5 comments about People of the Century: One Hundred Men And Women Who Shaped The Last One Hundred Years.

1. This presentation of 100 great people of the century (as selected by the editors of TIME) is noteworthy both for its bias and limited scope - it is heavy on Americans and late 20th century personalities - and for its writing. Each person is presented to the reader through an essay, and most of these essays are not capsule biographies so much as meditations on the nature of the person and his/her influence. The strange pairing of certain authors and subjects (Elie Wiesel on Adolf Hitler or Salman Rushdie on Mohandas K. Ghandi) allow for some interesting insights and speculation. More sympathetic pairings of author and subject (George Plimpton on Muhammad Ali, Rita Dove on Rosa Parks, Philip Glass on Igor Stravinsky) offer equally interesting, though less speculative, pieces that are quite fun to read.

   Overall, the quality of writing in the book is quite high, and even when it isn't (as, for example in Bill Gate's essay on the Wright brothers or Lee Iacocca on Henry Ford) the insights of the author - because of who and what they are - allow the ideas to take on a level of significance that makes up for so-so skills as an essayist.

   I received this as a Christmas present and spent most of Christmas day reading through all the essays. It provided a very pleasant way to review the century we are leaving. My one regret with the book is the inclusion of a few subjects that simply don't belong (Brue Lee, Bart Simpson? )which necessarily restricted the field that could be included. It is, of course, a personal bias and everyone will have their own take on who should or should not have been represented, but in the entire list there is only one novelist, one poet, one composer, one painter; yet there are numerous political and military figures. Understandable in terms of overt impact on history, but it sells the cultural aspects of the century short._




2. It¹s countdown time whether we face it or not. And the bestsellers prove it. We¹ve encountered books predicting happenings for the millennium we¹re about to greet and books listing people, businesses, music, inventions, events that have made impacts during the millennium we¹re leaving. In addition to Life: Our Century in Pictures and Russell Ash¹s The Top 10 of Everything 2000, there are seemingly 1000 collections about these 1000 years. One book worth looking at is PEOPLE OF THE CENTURY with a forward by Dan Rather of CBS and an afterward by Walter Isaacson of Time Magazine. The compilation features 100 men and women who influenced the century, rather than the millennium.We reunite with leaders, artists, and intellectuals who gave us rock Œn¹ roll,jazz, flight; shopping malls, existentialism, bytes; splitting the atom, penicillin, cloning of sheep, and Bob Dylan. Those writing the profiles with reputability include William F, Buckley, Rita Dove, Molly Ivins, Roger Rosenblatt, and Deborah Tannen. Descriptions of the contributors appear in the index along with photo credits, nicely referenced. We readily expect some profiles: Henry Ford, Anne Frank, James Joyce, Rosa Parks, Theodore Roosevelt, and Igor Stravinsky, We might have forgotten others: Sigmund Freud (as profiled by Peter Gay) and Leo Baekeland, the maker of plastics who moved to the U.S. from Belgium in 1889. We ask ³why?² of others. For example, Hitler is included, as is Bart Simpson. Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel bluntly admits how frightening it was to write of Hitler. And some readers might bluntly admit how foolish it is to read about ³forever 10,² make-believe Bart Simpson. Others might question ever-lovin¹ Oprah being among the 100, but the criteria put her on the list. PEOPLE OF THE CENTURY concerns people who ³cast a long shadow.² We are refreshed by some inclusions: Emmeline Pankhurst, for instance, reminds us of the women¹s-right-to-vote, which she achieved for England in 1918 (2 years before America¹s in 1920.) The book is arranged chronologically, beginning in 1903 in nearby Kitty Hawk and moving poignantly to 1989 with the ³unknown,² lone ³everyman² in Tiananmen Square. In this compact history, people are profiled as well as pictured with a ³life-at -a glance² bio. The index needs improvement ( so that readers can more easily locate people by their fields) and so do Dan Rather mixed metaphors. ( The new age is ³taking flight² and becoming a ³rough draft.²) Also Paul Rudnick could use poetic sensitivity when writing about Marilyn Monroe. He callously groups her with American commodities of Coca-cola and Levis. Isaacson¹s afterward reminds us of the century¹s lessons: ³freedom won² and not the pursuit of ³material abundance² but the nurturing of ³the dignity and values of each individual.² Obviously some of these lessons were learned the hard way. PEOPLE OF THE CENTURY reminds us to repeat the goodness of our history, repel the other, and to think as we close this year, this century, this millennium.



3. Very disappointing. Much of the narrative spits out facts that everyone already knows. Most of the rest is decoration, trite commentary and superficial philosophizing. The piece on Bill Gates is typical. It was delivered in a contemptuous tone, skipped the exciting history of Microsoft, and even dismissed "The Road Ahead" as trivial! Similarly, Iacocca's piece on Henry Ford does not even mention Ford's infamous bigotry. In fairness, I must say that I did learn a bit about the lesser known people, and enjoyed the imaginative piece on Gandhi. On the whole, though, if you've ever heard of Winston Churchill, this CD will probably bore you.



4. This audio presentation of "People of the Century" is I'm afraid mostly a dissapointment. Dan Rather serves as the overall narrator briefly mentioning the 100 people included with a select few of these people given an expanded presentation written usually by a famous author or personality (i.e. Lee Iacocca writing about Henry Ford; Salman Rushdie about Ghandi,etc.).

   My criticism lies in the fact that some major figures were briefly mentioned while some lesser lights were highlighted. Examples of this include only brief mentions of people like Ronald Reagan and Ray Kroc(founder of McDonald's)while questionable figures like Margaret Sanger, Watson and Crick, and Charlie Chaplin are given expanded treatment.

   There is of course the fact that many of these articles are slanted ideologically and that some articles are written by unabashed fans of the historical figure (i.e. Arthur Schlessinger on FDR)while other articles are written by critics (i.e. Richard Shickel on Walt Disney) thus furthuring to unbalance the presentations.

   The Best Inclusions in my view: Rushdie on Ghandi, Iacocca on Ford, and Elie Wiesel on Adolph Hitler.

   While you might learn something from this work, you would be better off reading individual biographies of these people




5. Lists such as these are always going to be subjective and hotly debated by people who disagree with them, but for the most part, I think this list was pretty solid. Along with a lot of the usual suspects, such as Sigmund Freud, FDR, Charlie Chaplin, Albert Einstein (who went on to be named as TIME's Person of the Century), Hitler, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mao Zedong, there are numerous people who aren't always considered for lists such as these, such as Pete Rozelle, Harvey Milk, Juan Trippe, Willis Carrier, A.P. Giannini, Leo Burnett, and Bill W. I had actually never heard of a number of these people, but as the essays showed, they did some pretty important and influential things in spite of how their fame might be overshadowed by that of more obvious people of the past century.
   
   However, there were more than a few glaring omissions. I'm utterly floored that Stalin was left off of this list; how could anyone not consider him one of the most important people of the century? Or Elvis, Drs. Gregory Goodwin Pincus and John Rock (inventors of the birth control pill, easily one of the most important inventions of the century), Pope John XXIII, Pol Pot, Babe Ruth, Fidel Castro, Mussolini (another huge omission!), or John Logie Baird and Charles Jenkins (inventors of television)? As someone quite interested in antique televisions, I was extraordinarily disappointed that in neither the essays for David Sarnoff nor Philo Farnsworth were these men or their mechanical scanning-disc televisions, which were actually a lot more common in the late Twenties and early Thirties than most people have been led to believe, mentioned. Essays like these only perpetuate the myth that the history of television only begins in 1939 with the debut of electronic television. The essay on Louis B. Mayer also reported as fact that old urban legend about Clark Gable running someone over and then having it covered up by the studio while someone else went to jail in his place. Fortunately, most of the essays seemed to be free of such urban legends and incomplete history.
   
   The majority of the essays also seemed to be rather fair and balanced, addressing the shortcomings of the subject instead of just endlessly praising them as demigods. Only a couple were like the one for the Kennedys, seeming more empty and unspecific instead of in-depth and giving us real reasons why this person or group should be considered one of the greatest people of the century. I'm a fan of the Kennedys, and even I thought that one was rather shallow and vapid! On the opposite end of the spectrum, Peggy Noonan's essay on Ronald Reagan (possibly the book's longest by far) was obnoxiously sycophantic. Contrary to what some people think, the man was not some sort of demigod. Even though I'm on the completely opposite political page from him, I do have to agree he was one of the century's most important people. I just wish a more impartial person had been found to write the essay on him, addressing his negative aspects (such as creating the homeless problem, ignoring the AIDS crisis till his presidency was almost over, the Bitburg fiasco) along with his more positive aspects (such as helping to end the Cold War and making Americans feel proud of themselves again). And along with the glaring omissions, a number of the people selected were just bizarre. How are we supposed to believe that Bruce Lee, Princess Diana, Pelé, Steven Spielberg, or Oprah are among the most important folks of the past century? In serious commparison to people like Dr. Jonas Salk, Jackie Robinson, the Leakeys, Walt Disney, and Eleanor Roosevelt? Important and influential in a certain decade or a certain field, certainly, but in terms of the overall century?! It's also way too soon to fairly evaluate the true importance of some of the people in the final section of the book. And why was there no index?
   
   In spite of the shortcomings, this is a pretty good book through and through if you're interested in 20th century history (however Western-centric most of the book is) and some of the personalities who made the past century so eventful.

5 comments about Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years.

1. I found this book at the library yesterday after I heard the news (I wanted to see it without paying for it). I read through a lot of it to get the sense of what the book was about, and I am stunned that it has taken this long for the truth to come out. Yeah, it's a fascinating story, but come on people.
   
   The people who bought this book should be given a full refund of their purchase in the same way they would be given a refund if they bought a box of cereal and opened it up to find potato chips. After the author and publisher give back all the money, they should then sell the rights to the true story to Hollywood; this entire story sounds like Pan's Labyrinth: a young girl in the most terrible of times escapes through her imagination into a fairytale of her own.



2. I would like to say that I have known Misha personnally for over 20 years and I could not be more hurt and deceived. And like the people who was closest to her we were lied to the greatest extend. And no, I was not gullible. I was there in Ipswitch along with a team of reporters who also believed her and saw what she could do with animals. Misha is actually remarkable with animals but not with people. She never has. But what I found most distasteful is that people can be angry towards me who was also a victim of her lies. So people don't be so quick to judge and hurt others! I am sorry that my own review of what I believed to be true back in 2001 has influenced others to buy and believe her story as well. And that makes me even sicker just to think about it. Now I have to reconcile my own feelings towards Misha and my family and friends who were also affected by her betrayal. So stop the hatred and blame it on the author, not me and the hundreds of people that invested into Misha's story emotionally and financially as well.



3. Here is the article, published yesterday, where the author recants the story. Below, you will find my letter to the Editor of the St Petersburg Times, commenting on the article, and my condensed review of the book.
   
   Author says Holocaust bestseller is made up
   Historians doubted her story of having been raised by wolves.
   Associated Press
   Published March 1, 2008
   
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ADVERTISEMENT
   Breaking News Video
   
   BRUSSELS - A Belgian writer has admitted that she made up her bestselling "memoir" depicting how, as a Jewish child, she lived with a pack of wolves in the woods during the Holocaust, her lawyers said Friday.
   
   Misha Defonseca's book, Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years, was translated into 18 languages and made into a feature film in France.
   
   Her two Brussels-based lawyers, siblings Nathalie and Marc Uyttendaele, said the author acknowledged that her story was not autobiographical and that she did not trek 1,900 miles as a child across Europe with a pack of wolves in search of her deported parents during World War II.
   
   "I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed," Defonseca, 71, said in a written statement. She lives in Dudley, Mass.
   
   Defonseca wrote in her book that Nazis seized her parents when she was a child, forcing her to wander the forests and villages of Europe alone for four years.
   
   She claimed she found herself trapped in the Warsaw ghetto, killed a Nazi soldier in self-defense and was adopted by a pack of wolves that protected her.
   
   Defonseca says that her real name is Monique De Wael and that her parents were arrested and killed by Nazis as Belgian resistance fighters.
   
   "This story is mine. It is not actually reality, but my reality, my way of surviving," the statement said. "I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed. I beg you to put yourself in my place, of a 4-year-old girl who was very lost."
   
   She said there were moments when she "found it difficult to differentiate between what was real and what was part of my imagination."
   
   Pressure on the author to defend the accuracy of her book had grown in recent weeks.
   
   "I'm not an expert on relations between humans and wolves, but I am a specialist of the persecution of Jews and they (Defonseca's family) can't be found in the archives," Belgian historian Maxime Steinberg told RTL television. "The De Wael family is not Jewish nor were they registered as Jewish."
   
   Defonseca had been asked to write the book by U.S. publisher Jane Daniel in the 1990s, after Daniel heard the writer tell the story in a Massachusetts synagogue.
   
   [Last modified March 1, 2008, 01:19:15]
   
   Here is my letter to the editor regarding this article (and is a short review of the book)
   Subject: Author says Holocaust bestseller is made up
   I first read Misha DeFonseca's memoirs in French as "Survivre avec Les Loups" (Survival with Wolves) in April, 2006. I think I knew, deep down, that several elements of the story had to be fiction, namely: Misha setting off to walk 1,900 miles "to the East" to find her deported parents, her escaping from the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, her being adopted by and raised by a pack of wolves, her witnessing the rape of a Ukrainian girl and Misha's slaying of the attacker, among others. Nonetheless, the book was moving in its depiction of the barbarity of man's treatment of fellow men, the horrors of life during the Nazi Occupation in Eastern Europe, and the hope of a child to be treated like a person instead of like an animal. I am sad that the author felt the need to embellish her story, which could have stood on its truthful merits alone. We must never forget!
   Marianna Steriadis



4. A story in the March 3, 2008 edition of the New York Times (culture section) reveals that this book is a FAKE. The author has admitted as such. Touting this book as a "memoir" is thus mendacious.



5. Readers may be interested in these letters that appeared about the Defonseca saga in the Globe:
   [...]
   Taken in by a Holocaust memoir
   March 7, 2008
   
   
   AS A chronicler of Holocaust memoirs, I read the saga of Misha Defonseca and publisher Jane Daniel with interest and more than a little apprehension ("Den of lies," Living/Arts, March 1).
   It is indeed difficult if not impossible to even check on, let alone determine, the veracity of the stories of Holocaust survivors. Nazi records, if there is anything of relevance in them regarding individual survivors, are only just now beginning to come out, as in the case of the recently released Bad Arolsen archives. Often, one has little to rely on besides an occasional lucky link between available records and a traumatized, and perhaps somewhat compromised, elderly memory. Exaggeration, embellishment, and fabrication, which can and do exist in any interviewing, always end disastrously, as we see in this saga, which even drew in the likes of Elie Wiesel.
   Thus, going into the collecting process with hope for monetary success is ambiguous at best and futile at worst. Yes, Daniel has expenses and business concerns. But in most cases, documenting the memoirs of others does not result in financial gain. Certainly with regard to atrocities such as the Holocaust, the preservation of memories holds other rich rewards for both the teller and the scribe, but most authors know to keep their day jobs.
   SUSIE DAVIDSON
   Brookline
   The writer, a journalist for the Jewish Advocate, is the author of "I Refused to Die: Stories of Boston-Area Holocaust Survivors and Soldiers who Liberated the Concentration Camps of World War II" and "Jewish Life in Postwar Germany"
   
   [...]
   
   Misguided view on veracity of Holocaust memories
   
   March 18, 2008
   SUSIE DAVIDSON'S assertion that it is is misguided and should not remain unchallenged ("Taken in by a Holocaust memoir," Letters, March 7). It is also not true that Nazi records "are only just now beginning to come out." Archives have been available in Germany and elsewhere for decades to validate the roundups and deportation of Jews from particular communities in Europe.
   Expecting witnesses who tell of their ordeals on transports and in camps to offer proof that they were in a particular ghetto or camp is like Swiss bank officials demanding that children of survivors whose parents had been gassed furnish copies of the death certificates.
   But most disturbing is Davidson's claim that, when interviewing Holocaust survivors, about all we have to rely on is "a traumatized, and perhaps somewhat compromised, elderly memory." As someone who has spent more than a decade interviewing Holocaust survivors, I have found the exact reverse to be true.
   Misha Defonseca's book is so full of confirmable historical errors that on that basis alone it was possible for informed readers to recognize that her narrative could not be true.
   LAWRENCE L. LANGER,
   West Newton
   The writer is the author of "Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory."
   
   
   Statements regarding verification of Holocaust stories still ring true
   
   I stand by my assertions that were taken to task by Lawrence Langer ("Misguided view on veracity of Holocaust memories," Letters, March 18). My statement that Langer quoted, "it is difficult if not impossible to even check on, let alone determine, the veracity of the stories of Holocaust survivors," concerns, as it states, survivors' actual stories, rather than the Nazi deportation archives Langer mentions (which I have seen, some in actuality, in Germany).
   
   Langer analogizes my statements on lack of supporting documentation to my asking the survivors I have interviewed to furnish proof. I have never done such a thing; to the contrary, over the past several years, I have organized public events, always sold my books at cost, charged no speaker fee though I invited and paid other supporting speakers, and, most importantly, publicly read these stories in forums ranging from the Boston Public Library to myriad bookstores, classrooms, synagogues, senior and veterans' centers in an effort to spread awareness of the bravery of these people during the terrible times they lived through.
   
   Yes, I have taken these dear souls at their word. That does not mean I believe that every word is inscribed, and I'm sure the survivors wouldn't either. No memory is perfect. Trauma is affecting. Although I have done my best to verify what survivors in my books have told me, feel that the stories are true, like Langer am highly impressed at their ability to recount their tales, and wholly believe in their sincerity and honesty, I am not afraid to state that I would never take credit for 100 percent, iron-clad verifiability.
   SUSIE DAVIDSON
   Brookline
   
   
   To: letter@globe.com
   Subject: Records, as well as memory, can indeed be fallible
   Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:37:07 +0000
   
   I beg to differ with Lawrence Langer. First, I have a hard time believing that Nazi records released thus far have been all that forthcoming, let alone totally forthright. Second, the sheer breadth of fallout from the deception of Misha DeFonseca alone speaks for the need to be as careful as Susie Davidson has been in her books.
   I recently saw a local public television show try to deal with having had a World War II soldier on the preview hour to Ken Burns' documentary "The War", telling tall tales about his bravery that were soon unveiled as fabrication. This and DeFonseca's book have certainly not been the only instances of unintentional publication and broadcasting of fraudulent or incorrect memoirs in the media, because, as Davidson said, memory, as well as recordkeeping, are not always correct.
   As the nephew and namesake of one of the navigators of the Exodus 1947, whose own story few would believe if it weren't true, I appreciate writers like Davidson who make the effort to verify, admit they can be fallible, and do their work for no personal gain.
   
   FRANK LEVINE
   Malden
   
   
   
   
   I REPRESENTED Misha Defonseca in litigation against Jane Daniel. I worked closely with Defonseca for more than six years. I learned that her memoir was a fabrication when her statement was published in the Globe.
   The article cites Lawrence L. Langer as expressing outrage that anyone could exploit the Holocaust for profit. Langer, an authority on the subject, goes so far as to compare them to Holocaust deniers. I think this is an unfortunate overstatement.
   The irony is that Defonseca's real story seems to be even more compelling than the fabrication. According to the researcher who uncovered the truth, her parents were Catholic members of the Belgian resistance who were captured and killed by Nazis. It is one thing to belong to a group targeted for oppression or genocide and something quite different to choose to align yourself with such a group and share its fate. Whatever our beliefs about our own integrity or moral fiber, there are few among us who would make that choice once we have assumed the obligations of parenthood.
   Defonseca's parents were among this rarest sort of human. Their daughter paid a horrible price for that choice.
   RAMONA HAMBLIN
   Newton
   
   
   
   
   WE AT Wolf Hollow were saddened by the revelation that Misha Defonseca's incredible memoir was an elaborate hoax. Upon meeting her in 1996, we were awed by her story. We were aware of many documented cases of children raised by animals, including chimpanzees, apes, and indeed wolves. Wolves live in packs that mirror our own human families, and are considered the most socially complex nonprimate mammal. In our talks with Defonseca, she demonstrated an intimate knowledge of wolf behavior. Who would not want to believe such a heartwarming story in the midst of one of mankind's darkest times?
   We became close friends with Defonseca, subsequently holding book signings and hosting a film crew from "The Oprah Winfrey Show." We spoke of her when visitors to Wolf Hollow would ask of the validity of tales of wolf-raised children, and even named a wolf puppy Misha. Readers can imagine how shocked we are now.
   For someone to feel the need to create such a story in lieu of reality is the truly sad story. Despite the deception, the Misha that we knew is a warm woman and an advocate for animals, and we trust that that much is still true.
   ZEE SOFFRON
   Assistant director Wolf Hollow
   Ipswich
   
   
   
   
   AFTER READING this story, I was speechless. I have known Misha Defonseca since 1988, when she and her family moved to Millis, and we became close friends. I truly believed her story, and supported her efforts in writing her memoirs.
   One speech she gave stands out in my mind, a night at Brandeis. Several hundred students, faculty, friends, and true Holocaust survivors gathered to hear her story, and many tears were shed as the story unfolded. Holocaust survivors in attendance that evening called out the names of the death camps they were in, and a moment of silence was observed. This experience will live in my memory forever.
   I feel so betrayed, yet my heart is broken for the true Holocaust survivors she used to promote her lies. When her book was published, I felt honored that she put my name in it, and now I am ashamed. I want no association with the lies.
   PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM
   Millis

5 comments about Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.

1. Robert Gould Shaw's letters home are a very realistic look of the Civil War battles by a unique individual with many perspectives. The brutality of battle along with the emotional turmoil from such a young officer bring the war to life. The authors have given us a true picture of a brave officer and the war. As you read the letters of Shaw you want to pull the blankets closer on the cold winter nights he spent in the field. You can share the suffering along with Shaw at the loss of friends. The courage and love of family and devotion of country are evident throughout his premature adult life. God bless the 54th and may Robert Gould Shaw and all that served with him and under him never be forgotten.



2. Russell Duncan's compendium of letters both exalts and puzzles.The job of editing the letters and setting them in the context of war, family ties, friendships, etc. is thorough and, for the most part, makes them accessible. Let's not forget, though, that the editor omitted some letters that don't support his main thesis: that Col. Shaw was a rich young pleasure-lover who fought to get back to his privileged existence, never changing this outlook throughout the war; he "never fully understood nor dedicated himself" to the cause of Black freedom (pp.1-2). So here we are presented with a young man raised by abolitionists who went to all the hazards of preparing and leading something new, a black regiment, before dying in the middle of it, without understanding what he was about, or dedicating himself to it. It's fashionable to "debunk" the heros of yore, but even those letters we have tell us otherwise, and Duncan reverses his appraisal, back and forth, several times. We should also beware of measuring citizens of other times against a modern baseline on classism, racism, etc. Apart from these problems, found in the introduction and some footnotes, the book lets Shaw speak for himself (he does it eloquently and enjoyably) and the reader can draw his/her own conclusion on ideas, events, and character development.



3. it's must have book I love this book



4. If, like me, you have seen the film "Glory", where Matthew Broderick plays Col. Robert Gould Shaw, white commander of the black 54th Massachusetts Regiment during the Civil War, you will see only a brief a glimpse of who Shaw was in his short life. Broderick does a masterful job of capturing some of Shaw's personality, but if you want to get inside this young man's head and find out who he really was, I highly recommend reading the book, "Blue Eyed Child of Fortune", ed. by Russell Duncan.
   
   This collection of Shaw's letters shows a far more complex and conflicted young man than Broderick was given a chance to play. While his parents burned with the abolitionist spirit of Boston's intellectual elite, Shaw struggled with his own prejudices and his own self doubts throughout his short life. Never an exemplary student, he dropped out of Harvard to work in his uncle's New York firm, but rapidly found the work boring and unsuited to him. Struggling to find his place in the world, the Civil War came along and gave him a sense of purpose and direction.
   
   Enlisting first in the 7th New York Guards, he served until his enlistment was up, and then joined the 2nd Massachusetts, gaining position as an officer. He "saw the elephant" at Winchester, Antietam and Cedar Mountain, was slightly wounded in two of those engagements, and found out first hand about the horrors of war. During winter camp in 1862-63, his father visited with word that Shaw had been tapped by Massachusetts Governor John Albion Andrew to command a new black regiment. At first, Shaw refused this offer on the basis that he felt a strong bond with the men he had fought and bled with, but then changed his mind and accepted the position of Colonel of the 54th Massachusetts.
   
   Returning home to Boston to take command of his new regiment, he was deeply conflicted over whether these men would pan out to be good soldiers, but as time wore on and they proved their worth, Shaw's respect for his men grew, as did their respect for their commanding officer. After three months training, they left for duty in South Carolina after a grand parade down Boston streets. Shaw chafed for some action for his men, and the first that they saw was the tragic raid and burning of Darien, Georgia under the command of Kansas jayhawker Col. James Montgomery. Shaw was outraged at this action and very nearly refused his orders from his commanding officer, but reluctantly had to obey and ask his men to do what he felt was utterly immoral and against the codes of war. He would write letters of protest to his father and to others.
   
   Eventually, in his quest for real action for his men, they were assigned a diversionary action on James Island to allow Union troops to land on nearby Morris Island for a planned assault on Fort Wagner a few days later. Sustaining light casualties in a skirmish, Shaw was impressed that his men were indeed up to snuff as soldiers, and so, a few days later, after a long exhausting march in a storm to Morris Island during which they got no rest, they were assigned to the lead attack column on Fort Wagner on the evening of July 18, 1863.
   
   Sadly, Union intelligence on Ft. Wagner was badly flawed. It was originally thought that the fort held a complement of only 300 men and that after days of relentless shelling by the Union navies, that the fort would be softened up enough to withstand a frontal Union assault. However, most of Wagner's nearly 1500 men were in a massive bombproof riding out the shelling, and so, when the Union assault began with the 54th leading the attack column, they took the heaviest casualties, including the young Col. Shaw, who foresaw his own demise while speaking to Lt. Col. Edward "Ned" Hallowell, his second-in-command, while on a steamer on the way to their assignment: "If I could only live a few weeks longer with my wife, and be at home a little while, I might die happy, but it cannot be. I do not believe I will live through our next fight."
   
   Rather unfortunately, Shaw was right. He was killed upon reaching the parapets of Wagner, a bullet through his heart killing him instantly. His body was stripped and thrown into a common grave with his men, and his father asked, when the Union finally took the fort a few months later when it was abandoned by the Confederates, that his body be left there with his men. Shaw's burial spot now lies somewhere under the Atlantic Ocean, the island having eroded significantly in the past 140 years since Shaw's demise and burial there.
   
   This book will give you a great insight into a very conflicted, complicated and yet reluctantly heroic young man who was just coming into his own at the time of his tragic death. I am sure that he would have shunned the limelight had he survived the war to live to old age and would have been content to live life with his beloved Annie, to whom he was married a mere two months before his death. Annie would never remarry and lived the rest of her life as his widow, dying in 1907. The war would doubtless have made Shaw and given him the potential to focus his life and go on to great things had he lived to do so. Having lived so much of his young life with such rebellion against his mother's domineering apron strings and not quite sure what he wanted out of life, the war gave Shaw a brief opportunity to find out what it was he was made of. In so doing, he achieved the one thing he never dreamed of, immortality.
   
   Read this book if you are eager to know the "real" Shaw. Letting him speak for himself is the best way to know this fascinating man who died so tragically young at the peak of his life. Follow it up with "Where Death and Glory Meet", Russell Duncan's excellent biography of Shaw. By the time you finish these two books, you will feel as if you know Shaw quite well. If you want to know a few of his men, read "A Brave Black Regiment" by Capt. Luis Emilio, a regimental history of the 54th, "On the Altar of Freedom" by Cpl. James Henry Gooding, a black soldier in the 54th, and "A Voice of Thunder", the letters of Sgt. George E. Stephens, another black soldier in the 54th. I just hope that more letters and diaries from this regiment surface and are published someday. Doubtless there are more hiding in attics and other unknown places.
   
   This book comes highly recommended for good Civil War reading of a primary source, along with the other books mentioned that are by Shaw's soldiers. Together, they beat any historian's account of this historic regiment. Read them all if you are interested in Civil War or black history.



5. After viewing the movie Glory for many years I came across this book and purchased it immediately. Robert Gould Shaw grew up in an influencial home which had amazing political and social connections with the abolitionist movement. His words preserved from the past through today and gives us insight on what he was thinking about after fighting at Antietam as well as his feelings about his role and service for this nation.
   
   A must for any civil war reenactor or student of the American Civil War.

1 comments about Mary Boykin Chesnut: A Biography (Southern Biography Series).

1. This is the best biography of Chesnut to date. Muhlenfeld draws from all of Chesnut's writing, not just her famous Civil War diaries, to build a picture of a woman and a writer.

5 comments about The Unexpected George Washington: His Private Life.

1. Disappointing summary of already-known Washingtoniana. Nothing "unexpected" here at all. Not a full-fledged biography, so of little use to someone looking for an introduction or overview, and nothing to contribute for someone who is already fairly well-versed in GW's life and times.



2. I was anticipating this book as a great summary of the little-known George Washington. As an arm-chair Washington historian I try to read everything I can find to hopefully discover new information, but I've heard many of the things in this book. This book said it was going to discuss the personal and private Washington, yet it was disappointing in that it did not address both slavery and religion in depth; these were only mentioned. What I did discover is some information about the many neices and nephews Washington took care of, and I liked the way the author included many excerpts from letters. I felt like I got to know a little more about the Lafayette/Washington friendship too. Overall, this is a good review and would be a good introduction to the private man for new Washington admirers. ***/*****



3. This is truly a geat book. The title tells so little about what is in store for the reader. These are the kind of stories that should be told to children so that they would REALLY get to know who this great man was. I am glad that I saw this author on C-Span 2.



4. I purchased this book as a birthday gift for a friend who is a major George Washington fan, since I had previously read it and found it to be absolutely fascinating. Most books about him ignore the personal aspects of his life which are featured here and help understand him as a man rather than as a painting or a statue.



5. I loved this book. I have always liked Washington, but after reading this biography, I can honestly say he is one of my favorite people. I can hardly wait to visit Mt. Vernon.

No comments about Autobiography of Josiah Henson: An Inspiration for Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom (Dover Pictorial Archive Series).

5 comments about Isaac Newton.

1. I really wish I had liked this book, but I didn't.
   First thing that I noticed is the small volume, I had just read IKE's bio by Ambrose and in comparison this book seemed more like a brochure than an inclusive biographical work.
   What I hated the most was the style. Too pompous for my taste, the author gets in lengthy descriptions on the period and the landscape that surrounded Newton while only giving Isaac himself a mere sentence here and there. I think the author was trying to appeal to a public that doesn't know who Newton was and did, and therefore finds it appropriate to remind us, on multiple occasions that 'yes, Newton is the one that invented calculus and before him there was darkness'. I gave the book away to somebody that could appreciate it, hopefully. Fortunately now I know not to buy "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman" by the same author, I would have been much more upset to read it instead of this book since I've been a Feynman fan for years.
   Numerous repetition in the descriptions of the era and in the contributions on Newton, I could not force myself to keep on reading. I do not consider this book a serious read, not on the subject Isaac Newton anyway.



2. This book is comprehensive in addressing the themes of Newton's life, though the introversion of the subject limits the detail which the author could provide. More simply stated, this book is well versed and written, so enjoy!



3. How can you sum up the life of Newton in roughly 190 pages. This is nothing but a pamphlet of one of the greatest lives of discovery the world has ever known. If your IQ is below 130 and you are looking for good reading go for it, but if you need meat and deeper substance about Newton, this is not where you look.



4. James Gleick has written some excellent books -- Chaos and Genius, but this book fails to clear that bar.
   
   Inside the front flap of the dust cover it reads "In this original, sweeping, and intimate biography, Gleick moves between a comprehensive historical portrait and a dramatic focus on Newton's significant letters and unpublished notebooks to illiminate the real importance of his work in physics, in optics, and in calculus." In my opinion, the book fails to meet this objective. The biography and other information is superficial and far from initimate -- the book is a good introduction to basic facts but no more than that. His biography of Richard Feynman in Genius comes much closer to the goal of an intimate biography.



5. Several versions of Isaac Newton's life have evolved in the three centuries since his death in 1727. They are the products of admirers, detractors, philosophers, scientist, and poets. Some have the virtue of being partially true. Indeed, Isaac Newton was brilliant, restless, creative, vindictive, and proud. That his image today is so disjointed comes as no surprise. James Gleick attempts to sort the wheat from the chaff, but his work goes far beyond that, to a splendid essay of Newton in his time.
   
   The 17th century was a curious time to be alive in England. Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his brilliant study of the Reformation, identifies Newton as the pivotal character in the swing from theology to science as the defining key of existence. But the old cosmologies were dying slow, painful deaths, while the new ones were generally infantile, utopian, or speculative. Even Galileo hesitated at first to turn his telescope to the skies, for fear of offending the divine, and when he finally caught glimpse of Saturn, the imperfections of his optics led him to announce "a planet with handles." [Newton himself had to disguise his mathematics of infinity under the cloak of annuity interest projections to maintain proper theological etiquette at Cambridge.] The new science, such as it was, required as much faith as the old religion. A few souls like Kepler understood that there might be logic at the root, but his mathematics were daunting.
   
   What makes Newton's life so interesting is the intellectual and philosophical journey that took him from the age of Galileo into the age of Einstein. He attended Cambridge in the aftermath of Oliver Cromwell but his Protestantism was not entirely appropriate as he harbored closet doubts about the Holy Trinity, finding no scriptural basis for it. His theology evolved from Aristotle as much as from anyone. He respected Aristotle's concept of First Cause, and he had enough innate oppositional defiance to approach his studies with a rigorous scientific method in the manner of The Philosopher, chips fall where they will.
   
   Newton excelled in mathematics, physics, and mechanics, and his interests were broad enough that he brought a philosopher's eye to these various disciplines. In a sense he began his life's work while still a college student, looking for a unifying factor or factors to all the known sciences and disciplines of his day. This was a gargantuan task, and its audacity took Newton to the virtual doorstep of the best of medieval theology. His quest became an obsession, and for several solitary years it led him down the dark alley of alchemy. Alchemy was highly suspect; its practitioners were considered either heretics for seeking divine secrets, or outright charlatans looking to create gold. Newton, however, was attempting to find a bridge between the stasis of matter and the observable flux of actual life.
   
   What seemed to bring Newton out of his cave was the appearance of a spectacular comet in 1681. A young astronomer named Halley, an early admirer of Newton's work, postulated that comets might be cyclic objects with elliptic trajectories. Halley's thesis on the trajectory of comets--rather easily substantiated even in his day by visual observation and Kepler's foundational math--was a physical puzzlement in an age when behavior of heavenly bodies was something of a psychological/religious given. Not even the telescope had shaken that. Why, then, would a comet make what amounts to a 270 degree change in trajectory as it passed the sun?
   
   Gleick traces with broad sweeps Newton's intense pursuit of an answer, which led to the basic laws of physics we call Newtonian. Gleick's economy is appreciated: Newton's paper trail is extensive and exhaustive; one key to his success was exactitude. [The economist John Maynard Keynes led an extensive recent effort to recover and catalogue Newton's body of work.] Although his publications in his day had modest circulation due to the highly technical nature--Halley, in fact, funded some of the publishing--there were two polarities permeating his theories that captured public attention and attracted considerable criticism in his time: his dependence upon the invisible, and the extensiveness of his claims.
   
   There is irony in the fact that Newton's passion for scientific verifiable method allowed room for what his enemies would deride as invisible forces. Gravity is the most obvious example, though here the difficulty was mathematical semantics: just as most of us labor with the material reality of e=mc(2), so too in Newton's day the mathematics and physics underlying gravitational force escaped even many professionals of his time. But in other areas of his work Newton claimed a certainty that was at best hypothetical and at times almost magical. So confident was he in the power of computation and observation that he promoted his ideas about atoms and light transmission, for example, as Gospel. The debate over the nature and transmission of light was an intense one during Newton's working years. Newton himself made major contributions in his work with prisms and improvements on reflecting telescopes. But his hubris and scientific acclaim led him into an alchemy of speculation which later scientists corrected.
   
   On the other hand, Newton was attacked by poets and artists for redefining the world in the cold jargon of scientific certitude. He was accused of stripping the human experience of mystery. Even some scientists worried that Newton had left nothing for them to do. In some cases these criticisms are the fruit of Newton's own exhaustive claims, and like many famous men, he did suffer in translation and adulation. Newton's personality--including his lifelong love of declarative sentences--did not facilitate clarification or negotiation. Having solved to his own satisfaction the mysteries of the universe, Newton turned to an even greater challenge: the English economy. In 1696 he was appointed Warden and eventually Master of the Mint where he essentially restored credibility to the coin of the realm. Little wonder Keynes would protect his memory.

3 comments about Winston Churchill: Statesman of the Century (Great Leaders).

1. Beautifully simply profoundly written book .A must reading for all laymen all good people interested in a champion of freedom.



2. I purchased this book because I needed to do a research paper which included a short biography on Churchill. This book is very concise and proved to be an asset to my paper. The biographies by Gilbert or Jenkins are very lengthy and it is difficult to sum them up and take out the main points. I am glad I found this book by Robin H Neillands.



3. Go read David Irving's biography instead, meticulously researched and you can read it online free.

1 comments about 100 Essential Lincoln Books.

1. I HAVE READ THIS BOOK AND I OWN ALL OF THE BOOKS THAT ARE MENTIONED ON THE LIST OF 100.I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK!!!!!!!

3 comments about Sherman's Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T. Sherman, 1860-1865 (Civil War America).

1. William T. Sherman was an irascible, unpredictably brilliant man and his letters bring out these myriad traits. He was a fascinating man and his own words illuminate his fiery personality. Sherman's own 1875 memoirs are a mixed bag, marred by an over-abundance of wartime correspondence and ancillary material. This collection of his letters actually makes for more engrossing, instructive reading. We hear his opinions on the major players of the Civil War: Grant, Halleck and Lincoln. We gain an understanding of his tortured relationship with his wife, Ellen, to whom many of the letters are addressed. His visceral hatred of the press and reporters is well represented.

   The collection is expertly edited by Brooks Simpson, someone who thoroughly understands both Sherman and the civil war era. The notes are instructive and unobtrusive and the introduction lays the groundwork for appreciating Sherman and his correspondence. This is an outstanding book for anyone who wishes to get to know the erratic and intellectual General who was second only to Ulysses S. Grant in ability and results.




2. It's difficult to rate a collection of primary documents such as this one for several reasons. The quality of the documents themselves might be very good but the arrangement or editing of them might be very poor, in which case it becomes a question of whether you should rate the volume well for the documents themselves or poorly for the editing job. Fortunately this collection does not have that issue, as both the primary documents themselves and the editing of them are excellent.
   
   This massive volume contains much of Sherman's correspondence during the war. Surprisingly, these letters are enjoyable to read, and the editors have done a great job of compiling and editing them. Reading these letters, orders, etc of General Sherman can give someone a very unique perspective of the Civil War as Sherman himself saw it, without the bias of authors who have written about it since and without the inevitable coloring of events that happens later when war heroes write about their experiences (and which certainly affected his memoirs, though I do believe they were very honest and straightforward). General Sherman is one of my heroes from the Civil War, and this collection of glimpses into his brilliant mind certainly fed my understanding and fascination of the man.



3. William Tecumseh Sherman was a brilliant military genius and a true eccentric.
   A fascinating and complex man, who found his destiny in war. Sherman revelled in war and owed much to it: he began it as an former officer of modest means and ended it hailed as the Union greatest general next to Grant. At the same time he loathed and despised war and was horrified by it. He was shocked by what the war did to his country, his people, his soldiers and to himself. At times he was appalled by his duties as an officer, but he was always highly resolved to perform these duties.
   
   Everybody who has ever read his memoirs knows that Sherman was not only a great general but also a very talented writer. His memoirs are not a dry succession of events and his part in it, but they convey how he lived through the war and how and why he did what he did in it.
   Now professor Brooks D. Simpson has edited a big volume of his Sherman's correspondence from the Civil War years. Again it is the quality of the Sherman's writing which catches the eye and pleases the mind. His letters, as are his memoirs, are a joy to read. This book offers an interesting perspective on Sherman and his part in the war. Reading the memoirs is like having Sherman telling his war experiences to you, long after the facts. This is interesting enough but reading his letters is even more so. It feels like being there with him in his tent, in some Union camp during the war, looking over his shoulder while events are shaping. A truly fascinating experience.
   He pours his heart out to his brother John, to his wife Ellen, to his friend Grant and to many others.
   So many aspects of his personality appear: his quicksilver intelligence, his warmth and humanity, his wicked and dry sense of humour, his fundamental decency and his military capability.
   Read this book and look intro Sherman's mind: it is an interesting place.
   
   The book itself is a big b*gger, but once you've started, you'll be grateful that is is so big: you'll hate to finish it. It looks great, which I like in books and it's very nicely turned out, with good quality binding , high grade paper, a pretty typesetting and a nice dust jacket design. Listings and indexes are clear and elaborate, which is useful in a book like this. So here's a big thumbs up to the publisher's (Chapel Hill North Carolina State University Press): very well done, a fine piece of work!!!
   
   I can't recommend this too highly. A must for all those who are interested in history, in the American Civil War and/or in Sherman. Read and enjoy the letters uncle Billy wrote in those four years of war and enjoy the sight and the feel of this beautifully made book.