims without verifiable sources. Unlike any other bio (or auto-bio) I have encountered concerning Crowley, Sutin seems to have no agenda beyond telling us the story of his subjects life as well as can be gathered from the source material available (which he seems to have studied well). He also does a fine job of carefully and fairly pointing out inconsistencies and differing accounts from different sources (or sometimes from different works by Crowley himself). This is refreshing, as most writers on Crowley seem to want to condemn, apologize or praise Crowley.
   
   Sutin displays considerable insight when he makes his case for the subconscious motives behind Crowley's strong need to promulgate his new creed and religion, Thelema, how he sought all his life to transcend his deeply ingrained puritan sense of sin and guilt with regards to sex, and a few other aspects of his life. But Sutin does this with a cool, detached, non-judgmental and elegantly minimalist fashion. He tastefully points out a few connections between what must have been strong psychological imprints in Crowley's childhood and strong tendencies in his adult life and then lets readers think these out for themselves.
   
   Sutin makes it exhaustively clear that Crowley could often be petty, cruel, dishonest, egotistical to the point of megalomania, bigoted, sexist, boastful, obscene, conniving, and - in the latter half of his life - hopelessly addicted to cocaine and heroin and dependent on the generosity or gullibility others for money. Since Crowley himself downplayed these traits and because his auto-bio Confessions was written about halfway through his life, I again strongly suggest that one does not read Confessions without reading Do What Thou Wilt. Having reiterated that, I also suggest that one does not read Do What Thou Wilt without reading Crowley's Confessions, Isreal Regardies's Eye in the Triangle, or some other book that explains Crowley's magical practice, philosophy and Thelema because - and this is the main fault of Do What Thou Wilt - Sutin gives us almost no understanding of this.
   
   Because his magical philosophy and Thelema was central to his life, Sutin's book tells us only about half of what one needs to know in order to get a good understanding of Crowley. It is somewhat like telling the story of Einstein without telling us about the physics that occupied his genius or his revolutionary discoveries. Beyond a sentence here and there, the only passage in which Sutin does Crowley's life work justice is short enough to quote here. While mentioning that the famous occultist Dion Fortune acknowledged Crowley's great work, Sutin says that, "Fortune is correct in her judgment of Crowley's `contribution to occult literature.' Magick is a watershed in the history of that literature - the first work to strip the subject of its gothic trappings and bring it fully into the modern world. Its arguments are ruthlessly practical - assuming, of courses, that the reader will allow that there is such a thing as the `Great Work' that is attainable by human consciousness. There is, indeed, a religious belief at the heart of the book: a conviction that the life of fulfillment of the inmost spirit - the Will - is the highest form of life. Scoff at this and you not only scoff at Magick but at religion itself. Grant it as a nondenominational goal and Magick may have something to teach you. After all, the definition of `Magick' offered in the Introduction is catholic enough: `MAGICK is the Science and Art of Causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.' "
   
   Oddly, this passage displays one of the few places where Sutin directly gives us his own opinion when he could have discussed this more objectively in terms of the impact that this work had on students of the occult. Still, Sutin barely gives us an understanding of Crowley's work and how he is almost undeniably the single most important writer on occultism. Let's face it, if Crowley was merely a promising Cambridge chess champion, a minor poet and a man who came close to being the first to reach the peak of the world's third highest mountain (which would have made him placed him in the position of being the climber to have reached the highest peak ever before climbed) he would likely have been merely a footnote in the history of mountaineering and Sutin would almost surely not have written a book about him.
   
   But, to be fair, Sutin has given me what I was seeking when I bought this book; a more objective view of Crowley's life and (more importantly for me) details on his experimentation with drugs. Although, Sutin gives us very little understanding of what Crowley experienced with these substances (as he does with Crowley's experiences with magical and mystical practices) he does tell us what substances he experimented with, when, and in combination with what magical and mystical practices.
   
   Sutin gives us no real sense of Crowley's role as a pioneer in the re-emergence of psychedelics Western civilization. The short passage by Suster quoted above gives us a greater sense of Crowley's place in this re-emergence than Sutin does in his entire book. But then again, Suster does not tell us the details that Sutin does. Also, Sutin adequately shows us (through evidence, not opinion) Crowley's struggle over whether the use of consciousness-altering substances are legitimate or counterfeit aids in the exploration of the mind and spirit. He also shows us how in one account of a given event Crowley frankly admits the use of a particular drug in addition to a particular magical operation to gain entry into a particular "plane" or state of mind whereas in another account of the same event Crowley omits the fact that he used a drug without which the result would likely not have occurred at all.
   
   Sutin also gives us what little there is to know regarding the legend that Crowley turned Aldous Huxley on to mescaline, resulting in Huxley's monumentally influential Doors of Perception. Sutin shows us how although it is possible that this could be so, there really is no evidence that this is the case. Crowley was experienced with peyote years before Huxley, the two men met once through a mutual acquaintance and that is about all we know for sure beyond the fact that if Crowley had turned Huxley on to peyote, both men would very likely have written about it at length. As Sutin shows in his book, Crowley merely noted in his diary that, "Huxley improves on acquaintance."
   
   Over the course of the book, we see that Crowley devolved from a young man with seemingly boundless enthusiasm to find truth and to gain new ground in consciousness, to build a sound body of knowledge Crowley called Scientific Illuminism ("The method of science, the aim of religion") with determination and perseverance (mirrored in his considerable achievements in the field of mountaineering and rugged hiking across thousands of miles in various parts of the world) to a derailed and self-deluded older man who spent the later half of his life preoccupied with sex and self-promotion and hampered by hard drug addiction and by poverty all the while attempting and failing to establish his new religion and to gain a large body of disciples. But then again, many of Crowley's best works were written during this period - perhaps this was a time when he was able to reflect upon and write about what he discovered earlier in life - and Sutin barely gives us any sense of this.
   
   In summary, Sutin's book is valuable in that it provides a good detailed and well researched biography of Crowley's mundane life but it tells us far too little about Crowley's spiritual, creative and intellectual pursuits. I would only recommend this book to those who are already well acquainted with Crowley's work and who are ready to tackle a long, dry, detailed biography on his all-too-human side.



2. headbangers this is the reason why you all bang your head in the name of the devil this is the reason you fornicate and do drugs. you wanna proper introduction to magic, the occult, prophecy, drugs, satan, promiscous sex, and demons you should check it out but be warned you'll never be the same after you explore the dark truths bad things have been known to happwen and changes in your morals are sure to follow.



3. It's fascinating, and detailed as far as his rituals and philosophy. But the "Confessions" are much more fun. Also, he covers Crowley in Mexico very briefly, whereas AC has much to say about it in his book. Still, I liked it.



4. Lawrence Sutin gives a thorough look into the life of Aleister Crowley, who was dubbed "the wickedest man alive." Mr. Sutin portrays Crowley with an honest, and open mind, giving the reader a complete and very real idea of who this man was.
   Crowley was an interesting man to read about. He was an apiring poet, a very skilled chess player and mountain climber. He published many books on "magick", as he called it. Magick was what he was most well remembered for, dedicating most of his life to this calling. His first introduction to magick was through the "Order of the Golden Dawn," an organization who's members at the time included many contemporary poets and artists.
   Crowley would eventually break away from the Golden Dawn, and start his own philosophy of sorts called "Thelema," (the greek word for "will") which is still being practiced and studied to this day.
   Crowley studied buddhism and tantra, incorporating them into "Thelema, along with what he learned from the Golden Dawn. His use of drugs was well known, and documented in his book, "Diary of a Drug Fiend." He used some drugs for spiritual purposes, but later fell deep into opium addiction.
   All in all, Crowley's life was filled with accomplishments more so than failures. It's a shame that he got more recognition in death, than in life. His books sell much more today than they ever did in his day. At least he left a legacy behind. A legacy that will "endure to the end," much like his magick name, "Perdurabo."



5. This book achieves the impossible,even with such explosive content to work with,the author suceeds in making the great Beast boring.
   We read books for atmosphere,and insight,not just for the facts,something the author seems to have forgotten,or simply does not have the skill for.
   Part of the reason for this is the the intention to de-mystify its subject,which is missing the whole point about who crowley was.
   The book is also frustrating in its failure in developing its ideas.For example Crowleys 'do what thou wilt,as long as it does not harm',is the principle on which nearly all of todays secular societies function.THis is a rather scary thought,and one which i would have liked the author to explore.

5 comments about Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution.

1. As an avid reader of the American Revolution, I had heard great things about this book. Unfortunately, it was terribly disappointing. Ferling spends too much time raising Adams to god-like status, in an apparent attempt to continue his sole rehabilitation of Adams' place in our history (see Ferling's other writings). In short, it's a shame that an author that is a history professor spends so much time in the present analyzing what Washington or Jefferson should have done instead of telling us what they did keeping in mind the time period and atmosphere of the late 18th century. If you are looking for a critical analysis of our Founding Fathers, this book is for you. However, if you are looking for, heaven forbid, a book about history, skip this one.



2. This brief (300 pages) history of the American Revolution, as seen through the actions of Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, is a thoroughly enjoyable, pool side type of read. Granted, it is a superficial history of the Revolution, but provides an interesting perspective of the motivations, interactions, and rather different personalities of the three founding fathers. Mr. Ferling's work does seem to be at times rather colored in favor of Washington and Adams, which might be expected, as he has written biographies of our first and second presidents. He makes some rather interesting comments about Jefferson's personality; comments which come close to a psychoanalysis of our third president. Overall, if you are searching for a history of the revolution, this work is not for you. If you are ready for a relaxing narrative of the revolution, and the actions of these three individuals, you will not be disappointed.



3. anyone new to the early history of the republic should consider reading this book. while it is quite brief, ferling does a decent job of telling the tale of the revolution through the eyes of the first three presidents. at times he is heavy handed with jefferson, but any student of the american revolution should know that jefferson's greatest contributions came after independence was secured. the reverence for the declaration of independence came long after it was written; its impact at the time is highly debatable. ferling spends a great deal of time trying to pull adams from the depths of obscurity-his bias is evident-but does make a compelling argument that adams is worthy of the praise. it should be noted that this book ends, for all intents and purposes, and the end of the war, and is merely an assessment of the contributions that washington, adams, and jefferson made during the revolution, and is not an evaluation of their presidencies. nevertheless, it is worthy of your time.



4. this is a historical work on the american revolution that revolves principally around the figures of washington, jefferson, and john adams. it a book the casual reader can delight in, filled with lively prose and a narrative thrust missing so much in other historical works. a highly recommended read for anyone interested in the american revolution.



5. This book suffers greatly from the author's unbalanced treatment of Thomas Jefferson. Ferling takes a narrow, cramped approach to Jefferson by casting his actions/inactions in the worst possible light and virtually ignoring his accomplishments.
   
   There is some truth to Ferling's criticisms of Jefferson, of course. Jefferson certainly had many flaws. He was a slave-owner, he believed that women were unfit for office, and the list goes on.
   
   But Jefferson's shortcomings form only a part of the insight into his character. This book fails to capture other critical aspects of Jefferson that made him a genius, an idealist and revolutionary, and in some sense, the inventor of America.
   
   Better modern-day historians and Jefferson biographers such as Joseph Ellis and others don't flinch from delving into Jefferson's inconsistencies and failings. But these other writers provide context (not excuses) for that while also understanding and explaining Jefferson's significance.
   
   As I was reading this book I soon realized that whenever I came to a section about Jefferson that he would be predictably trashed. I began to anticipate this and laugh at it. Strangely, few of Jefferson's important contributions are even mentioned in this book, let alone given their due. The author appears to have had an agenda in writing this book to elevate Adams and knock Jefferson. That's not a good starting point for honest inquiry and analysis.