5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. On a recent of list of great presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson was ranked near the top. Yet there is no Andrew Jackson Day. Most people would be hard pressed to name a single fact about "Old Hickory". Yet if he lived in the age of the cable news network, he may have been the most scandalous president ever. In this short but very well written biography, Robert Remini does a comendable job documenting the life of General Andrew Jackson.
   
   Jackson was raised in far from ideal conditions. When his parents died when he was young, he lived with several different relatives at varying times. After growing up in the Carolinas, he moved west to Tennesse where opportunity was available. In Tennesse, he became a very accomplished attorney which allowed him to accumulate wealth. It was in Tennesse that he met his wife Rachel who was in a failing marriage. For a time, Jackson actually lived under the same roof as Rachel and her then husband. When Rachel's first marriage became irreconcilable, she immediately married Jackson. Unfortunately, it was not until three years later that Rachel's first husband officially filed the divorce papers. This forced Andrew and Rachel to marry again to make the union legal.
   
   Jackson's early political career was not remarkable. He had less than fulfilling stints in the House and Senate before he achieved real glory in the military. Jackson is most noted for his conquests in the War of 1812 and battles with American Indians. Riding the wave of his military glory, he was elected president. In doing this he also helped to found the Democratic party. Jackson's accomplishemnts as president include his elimination of the National Bank, forcing the French to pay war reparations, and ending the spoils system that plagued the government. He was championed as a common man's president because of this Tennesse background and military service.
   
   The whole life of Andrew Jackson is not disclosed in this review, but this book is an excellent source to discover his life. Remini's writing is not bogged down in political lingo, but tells the story for those interested in reading about a great life. While a short read, it is thorough and highly enjoyable.



2. Few American presidents could be said to have left such a distinctive mark on the office and the nation as Andrew Jackson. Even as Jackson's legend fades into the mists of the past, we owe it to ourselves to reach back and draw it up into the light of honor accorded such giants as Washington, Lincoln and FDR, because Jackson was a figure of equal stature. One way to accomplish this is to read Robert V. Remini's concise history entitled simply Andrew Jackson, a quick, yet surprisingly thorough chronicling of Jackson's many achievements as president, politician, general and pivotal figure in the establishment and settlement of the state of Tennessee.
   
   What makes Jackson so interesting is the way his checkered past shaped the trajectory of his Presidency. Decades before Lincoln, he was the first president to be born into rustic circumstances and rise above them to achieve greatness, but unlike Lincoln, his story is not that of a paragon of virtue overcoming adversity with folksy charm and wit. Jackson was a bully, an adulterer, a blowhard and a holder of grudges, character flaws that he eventually reshaped to his advantage, and to that of the nation's.
   
   Humiliated and wounded as a boy during the Revolution, Jackson carried a lethal grudge against the British that eventually got its airing during the War of 1812 when he commanded US forces in the Battle of New Orleans and won a lopsided victory that sent a stinging message to the rest of the world about the folly of underestimating America's determination to defend its sovereignty.
   
   It made him a hero and launched his political career, an enterprise that might have been merely interesting were it not for Jackson's staunch determination to take the smug creatures of privilege in Washington by the scruff of their collective neck and teach them a stern lesson about whose country it really was. By 1828 the nation was already in danger of being sold out to the highest bidder and Jackson rose to power on the promise of snatching Democracy from the jaws of Oligarchy. Remini's speculates that, in some measure, this came from Jackson's early experience after having been ripped off in a land deal by moneyed interests.
   
   In any case, Jackson was as good as his word, going after the all powerful National Bank with a vengeance, staring down the threat of secession on the part of South Carolina over a question of tariffs, and defeating formidable political foes with equal helpings of restraint and ferocity. Jackson helped found the state of Tennessee, was instrumental in the establishment of the Democratic Party, virtually invented modern campaigning, was the first president to wield the veto with brio, and elevated the office of the Presidency to its present formidable role. But Jackson's most lasting contribution was his faith in and reliance on the people, even after he'd been elected, a true Democrat of a type almost entirely missing today and one not likely to be resurrected any time soon.
   
   Remini is a comprehensive Jackson scholar, one whose works on the Hero of New Orleans number eleven. This book is more or less an abridged version of his longer work and represents a cherry picking of facts and reflections. Regrettably, the book favors facts over reflections which is unfortunate, because one would like to know more about Remini's interpretations of events. But if you want to pick up a basic understanding of Andrew Jackson and his importance to American history this book is a wonderful start.
   
   Jackson's parting words on leaving office were, "Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." What politician would ever say that today?
   
   That Jackson is increasingly forgotten when discussing the great Presidents of our history says something, too, about our ability to retain the blessing for future generations.



3. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



4. We had to read this book in my AP U.S. History class. It is good. My theory on the reason why Remini wrote this book was to explain why Jackson did the things he did like the duels and make up for them. I never realized how interesting the presidents were espically Jackson. Good book to read.



5. I have read several of this author's works, and have never been disappointed. It is easy to see why he has become an acknowledged expert on the "Age of Jackson." His writing is always very easy to digest, and his insights are illuminating. I highly recommend this book, and the audio version is equally enjoyable.

5 comments about Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century.

1. By far simply one of his best collections. It seems the good doctor saw what was on the horizon and unforunately he was right. The world is a lesser place without him and we should all cherish every word. His insight was frightening an accurate. BUY THIS BOOK!



2. It's true, there are lots of parts of this book that can be found in other books, but this is still the best HST book I've read. It's sort of like a greatest hits. The new parts however, are the best part of this book.



3. This book (2003) and "Hey Rube" (2004) appear to be the last of HST's books. While "Hey Rube" contains lengthy discussions of gambling on professional football and basketball (including "March Madness"), this book is more far-ranging, containing everything from Thompson's reminiscences of his youth to his (highly negative) thoughts on George W. Bush. There's even a chapter from "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972," one of the finest political books ever written.
   
   The quality of the writing on the recent pieces is not quite up to that of his best from the past, but is still infinitely better than the mindless slop produced by other contemporary "writers." The man was an artist.
   
   As always, one of the disturbing things about Thompson is his ability to assess politics correctly in real time. Reading back, you think "Why didn't people take this man seriously at the time?"
   
   "Indeed," as Doc would say.



4. Mr Thompsons autobiography is somewhat lacking compared to his other works. It seems, that he in his later years didn't have that much new to say, and this volume shows it very clearly. It deals with the legend of HST, not the man Hunter Stockton Thompson, and only plays the same tune that we've been hearing since F&L in Las Vegas, only in a strongly diluded form.
   
   A great drawback is that he recycles a lot of stuff from his earlier work, which if you're a fan/reader of his you can't help but feel a bit cheated about. The book isn't that long as it is, but when half the material already has been printed before, and therefore probably, for fans at least, is on your shelf already, it gives the feeling of the good Mr Thompson not really making an effort writing this volume.
   
   It's not all bad though. There are highlights in the book. His description of his childhood is enjoyable and very biographical. The last chapter is also very enjoyable, although not that good as biographical material, it does for a good reading.
   
   It starts out legitimate enough, but quickly turns to his rambling and at times incoherent style of writing. Worth reading if you're a completist. I would recommend the compilations of his letters "The Proud Highway" and "F&L in America" as biography instead. They are much better.



5. Make no mistake the late, lamented Hunter Thompson was always something of a muse for me going way back to the early 1970's when I first read his seminal work on outlaw bikers, The Hell's Angels. Since then I have devoured, and re-devoured virtually everything that he has written. I have reviewed many of those efforts elsewhere in this space. As I noted recently in reviewing his 2004 work Hey, Rube, a screed on the misadventures of a gambling freak (himself), not all his efforts have been equally compelling. That was the case in my panning of Hey, Rube but here we are back on much more solid `gonzo' style from the old days. Maybe it is because this work is in the form of a memoir and thus intentionally places the good Doc's actions in the center of the writing that puts this effort in the mold of his better compilations like the Great Shark Hunt and Songs of the Doomed.
   
   Thompson uses his patented stream of consciousness trope to create amusing stories starting from the then present (early 2000's) and his then current doings and splices them together, in some segments randomly, to events as far back as his childhood in Louisville, Kentucky. Along the way we find him at age nine in trouble with the FBI, and none the worst for the confrontation. Later, it is down and dirty in Rio with the crazies. Throughout, we find him incessantly testing his beloved guns and various `hot' motorcycles at various and sundry appropriate and inappropriate times.
   
   Additionally, we have some compelling and insightful stories as this radical journalist tours the news breaking global spots, taking trips to places like Vietnam just before the fall, Cuba, Grenada just after the invasion and elsewhere wherever the journalistic action might be and a story, in the Thompson style, might develop. Needless to say there is plenty of ink about sex, drugs and rock and rock including his deeply affecting and traumatic tangle with the law in Aspen the early 1990's. That, my friends, was a close call.
   
   And throughout, as usual, there are pithy political comments about the various idiots-in-chiefs, their henchman and hangers-on that he spent his life hammering. Maybe not hammering your way, definitely not my way, but his way. His fateful run for Sheriff of Aspen on the Freak Power ticket in 1970 probably accurately set the tone as a lifelong description of his politics. For those who have read other works by Thompson some of the signature language may be old hat as he meanders along in this volume. For others it is a chance to learn the lingo. Damn, especially this election year, I miss him. Read on.

5 comments about In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires.

1. I THINK THIS BOOK IS VERY NECCESSARY IF YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERY THING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF DRACULA AND VAMPIRES, AS TO KNOW THE TRADICIONAL FOLK OF THE PEOPLE FROM ROMANIA.
   
   THE BOOK IS VERY EASY TO READ, AND YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD TIME IF YOU LOVE VAMPIRE STORIES.



2. If given the choice I would prefer to split this book down the middle, the first half being given fours stars and the second 1. I would have to say that the title of the books says this is a history of vampires as well as dracula. I think this is incorrect; there is one chapter on vampiric folklore which to be blunt is very vague and doesn't really tell you anything.
   
   However, whilst I have doubts about there use of some evidence (the authors repeatedly seem very trusting of peasant folklore) the chapters on Dracula (Vlad Tepes), which constitute the bulk of the book, are very good and the book is worth buying for that alone.
   
   I do have the feeling that once this was done the authors needed to padd the book out and hence add three chapters on vampire fiction to the present day. It is only because I have an obsessive need to finish any book I start that I finished this, otherwise I would have given up contented once they had finished with Dracula.
   
   However, I am in agreement with the previous reviewer who stated that the score was recued by the appendixes. By bringing such resources in one place it is a very useful aid to the reader's further research and hence am happy to recommend.



3. I was disappointed with this book. I have read the authors' biography of Dracula, and found little new or worthwhile presented here. Moreover, the title is deceptive. Very little of this book is devoted to the history of vampires, and too much of it deals with modern popular culture. Given that the authors are serious scholars, I was hoping for a detailed look at popular culture roughly at the time of Vlad Tepes. I highly recommend the authors' other book, "Dracula: Prince of Many Faces," but find little merit in this volume. I think this book might have more appeal to a general audience. So, if you are looking for some basic background on the "real" Dracula (Vlad Tepes), and the basics of how he fits into folklore and popular culture, then this book may very well be for you. It is well written, and draws on the authors' considerable knowledge. It just was not what I expected or hoped for.



4. In Search of Dracula turned out to be a fairly informative source regarding Vlad Tepes, and all of the stories surrounding him. The authors certainly did their homework to the best of their abilities at the time, though I wonder if anything else has been discovered in the past 40 years or so. The chapters regarding filmography and all of the fictional books that have been written about Dracula and vampires in general, I found rather boring, though others may find them useful. I simply wasn't interested in those aspects. I found the stories regarding his actions (both as a blood-thirsty monster and as a strict, but fair ruler) to be very interesting.



5. I purchased this book as a gift. The book arrived a timely manner and in good condition. I bought this book based on a program I saw on the History Channel and with knowledge that the author has family history with Dracula.

5 comments about Nisei Daughter.

1. Very nice memoir about being a first-generation Japanese American ("Nisei"). My biggest criticism is that the flow is not quite right. I attribute that to the fact that the author is not a writer by trade. The very extensive details that pepper the story detract to the overall flow of it, but nonetheless, this book is very interesting. Monica Sone explores the dichotomy that many "hybrid" people experience: the contradictions of culture, the generational gap made even deeper because of the cultural differences. In her case, these differences were quite extreme: from the demurred and modest Japanese ways to the boisterous, assertive American. She describes many examples of where these differences were patent, and does a very god job in the process. Another excellent area of the book is her analysis of the conflicting emotions she experienced. Here she is, feeling very American, and sent to a concentration camp, labeled as "the enemy". She and her fellow camp-mates experience a collective rage, but it is during these years and after her release that she finally comes to terms with her at times contradictory cultural heritage. The end has very patriotic overtones which I thought were quite sappy, given her circumstances. I wish she could have gone further into describing her family life after camp, and the reassimilation of Japanese into American society post WWII.



2. Part of Nisei Daughter's charm is the way Sone is able to weave entertaining anecdotes throughout her tale, a story which is essentially about what being Japanese American in the time around wartime America meant to her. Specifically, her position as a Nisei daughter -- child of first generation Japanese Americans -- is the focus of this tale.

   The disappointing thing about this book is how obviously self-censored the book is. Sone very briefly reveals deeply felt rage and resentment at intervals during the book, only to shake them off and quickly change to a more light-hearted topic. Granted, there is an ironic tone to many of her comments and situations, and again granted, she is writing for a post-war audience that probably would not be receptive to outspoken criticism of the Internment, but still Sone seems to sugar coat the experience just a bit too much for my tastes. By the end, with the patriotic speeches that make it sound like the Internment was as much the fault of the Japanese Americans as it was the government, I was getting a little tired of Sone's carefree and apologetic tone, especially after the highly charged preface. In the book, Sone all but thanks the government for interning her and her family and giving them this character-building experience.

   If you are truly interested in the internment and the impact it had on the Japanese Americans, try a book like Joy Kogawa's "Obasan." It's written about the Japanese Canadian experience, which was even more extreme than the Japanese American one. Kogawa also experienced internment first hand, but "Obasan" is written far enough after the fact that Kogawa is able to give the story more perspective and is able to put a more honest face on what really happened.

   Nisei Daughter is not a bad book by any means ... but it did not live up to my expectations either. Sone's self-conscious editing makes the story seem much more like a novel than the autobiography that it supposedly is. I kept wishing she would drop the mask she was wearing and let the reader see what she was really thinking!




3. As a real Japanese daughter in Tokyo of Today, I very much enjoyed Ms. Sone's narrative. This is a story about prewar Seattle and the life of Japanese-Americans, as well as her identity struggle during the war time.
   With the eyes of an observant Nisei girl, Ms. Sone tells us about people around her, and school life, both local and Japanese, in a positive (somewhat humorous, sometimes sappy..) way.
   This is amazing. No one told me such an interesting story like this. Travel guide books only show us lovely views or baseball stadiums. Japanese school textbooks NEVER mention Japanese-American history and heritage. What a waste. We could share their feelings...
   I could have been a Nikkei(JA) daughter if my great-grand parents had emmigrated to the West Coast. (Actually, they once lived in Manchuria instead.)
   Since I found this book, I also have searched my heart and wondered where I had come from... It's so stimulating.
   ARIGATO, KAZUKO-san ! Seattle does not only mean Ichiro Suzuki.



4. I was required to read this book for My History of the American West course, and I enjoyed the book as it was a great story written by someone who experienced the internment, but after reading Strawberry Days by David A. Newiwert, I realized that Sone left out the true feelings of the War World II time period. She only briefly touches upon the racism and the hatred towards the Japanese during that time, and the injustices that they suffered. Still I did take into consideration the time period that the book was published, and the sentiments still being felt at that time. So I would highly recommend this book but I would also suggest to do any further reading of the topic to get a true feeling of the Japanese Internment.



5. Great book. Classic first person narrative of the times surrounding Japanese-American "relocation" (internment) in the Seattle area during WWII by a young girl turned young woman. The book is well-balanced with humor and seriousness. Many books of this Coming of Age genre are often boring ramblings of someone's traumatic teen age years. This book is much different. It provides a good balance of eyewitness accounts and personal musings. Not only it is a must read for anyone interested in the period or topic, it is on the short list pertaining to the Pacific Northwest in general.

5 comments about Everybody Was So Young: Gerald and Sara Murphy: A Lost Generation Love Story.

1. This delightful story is like watching a wonderful old movie from the 30's-40's! And I learned a thing or two about history!!! I'll be urging my book group to read this.



2. Zelda Fitzgerald died on March 10, 2005. Hers was a terrible death --- she was a patient at the Highland Mental Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, and the building caught fire, and because the patients were locked in, Zelda and eight others died. She was 48.
   
   Her life had, effectively, ended years earlier, when she had the first of her breakdowns and was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Or had it ended earlier than that? Perhaps with the death of her estranged husband, the once glamorous, then ruined F. Scott Fitzgerald, in 1940. Or maybe even earlier, on the Riviera, in 1924, when she had a dalliance with a French aviator that so enraged that her husband she tried to kill herself a few months later. Or even earlier, when Scott started appropriating her personality and her ideas for the characters in his novels.
   
   Yes, but for a few years there, they had it all, didn't they? They were the Golden Couple, the personification of the '20s: young, beautiful, gifted. But not smart about fame, although, back then, almost no one understood how the flame of media draws you in, consumes you for the amusement of an uncaring public, and leaves you with ashes in your mouth and regret in your heart.
   
   No, wait. Some people did grasp that. The Murphys did. And, as Amanda Vaill tells their story, they are considerably more interesting than their friends, the drunk and disorderly Fitzgeralds.
   
   And can we talk about turning life into art?
   
   Late each morning in the summer of 1922, Gerald went outside his home in Antibes and created something never seen before --- a beach! --- by raking the seaweed and stones. For this, he is said to have invented the idea of the Riviera as a summer destination.
   
   Moments later, Sara would join him and, on a blanket, read or write. She wore a white linen dress or bathing suit. And, always, a long strand of pearls, which she looped around her back so she wouldn't mar her tan (and, she said, because the sun was good for them). For this, she became a style-setter and muse.
   
   Gerald and Sara together were not two but one. They were "The Murphys," a young and rich American couple who used their youth and money to establish themselves at the center of a cultural elite in which everybody was young, talented, acclaimed. Cole Porter, Stravinsky, Picasso (who was in love with Sara), Cocteau --- though they were stars on their own, they orbited the Murphys. "There was a shine to life wherever they were," Archibald MacLeish said. "It was as though custom and habit had been wiped away and the thing itself was, for an instant, seen. Don't ask me how."
   
   Then F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway showed up.
   
   If you've read Tender Is the Night, you know that Fitzgerald took the Murphys as models for the Divers. Whatever its merits, the novel reduced the Murphys to "Beautiful People." In fact, Gerald was an accomplished painter, an American Leger. He and Sara were experts on African-American spiritual music. They financed theatrical productions and helped worthy friends (Hemingway, for just one).
   
   And they were far from untouched by the troubles of ordinary mortals.
   
   First their young son Patrick came down with tuberculosis. Then, suddenly, their younger son died of meningitis. "Fancy. There's no other word for it," John Dos Passos said. "They could have thought & thought for a million years and they wouldn't have been able to think of one like that." And then, "fancy" again, a few years later, when Patrick died, and the Murphys had to carry on for their one remaining child.
   
   It gets, if possible, more intense. Gerald returned to America to run his family business, a posh New York leather store named Mark Cross. He sent money to the faltering Fitzgerald. He had some deep poetic attachments with young men. And then he died. Dorothy Parker sent his widow this telegram: "Dearest Sara Dearest Sara." The widow staged a funeral that was described as "courage disguised as taste." But that was his life. And hers.
   
   It's easy to read a book like this for the anecdotes about the mighty. But Fitzgerald comes across here as an eternal college boy and a bit of a fool, Hemingway as cold and manipulative. In contrast, the Murphys seem like explorers of the rarest kind --- blessed with money, they set out to find beauty and harmony. That they also found tragedy only makes their story more fascinating.
   
   College kids majoring in Gender Studies can find much in the life of Zelda Fitzgerald to ponder. I'm not knocking that --- there are lessons galore in that roller coaster of a life. But when you're further along the road, the Fitzgeralds start to be, at bottom, a lot of noise --- spoiled children breaking things.
   
   The Murphys, in contrast, look more substantial, more worthy of a sustained view. The Murphys, for all their money and privilege, seem real. These days, I don't want to read about the Fitzgeralds; I want to read Fitzgerald. But the Murphys --- they're well worth 500 pages.



3. I had to go out and buy this book after seeing "Making It New: The Art and Style of Sara and Gerald Murphy" at the Williams College Museum of Art in Williamstown, MA. The book is terrific, but if you're interested in this period, its writers and artists than track down this exhibit. It's a wonderful and extraordinary show about the Murphys and those they were friends with. Paintings, theater pieces, diary entries, letters, amazing photographs, home movies and more illustrate that the Murphys were really an essential part of the 1920s and 1930s. An argument can be made that they were the center that everything spun out from. It is absolutely sensational.



4. The world of the rich-and-famous is ever fascinating. Here we're given entree into the Murphy world. If this is your favorite genre, you'll like this. However, I became satiated very early on too much richness, too many names, too many details. I found it over written, over talky. Everyone is charming (one way or another) and I can see why celeb advocates would adore this. Not I.



5. I recently discovered this book so will try not to repeat the favorable reviews of others. I have visited most of the locations in this book and will try to search out the Murphy's history the next time I go. They lived magical lives in a period of tremendous artistic creativity. The 1920s in Paris were a unique period for American literature. That the Murphys were at the center of it makes this book required reading for anyone who wants to study the period. I have been in Sylvia's Beach's Shakespeare and Company, still there on the left bank, but the magic is gone. What must it have been like to be part of this generation of expatriates ? Read the book and find out. It is terrific.

5 comments about Eisenhower: Soldier and President (The Renowned One-Volume Life).

1. Stephen Ambrose is certainly among the finest contemporary historians in print. And while he has authored several very good biographies, in my opinion, his best work has been chronicling historic events as opposed to the lives of the participants. His works on the Lewis and Clark expedition and the construction of the transcontinental railroad far surpass any of his biographies. Perhaps this is merely coincidence, though there is certainly a difference in each endeavor.
   
   This particular work is a condensation of an earlier two volume effort. In that respect, it is perfectly adequate and probably more enjoyable than the longer and more detailed work. I can't imagine anything that was not included that I would need to know.
   
   Ambrose is certainly an Eisenhower fan, however this does not prevent him from clearly pointing out many of his mistakes and errors, both in the context of his life as Army general and as President. But, while he points out these instances, and many are quite glaring, he nevertheless, unhesitantly, seems to give him an over all pass.
   
   Leadership is a word used quite often by Ambrose in describing Eisenhower. However, in many instances, it is not leadership, but effective administration that proved to be his strongest suit. His ability to serve effectively as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was more a reflection of his ability to compromise and placate the many different factions involved than it was an indication of leadership, though leadership was certainly involved.
   
   This differentiation became more stark when Eisenhower became President. Leadership becomes more difficult when the followers aren't required by law and army regulations to comply. As President, Eisenhower many times not only failed to display leadership, he quite clearly abrogated responsibility entirely.
   
   In my opinion, Eisenhower's most lasting legacy was steering the country through some of the most turbulent periods of the Cold War without ever having to resort to military power. This at a time when many, if not most, of his advisors were counseling nuclear attack!
   
   It was in the area of civil rights, however, that Ike was most suspect. I try to be very careful in judging historical personages by current standards. To do so is usually unfair. In this case, however, at a time when very many political and social contemporaries were taking stands, Eisenhower disappeared. A case can be made for finessing the issue during the 1956 Presidential campaign, but his failure to "lead" thereafter can only be a tacit endorsement of segregation. Instead of "leading", Eisenhower tried to compromise and bring the parties together, using the same methods that had worked for him in Europe. This was not "leadership", it was abrogation of responsibility.
   
   Perhaps the most distasteful areas of he book are those that attempt to whitewash Eisenhower's relationship with his Army secretary Kay Sommersby. No intelligent human being can doubt that Eisenhower had a sexual relationship with Sommersby, however Ambrose goes through great pains and historical gymnastics to argue that though Ike was infatuated with Sommersby, had multiple opportunities to pursue her sexually, that she was undoubtedly willing and that all the officers around him were conducting extra marital affairs, Ike was innocent of adultery. One of his most laughable assertions was that he simply didn't have time or opportunity to have sex with Sommersby. Shortly thereafter, he documents a train trip to a Mediterranian resort on which Sommersby and several other "army girlfriends" accompanied the staff. At one point, he cites as proof, the fact that he attempted intercourse, but was "flaccid". Please. Simply acknowledge the fact and move on. I don't think any less of Ike's achievements because he had a girlfriend while at war. Ambrose seems to believe that doing so would somehow diminish him in the eyes of many, when instead it would more likely paint him as more human and subject to the same desires and faults as everyone else. I suspect very few will swallow Ambrose's assertions in this area.
   
   Nevertheless, if you're interested in a comprehensive biography on Eisenhower, this is a very good place to go for it.



2. Informative and easy to read.
   He looks at the subject from many angles and delivers a complete picture of the realities in IKE's world. I personally learned a lot not only about Eisenhower but about WWII, about the times at which he served and about the Cold War. A great book.



3. Unless John McCain wins in November, it will be too long before we have our next military hero turned president. They used to all be this way, especially following the Civil War---Democrat and Republican.
   
   Not sure about those reviewers who deemed this a hagiogrpahy or the writing "pedestrian"; the book is thorough, balanced and erudite. I commend the late Mr. Ambrose for such a wonderful portrait of one of America's great leaders in the two most important places: the battlefields and the Oval Office. They surely don't make 'em like Ike anymore (Barack H. Obama?).
   
   The book is long but not exhaustingly long, goes through his humble heartland childhood, early military life, wartime commands, presidency and beyond. Ambrose looks deep into Ike with letters and meetings never read or seen before. What more can one ask for, especially for me as a military historian? Even the descriptions of battles in WW2 are dead on.
   
   I also admire Ambrose for dedicating this book "TO THE MEN OF D-DAY." Again, if even a professor alive today could scribe so eloquently, these losers would be more likely to dedicate a book to Malcolm X or some Hollywood leftist who fought for "the rights of the oppressed." No respect for America or the military, but I digress...
   
   Read the book. It's objective, analytical and important. I will pass it on to my friends and family, so they can better understand our world and thus make the correct judgments and decisions down the road.
   
   Some Americans like to forget history. Shame on them. As Peggy Noonan said of Sen. Obama recently:
   
   America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.



4. This is a very good biography of one of our greatest generals and our 34th president. It begins with Dwight Eisenhower's upbringing in turn-of-the-century Kansas. Ike attended West Point, but did not see combat in World War I. His commanding officers in the Army during the interwar years saw that he had great talent, and Eisenhower was ultimately given command of the Allied forces in World War II. The sense of confidence and optimism that Ike was able to engender in those he commanded helped make D-Day a success.
   
   After the war, he became president of Columbia University. He was elected president in 1952, and gained an armistice in the Korean War six months after he took office. While he was in the White House, Ike presided over many years of peace and prosperity, maintaining a growing economy while avoiding budget deficits and inflation. He instituted the Interstate Highway System, but did not act as strongly as he could have on civil rights. Ambrose believed that Eisenhower's caution was an asset in foreign policy but was problematic for his domestic policy.
   
   The book relates that after he left the presidency, Eisenhower was hawkish on Vietnam and advised LBJ to be more aggressive in his attempts to win the war.
   
   Ambrose made no secret of the fact that he was an Eisenhower admirer, but managed to cover pretty fairly both the strengths and weaknesses of Ike's service as general and president. Americans should be grateful for Eisenhower's hand in ending the sinister Nazi regime and for keeping America safe and prosperous during a decade, the Fifties, that was far more dangerous than most members of Generations X and Y realize.



5. This is a great biography on an underrated president, and a very easy read. Ambrose is wonderful in being able to pick out the key incidents and describe the Ike's policies without delving into the everyday details that bog down Robert Caro's biographies. Also, while Ambrose doesn't hide his admiration for Ike, he does reflect critically upon his subject, particularly his slow reaction to civil rights and McCarthy, and his inability to stem the arms race.
   
   Part of Ike's genius was projecting a reassuring calm, while acting to keep all of his options open. For example, he never ruled out using atomic weapons against China in the Korean War or Quemoy Island dispute, but because he kept this option open the Chinese backed down. He was tough, but always left a way out for opponents to back down and save face. Some have wondered whether he truly ranks as a great president because he had no major crisis to face, but I believe Ambrose is right when he says preventing war and managing crises well is perhaps an even greater achievement. I have read many presidential biographies, but have rarely felt that any other president matches the maturity and self-confidence of Ike (George H.W. Bush is another president I think had Ike's maturity in managing the presidency). The difference between Ike in Ambrose's book and the childish pronouncements and discussions of the current Bush administration is startling.
   
   Having said that, I would have been interested in a bit of a longer biography, particularly more details on Ike's use of the CIA in Iran (very relevant today). This has been a very controversial aspect of his presidency and seems somewhat out of character for someone who opposed Israel and Britain during the Suez Canal crisis. Also, we get very little of the cabinet, perhaps because Ike relied on them less than other presidents did - even John Foster Dulles is discussed only where necessary. Ike seems to largely have used his cabinet to give him information, not make decisions. (can you imagine a book about Johnson without a central role for McNamara or Nixon without Kissinger?)
   
   Overall, this is a great book, and will hopeful get more Americans to ponder the presidency and whom we want to sit in the Oval Office.

5 comments about My Bondage and My Freedom (Penguin Classics).

1. What are your impressions of Frederick Douglass? What would you say about Douglass observation that "conscience cannot stand much violence? Do you think it was possible to be a good slave owner?Why or why not? Why does Douglass view slaveholders as well as slaves as victims of slavery? Why is education incompatible with slavery? Why do you think the white children's attitude toward slavery is different from that of their parents? How would you describe Douglass attitude towards Mrs. Auld?



2. Standing in line at the Lincoln Memorial, a book beckoned to me that I previously hadn't seen before. The face of Frederick Douglas grabbed my attention; a man that I've respected for many years, encountering him mainly through my study of Abraham Lincoln. On the spur of the moment, I snatched up a copy of "My Bondage and My Freedom", and within a few days, my admiration in Frederick Douglass was transformed from interest to awe.

   Frederick Douglass orginially penned his book as a response to people's accusations that someone as articulate and composed as he couldn't possibly be a former slave. With that goal in mind, Douglass wrote his memoirs, in a straight forward, powerful way. In the book, he painfully and honestly documents the path his early life took; the memories of being owned, how slaves coped during these times, and how he managed to pull himself out of it all.

   While Douglass' life in itself is amazing, (as he describes the amazing process he undertook to learn how to read), what amazed me even more are Douglass' discourses that he sprinkles through the book, discussing relevant issues during the time. In one instance, he addresses the concern about why slaves simply didn't run away from their oppressive situations. It's almost as if you can actually hear the people talking to Douglass and he responding to them.

   This book does not only tell the tale of a truly amazing American, but gives us a unique insight to the times. This book should be required reading in every high school in this country.




3. Having read a biography of Douglass many years ago, I thought I knew his story. Hearing through his pen was an entirely different matter. What a master of the language and insighful set of observations on human nature.
   
   I am a man of many words, but words fail me in my endorsement of this book. The letter to his former master in the appendix is worth the price of the book by itself.



4. Douglass's second, and lengthier, narrative fills in many of the gaps left in his first autobiography: we learn about his mother, his siblings, and more details about his psychological transformation from brute to man. It's quite insightful, as Douglass is careful to relate each of his personal experiences to the innate evil of the peculiar instituition, for both the slave and the slave holder.



5. THIS BOOK IS POWERFUL, ITS SHOCKING, AND IT IS ASPIRING. THERE IS NOTHING ON CHANNEL 11 THAT BRINGS THE HONEST, INSIGHTFUL, VERY REAL ACCOUNT THAT MR.DOUGLASS DOES IN HIS BOOK. FROM SLAVE TO FREE-MAN, THIS IS TRUELY AN AMERICAN SUCCESS. SKIP THE INTRO, AND JUMP INTO IT.

3 comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

1. Another home run in the superb American President's series. John Eisenhower paints a picture of Zachary Taylor that leaves us wishing he was among today's candidates for President. Had he lived, he may have been able to head off the Civil War, we will never know. In short, a great biography of a great man.



2. Eisenhower handles Taylor's military career and his exploits in the Mexican War very neatly and offers selections from other Taylor biographers like Hamilton and Bauer to aid his case and offer the casual reader alternate windows into the life. A very neat summary of a very brief administration, Eisenhower's account never seems rushed or unduly cursory. The books in the American Presidents series vary wildly in quality. This particular volume is not a breath-taking small gem like Hans Trefousse on Hayes or a specialist treasure like Ira Rutkow's book on Garfield, but Eisenhower nevertheless provides a splendid small book on an unfortunately overlooked president.



3. If you have don't have too much time to devote to President Taylor. This is the book for you. Only here and there the author wrote more than I wanted to know.

5 comments about Crow Killer: The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson (Midland Book).

1. The author has put together from varying pieces of history the story of a true mountain man whose legend is grown to larger than life. The early west was a brutal and harsh environment, not the romantic scenes that are painted in most novels. This is a good glimpse into the reality of the time and the people who shaped the country as we know it today.



2. There is alot of good info in this book anyone who is into the per1840's will like this book.



3. Crow Killer is a book of the tales of Johnson. Without those stories, Johnson would not be remembered this day and age. The movie Jeremiah Johnson would not have been made. There would be no interest of finding out more of Liver Eating Johnson. There is a site.....johnlivereatingjohnston.com that covers the real man and there is a picture therein of him circa 1877. He does not look like Redford.
   Crow Killer covers his adventures and various peers of a time from primitive living to the modern age.



4. If you're looking for a quick-reading, action story with colorful characters then this book is for you. If you're looking for accuracy, you better keep looking.
   
   As many reviewers have already mentioned, this book is based upon third- and fourth-hand information from old mountain men. Mountain men were famously known for telling "tall tales" and spinning "yarns". They took great delight in telling exagerated stories to "flat-landers". That, alone, should cause one to be skeptical of the authenticity of this book. I can't help but feel that the old mountain men who related these stories to the authors were laughing up their buckskinned sleeves the whole time.
   
   Two specific points regarding the lack of authenticity in this book come immediately to my mind... First, Johnson is said to have purchased a .30 caliber Hawken rifle before heading into the mountains. I seriously doubt the Hawken brothers ever made a .30 caliber rifle for mountain men. As an owner of several .30 and .32 caliber blackpowder rifles, I can testify to the fact that they have about the same ballistic performance as a modern .22 rifle. Blackpowder is not as powerful as modern smokeless powder. As a result, rifles intended for hunting and fighting were typically .50 caliber or larger. In those days (as well as today) a .30 caliber blackpowder rifle was considered a "squirrel gun" and was definately not a mountain man weapon.
   
   The second point that comes to my mind involves Johnson's escape from Blackfoot captivity. After biting through his rawhide bonds, and knocking his Indian guard unconscious, Johnson used the Indian's knife to cut his leg off at the hip. Facing a winter trek of hundreds of miles, he needed the human leg for food. In the book, the Indian is said to have survived this trauma. Ummm, excuse me, but cutting off a human leg at the hip involves severing the femoral artery. It's one of the biggest arteries in the body, and when severed, results in death in just a couple minutes. I don't doubt some mountain men occassionally resorted to cannibalism to survive, but the idea that this Indian could survive such an injury is hard to believe.
   
   There are many other points in this book that I feel are highly questionable, but I won't belabor the point. As I said above, if you like action-packed adventure stories, this book might be right up your alley. Otherwise, it's best to take this supposedly true tale with a very large grain of salt.



5. I have read many books and biographies about trapper and traders and this one although a fictional biography (hearsay and letters to the author) was fantastic; many true items; I'm sure. John Johnson - the main character; inspired the movie Jeremiah Johnson, that Robert Redford stared in. Quite the read!

5 comments about Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington.

1. The purpose of this book, according to the author's introduction, is "a moral biography" rather than "a life history." His point is that there is a "distancing" between ourselves and Washington; that he has become more myth and metaphor than man. The book aims to connect us today with Washington's character and personality.
   
   The author goes into great depth about the literary works (such as Addison's Cato, Bollingbroke and Filmer) that Washington read, but I feel Brookhiser is reading too much into these and provides no evidence of how Washington reacted to these works. The effect is to continue the distancing between us and Washington by not discussing the man himself; just the influences around him.
   
   I think also the author misses some very important points. For example, in the Introduction, the author says "it is not important to Washington's public career...what his stepchildren were like" but then devotes the entire last section of the book to metaphorical fatherhood of the Nation without discussing Washington in the role of an actual parent. I'm sorry, it is important! It tells more about his character than do the books he read.
   
   Another tool the author uses to connect us to Washington is to use modern-day examples. At first I appreciated references to Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan. However, after about a half-dozen of these it just makes the book seem dated.
   
   This is the first biography of Washington that I have read. I finished the book not knowing much more about him than when I started. I learned more about him reading Joseph Ellis' American Sphinx (about Jefferson) and David McCollough's John Adams. Which is sad; it is clear that Brookhiser had high hopes for this book and gave it a lot of thought. I just thought it missed the mark and didn't serve its own objectives.



2. Richard Brookhiser's "Founding Father" is one of several recent biographies of America's revolutionary generation that seeks too capture what he believes was the essence of George Washington's wisdom and character. Brookhiser offers moral lessons for a new generation of Americans that he believes have not been exposed to these virtues, but could profit by drawing lessons from Washington's life and career. At some level "Founding Father" is a reaction to Brookhiser's repulsion at the current state of history in the nation's universities.
   
   He is reacting, at least in part, to a culture war that has been underway in the United States over the nature of the past, one fundamentally about identity and whether U.S. history would be viewed as a one people, one nation narrative or with a multicultural, in some cases divisive, perspective. That the past might be divisive deeply troubled some national opinion leaders who questioned the reexamination of traditional interpretations, and the more multicultural, relativistic, and conflict-oriented approach to delving into history.
   
   This debate represented a battle for control of the national memory. Would it be one that is unified--one people, one nation--or one that was fragmented and conflict-oriented? This is an important issue and fully worthy of consideration by all in the marketplace of ideas. And the jury is still out.
   
   Some critics of the dominant approach to the past taken by academic historians reacted by providing their own versions of history that emphasized unity and morality. Richard Brookhiser's biography of George Washington is in this category. Brookhiser, a political operative and scholar associated with the National Review, emphasized on the "New Hour with Jim Lehrer on March 28, 1996, that "for all the efforts of, of the historians and the standard biographers, there's still this, this blankness to the man's image. So I thought it would be worthwhile to go back and, you know, not to uncover any new, new facts but to just put the ones that we know into a different light and to focus especially on the highlights of this public career and what it was about, about his character that enabled him to do them. You know, I'm not interested in details, if they don't relate directly to that."
   
   Brookhiser's selective retelling of the story of George Washington in this book is a blatant attempt to draw lessons from Washington's career that serve the larger public good as Brookhiser understands it. It is essentially a late twentieth century version of Mason Weems's "The Life of Washington," but without fabricated tales such as the cherry tree episode included. As a study of Washington's morals and virtues this work is most welcome. Having a point of view is not entirely a bad thing, and Brookhiser offers an eloquent one in this work. At the same time, as a work of history this is a decidedly less useful study of Washington than many others such as James Thomas Flexner's magisterial multivolume biography. Knowing that most people will only read one book on Washington I would recommend a collective biography, Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency: George Washington" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), which is a tour de force of historical insight.



3. This book was a fast little read and was mildly enjoyable. I didn't really gain any knowledge or special insight into Washington though. I learned more about Washington from reading Chernow's Hamilton bio. If you know absolutely nothing about Washington, this might be an OK starting point to get a feel for his character, if not much knowledge of his actual life.



4. Richard Brookhiser, news-magazine editor, columnist, and author, realizes the emotional disconnect between modern Americans and George Washington. While other presidents (Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, F. D. Roosevelt, Lincoln) are more respected because of their emotional condor, George Washington is often thought of as a stone-faced enigma. His resume wouldn't indicate as much: he started the battle that started the French-and-Indian War; he was a wealthy Virginia farmer; served in the Virginia House of Burgess; he served as the head of the Continental Army; he served as the chairman of the Constitutional Convention; and he served as the first President of the United States. His personal gravitas caused even the greatest men of the Americas (Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin) to stand in awe of him; one speech, powerfully delivered, turned soldiers from a desire to revolt to a desire to see their government succeed; even his enemies in foreign nations (Britain and France) marveled at the man. So, how could modern Americans be so disconnected from George Washington?
   
   Brookhiser's "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" is a "moral biography, in the tradition of Plutarch (11)..." That is to say, it does not so much examine the life of the subject (what he did), but the mental and emotional makeup of the subject (why he did it). He continues that "a moral biography has two purposes: to explain its subject, and to shape the hearts and minds of those who read it (12)." So, Brookhiser's lofty goal is to make you a better person by holding up Washington for your examination.
   
   The first (and lengthiest) part of "Founding Father" is a sketch of Washington's career. He shows what Washington did during the Revolutionary War, during the Constitutional Convention, and during his Presidency. During this time, the events are given brief, thumbnail treatments, and Washington's motivations are emphasized. The second part examines Washington's personal character through analyzing his God-given nature, his morals, and the ideas he entertained. The final part examines Washington in the light of fatherhood. How did the fact that he was childless influence him? How did the early death of his father influence him? How did the popular concept that a monarch is father of his country influence Washington? What is the relationship between Washington's morality and the fact that he owned slaves?
   
   The overall answer to why Washington is such an enigma to modern Americans (advanced by Brookhiser) is that he was a man of great passion who was prone to lash out in anger, and spent a lifetime counteracting that tendency through emotional distancing ("holding his cards close," choosing his words carefully, and being deliberately slow in committing himself). Thus, Washington's constant (and successful) struggle to restrain his passions, his continuous efforts to improve himself (body, mind, and soul), and his genuine love for others makes him an inspirational figure the reader is moved to emulate.
   
   Brookhiser has achieved his unique objectives in a unique way. Although modern readers may be unfamiliar with Roman figures (who were "pop culture" to the Founders), the way slavery suffocated the souls of both slaves and owners, and the details of 18th Century warfare, Brookhiser does an outstanding job in explaining these foreign concepts in such a way as to make them understandable to the modern reader. Indeed, he does the same for Washington.
   
   While Brookhiser's prose is a joy to read--high-minded yet accessible and witty--he does tend to contrast 18th century with 20th century culture in such a way as to distract. He takes subtle digs as President Clinton, expresses confusion at Newt Gingrich, and crudely comments on the fact that science has made intercourse unnecessary for procreation. Further, Brookhiser's endnotes are sporadic, direct quotes are not properly cited, and other interesting facts are not referenced. The editor would do well to provide better footnotes (not endnotes) in future editions.
   
   In all, this book comes highly recommended. The cultural distance between the late 1700s and early 2000s and the emotional distance Washington established make him an inaccessible man, but Brookhiser accomplishes his goal of making Washington both understandable and inspiring.



5. I am an avid history buff, and read many books. This was an illuminating adventure into the soul of our countries' father!