No comments about When War Becomes Personal: Soldiers' Accounts from the Civil War to Iraq.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940.

1. After the fall of France in June 1940, Winston Churchill was begging USA President Roosevelt for military aid (in fact, all sorts of support was then needed) as no one knew what would the 'fate' of the French fleet was going to be.
   Churchill kept reminding the American president that Britain would not surrender even if left alone.
   Churchill was defiant despite the fact that the two 'key' American ambassadors, in France and Great Britain, were pro Hitler (or at least they were not anti-Nazi).
   Joseph Kennedy (USA Ambassador to GB) openly cautioned his fellow Americans against entering the war because the 'allies' would soon be beaten.
   However, I would have liked to see more comments about the position and reaction of the king - king George VI.
   Was he indifferent?
   We should remember that Hitler had been addressing the King as the man whom the British Government circles have loathed, and as the only 'hope' for a reconciliation between the Third Reich and GB.
   In this context it is true that Churchill was indeed ALONE



2. William Manchester informs and entertains in this excellent historical account of the critical years leading up to WWII, juxtaposing the appeasement practices of predecessors Baldwin and Chamberlain with the unwavering belief in the principles of freedom held by Churchill. The book (along with Manchester's first volume) gives terrific insight into the transition from the glory days of the British Empire to the Post WWI apathy that beset the British public. As well, the work provides delightful commentary on the characters surrounding Churhill's life including his colorful mother Jennie, his wife Clementine and his nemesis Adolf Hitler.



3. The Last Lion, Alone covers the history of Europe from the time Hitler first came to power in Germany to the time that Hitler invaded the Low Countries and World War II began. During this period Churchill, who continually fought against the appeasement policies of Chamberlain, rose from Back Bench irrelevance to become Brittan's Prime Minister.
   
   The history of this period is a gripping saga of one man's malicious attempt to dominate Europe and another man's noble efforts to stop him - a classical case of good vs evil - told as an almost unbelievable story in the words of a master story teller.



4. Finest biography on Churchill ever written. A pity Manchester died before completing the third book of the trilogy.



5. William Manchester has written a classic description of the Wilderness Years of Winston Churchill.
   His foray into the abyss of English politics is described at length. Mr. Manchester described the practice of the English government of ignoring Mr. Churchill and his many diatribes in the House of Commons. In fact what was happening in Germany with the formation of the Nazi Party alarmed Winston. During this period of the Gathering Storm Churchill indeed has intelligence contacts who reported to him of the real situation happening in Germany.
   As a back bencher Winston continued to try to warn Baldwin and later Neville Chamberlain of the true Tectonic intentions. Some recent theories describe Churchill as an aggressive Patrician seeking glory. Sorry folks, you are indeed wrong. What Winston stood for was the right of people to have peace. I realize that Churchill was a Victorian Warrior. His stance today would be too extreme and unacceptable in our current political scheme. But in 1940 Mr. Churchill represented the last hope of a Democratic presence in the World willing to face the Nazi menace.
   Manchester does this book well. He describes in detail how Churchill economically survives by writing. Winston utilizes an extensive staff to write his many articles and books during his Wilderness years. Manchester describes in detail how he does it. These journalistic efforts kept Winston one step ahead of his Creditors. He continued to live the life of aristocracy even though he was really poor.
   His destiny awaits. Good for him! I rate it 5 Stars. To bad Manchester dies before old Winston does in trying to write the complete life of Chruchill!! Of course Manchester dies way after Winston, I'm just speaking metaphorically.

5 comments about Party of the Century: The Fabulous Story of Truman Capote and His Black and White Ball.

1. If you're fascinated by the 1960s, you'll love Davis's take of Truman Capote's legendary black and white ball held in the Grand Ballroom at the Plaza Hotel in November 1966. Davis has a gift for not patronizing her readers. To those readers who were living, thinking, socially conscious adults in the 60s and can personally recall Capote's self-aggrandizing antics, she retells the familiar story in a unique and lively manner. For those readers coming to this story very much after-the-fact, she succinctly provides all the necessary background information without overloading the story with unnecessary details. What I enjoyed most was Davis's ability to convey the tone and mood of the era she's describing. Nineteen sixty-six, in retrospect, seems to have been a pivotal year. Positioned as it was at the virtual midpoint between the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, it is neither a time of great optimism (American jingoism) nor a time of open rebellion. But clearly, the old order is beginning to fray at the seams. The anxiety people felt over not being invited to what promised to be "the party of the century" is hard to fathom today and is almost touching in its pathos. And to read over the list of "the invited" (which Davis provides as an appendix) is in a strange way somewhat comforting. Whatever their faults, these people (with the possible exception of Lee Radziwill) were at least famous because of their accomplishments or social status. But clearly the era of celebrities who would be "famous solely for being famous" was not far off, and Davis does a good job of suggesting its immanence. One can't help wondering if Capote's party didn't in some way help to bring it about. The last two chapters ("Hangover" and "Afterword") close the story with sobering accounts of Capote's artistic decline and of what eventually happened to some of Capote's famous guests. As social history or memento mori, THE PARTY OF THE CENTURY is a thoroughly satisfying read.



2. a great, fun read. a nice look into truman capote's life, the social scene of nyc in the 60s and this fabulous par-tay!



3. An enjoyable insight into the world of New York socialites and an unusual character who rose from small town anonymity to become a key power-broker in that world. The book also traces the personal traits which lead to his downfall. There is a great mix of colorful imagery of the lavish lifestyles and ultimate party, along with interesting social commentary. Truman's eccentricities are revealed in a way which doesn't allow him to become a caricature. A fun weekend read.



4. I, too, noticed several editor misses -- such as the Moss Hart title and Richard "Rogers" (21st Century editors don't have any depth anyway) but it was an interesting read because I wasn't around when the ball happened which makes for a good "history" (if you will) book. It's about 260 pages and the Ball doesn't happen until about page 200. It's a fun peek at certain lifestyles during the 1960s (probably the most action packed decade of the 20th Century.)



5. This book is filled with loads of information about Truman Capote and his B&W Ball. I truly enjoyed the information given. As another reviewer stated, there may have been some minor errors in this book,(just a very few), such as Kitty Carlisle's husband's actual profession. However, to me, those minor errors did not take away from the other exciting bits of info scattered throughout.
   
   In my opinion, I thought that this book was well written because whenever the author would mention a certain person or place, the author would also give some background on the individual or place. I am not old enough to have know all the players introduced in this book, so for me, even the information scattered throughout was juicy enough. I could not put this book down!
   
   There is plenty of "gossip" in this book, and even if most of the characters in this book have long passed away, I still felt a sense of having been there for a few minutes.
   
   The only reason I've given this book 4 stars and not five is because , as others have stated, I wish there had been more photos. I'm not sure if many of the photos were possibly difficult for the author to find or not, but either way, I wish I could have seen more photos of the celebrities. It was frustrating to get a play-by-play by the author, but no photos to go along with the wonderful descriptions. Since many of the celebrities' outfits were recreated by sketch artists and also printed in Esquire and Vogue and Harper's, it would have been nice to , at the minimum, have seen those sketches in this book.

2 comments about Woodrow Wilson: Princeton to the Presidency.

1. Dr. Maynard (on the faculty as Lecturer of Johns Hopkins as well as Princeton at the time his book was released) has written one of the more truthful, composite portraits of Woodrow Wilson. It is refreshing to see the depth of research, with references to older historians and Princeton alumni, who verify Wilson as the uncompromising and egotistical college president. The damage that Wilson did to Princeton continues to this day. And not only is it revealed that Wilson and his father were "a good hater" (to quote them both) but his first wife Ellen also had a terrible temper; and there is plenty of evidence.
   
   I was disappointed that the author did not go into Mary Peck's affair with Wilson more thoroughly; he also completely ignored the affair Wilson had with a Princeton professor's wife. Maynard's treatment of Wilson's doctor, Cary Grayson, was too kind; Grayson was a major player with Wilson's second wife, Edith, in the cover-up of Woodrow's almost total incapacity as president, due to his last stroke. Although, because of his art education at Princeton and the University of Delaware, he devoted many interesting pages to the proposed architectural design of the Quads.
   
   Nevertheless, the book is a page-turner. It almost reads like a novel...because in this case, the truth about Wilson seems almost stranger than fiction. This book brings more evidence to light about the truth of Wilson as a racist, a liar, a man who could not compromise, a man with tunnel vision, a man who didn't know how to raise money for the college, and a man who constantly bickered with the trustees over the Quads and almost everything else he wanted to introduce to the campus. He would not compromise on any issue, whether academic or political. And he couldn't keep friends; as his own father was quoted as saying, "I never had a friend who was faithful to me." Like father, like son.
   
   We see a picture of Wilson living with a tortured ego in a psychological "twilight zone" who could not be a friend with anyone who disagreed with him about anything. He had an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a craving for domination in everything.
   
   The author, as a former student of Princeton himself (B.A. in Art History), covers the preceptorial system Wilson brought to Princeton, which is still advertised on their website, as Wilson's "brainchild," although I do not believe it facilitates excellence in education; it pressures students to "BS" their way through the course material. And the Eating Clubs Wilson opposed, are still there, albeit, they are now co-ed and less in number. Wilson wouldn't agree, but fraternities would have had a better socializing effect on students than these Clubs.
   
   I wondered if the author would still have a job at Princeton after such a tour de force. So I was not surprised that he ended the book with what amounts to a three paragraph apology for Wilson, in which he attempts to vindicate Wilson's twisted educational vision for Princeton, by stating "Princeton University itself has finally come around to the blueprint that Wilson put forward one hundred years ago..." The author closed his book saying that "history would prove him (Wilson) right," confirms the author's vested interest as a former student and now on the Princeton faculty. A good read, but with that vested interest, one has to wonder if all the drama and fireworks presented for the previous 340 pages, is a chimera covering his own loyalty to Princeton...just putting a good face on Wilson's rocky road from Princeton to the presidency.



2. In this elegantly written biography, Maynard explores Woodrow Wilson's time at Princeton (as a student, faculty member, and university president), detailing the triumphs and defeats that did so much to shape the future president's personality and perspective. To anyone interested in Woodrow Wilson...or Princeton...or the history of higher education in America for that matter, Maynard's book is indispensable.

5 comments about Memoirs of the Second World War (An Abridgement of the Six Volumes of the Second World War).

1. I read this good book, here in Brazil.Among the World War II great leaders, only Churchill wrote a book about that war.
   About american eugenics , race and gender relations, there isn't a single word against or about, in this big book, with more than 1,000 pages.There's some maps inside.This book isn't only about World War II, but also about the war's roots and fruits, includind about Cold War.
   This book is very biased.The Churchill's mistakes in World War II, were enormous.About France's battle in 1940, seems that Churchill was in another planet then, not as England's leader then.Ever big Churchill's or England's failure, has almost nothing or no place at all, in this book.About war production and military weapons, there's almost nothing.
   Secrets about Colossus computer and the breaking of german Enigma code machine or "purle" japanese code,were war secrets and also had no place on this book.
   Even with so many bias and other failures, this book remains good and easy to read.



2. Since this book was updated, there are new facts have come out about the statistics of WWII and the roles the Allies and the Axis played in it.
   That's to be expected.
   It is one sided with Churchill at times believing in his absolute right and his problems getting his view across to the Americans and the Russians.
   At times he lays too much emphasis on the fact that Britain won the war with the "help" of the Allies. And at other times he states that without the Allies Britain would have been sunk.
   As confusing and horrible as that time was, reading another book about the American side would be also helpful as we had to fight the Japanese also and it was our POW's on the defensive there. It seems to downplay the effect the Japenese had on the war which was not trivial at all.
   
   Though he seems to describe the battle of Leyete and Midway fairly well.
   It's a good read, and it's interesting to see the other "side" of the war from a great man and you won't be sorry to read it.



3. This book is one of the most comprehensive I've ever read.
   
   I have a huge quantity of books about Second World War, including biographies of important people who took part in it; I can ensure this one is always within easy reach of my hands.
   Of course, you must be conscious before reading this book that it's been written by an English leader who was responsible not only for his country but for lots more and the War itself. He wrote it, based upon his documents and remembrances of those hard days.
   I didn't read the six volume set that is his thorough and complete biography, however "Memoirs of the Second Word War" is a wide-ranging book, starting in the thirties and going through all periods of war, till some time post-war.
   
   If you have a deep knowledge of WWII, might see that some facts are missing.
   In this book he does not make any mention of allies who took little but important part during those tough days. For example, he just talk about the capture of Monte Cassino , in Italy, without making any mention of Monte Castelo and Montese which resulted in prison of one entire German Division (148º Infantry) in a hard fighting, by FEB (Brazilian Expeditionary Force). These details however, do not take his merits away. On the contrary, Sir Winston Churchill show us others things that we, mere mortals, would not imagine that could be happen at that time, such as how dubious, distrustful and cheek Stalin was!
   He also exposes his disagreements and discussions with American allies when they had different point of views in some issues, and shows himself as a human being and not as a superman.
   
   We must be aware that, as he has said, "It must be not supposed that I expect everybody to agree with what I say", so it is a book to explain his point of view of this important event and not to please someone. Of course, you do not have to get this book as unique reference for researches or studies but as an addition to them.
   
   "Memoirs of the Second War" is a masterpiece which must be read for everyone who enjoy and study WWII.



4. `Memoirs of the Second World War' by Winston Churchill
   
   This abridged (6 volumes) edition of Churchill's WWII memoirs is as important today as it was when penned. One is left with a true sense of the thoughts passing through the Prime Minister's mind which led to the extraordinary choices he was to decide through the bulk of the `40's. I've always felt the European perspective of the war years was under appreciated in America, when after all, these were the souls who dealt with the ravages of war at their front door.
   
   Churchill's beautiful prose and detailed account of all major Allied decision making is required reading for any history, and certainly any WWII aficionado. It probably should be for all American high school students, as well. Whether or not you agree with these opinions, I definitely think you'll find a passionate, wonderfully composed piece of history in this excellent abridgement from one of history's greatest intellects.



5. With so many books that have been written from the American viewpoint (and I was born in the good old USA), it was refreshing to get the British view, straight from the Lion's mouth. Yes, he does make himself a bit more of a hero then he needed to, and it is a bit slanted, but what memoirs aren't? In fact this makes me very sad that Stalin and Roosevelt never wrote one, it would be wonderful to have been able to compare the three memoirs.
   
   I really enjoyed his "proper" English tone and words. By the time I was done reading it, it almost made me wish I had read the full 4,000+ unabridged one. Perhaps one day I will find the time. A must read for anyone getting deep into WWII.

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. A fascinating biography of the exuberant Scottish-American tycoon and philanthropist.
   
   Nasaw covers all of Carnegie's life from early boyhood in 1830's Scotland, to ambitious telegraph boy in Pittsburgh, to iron and steel magnate, to philanthropist and finally to international peace advocate. Most of the 800 pages go swiftly. Nasaw writes well and I generally found his very detailed account valuable, especially for Carnegie's business adventures and for his final peace activities, although perhaps rather less so for all the details of his family life.
   
   In Nasaw's account Carnegie comes across as much more of a "businessman" than an "industrialist". His initial fortune was made in his twenties through insider dealings from his role as a key aide to railroad magnates who were making their own fortunes by tricks such as awarding lucrative contracts to companies that they themselves owned. But starting in his late twenties Carnegie did build a mighty iron and steel empire, with remorseless business logic.
   
   Carnegie in his middle age inevitably comes across as a great hypocrite. He had given speeches extolling the virtues of unions and of the need for employers to treat workers fairly, but he went on to mercilessly repress workers at his own plants, including cutting wages, extending hours, and suppressing all unions. He denied responsibility for the climactic Homestead lockout which was designed to break the steel unions, but Nasaw shows that he was kept fully informed and must have either made or supported the key decisions. Nasaw explains how Carnegie rationalized this harshness to himself, as a necessary part of business and of social evolution, but still his deeds fit poorly with his words.
   
   However in his later life, especially after selling Carnegie Steel, Carnegie became indisputably a genuine exuberant philanthropist. He lived well (very well indeed!) but he also gave away a vast fortune, founding an astounding 2500 libraries, plus many Institutions, the Carnegie Hall, various Hero funds, and many peace organizations.
   
   In his latter years, Carnegie's incessant lobbying for international peace is truly striking. Nasaw sometimes deprecates Carnegie's endless expressions of optimism in the face of repeated failures and his ceaseless lobbying of presidents, monarchs, and statesmen. But given that Carnegie believed war would be a disaster (as WWI proved all too well) and was committed to doing whatever he could for peace, then his behavior seems both entirely rationale and commendable. Yes, he was often grasping at straws and he did aggressively pester and "name drop" to try to move things forward, but given the stakes it is difficult to condemn his donning of a bold face and his trying again and again in the face of failures and cynicism. Alas, his efforts were probably inevitably doomed, but given his beliefs and commitment, it seems hard to criticize him for trying as hard as he did.
   
   Overall, Carnegie's life is a fascinating one, involving many contrasts and apparent contradictions. Nasaw captures it well and succeeds in making Carnegie a surprisingly sympathetic character, without concealing his flaws.



2. How to describe Andrew Carnegie? Certainly he would have to be one of the most fortunate individuals to have ever been born. Son of a hardscrabble weaver from a small hamlet near Edinburgh, Scotland, Carnegie and family immigrated to Pennsylvania whan he was a young man. Perhaps never before in history, has a particular man, with certain skills, found himself at the right place, at the right time and under the right circumstances as did Andrew Carnegie in 19th century western Pennsylvania.
   
   Despite having no formal education, Carnegie was certainly a very intelligent man. He educated himself over the years to the extent that he was considered a very philosophical author and sought after speaker on many of the issues of the day. He hitched his wagon to the right horse when he became assistant to an up and comer in the Pennsylvania Railroad. From an early age, Carnegie discovered the beauty of dividends and compound interest, money earned not by virtue of labor, but solely by virtue of having money. Due in large part to his connections, he was able to parley inside information into increasingly lucrative investments, to the point that he was soon able to turn over daily operation of his several businesses to very able lieutenants while he enjoyed the good life. These lieutenants, assisted by a series of unique events and developing technologies, made Carnegie the richest man in the world.
   
   While it may sound as if Carnegie was merely an observer and accumulator, he certainly deserves much credit for his success. He was an early pioneer in the concept of cost accounting and through a ruthless system of unit cost reduction, both in the areas of vertical integration and labor cost, was able to successfully grow his business and survive numerous economic downturns which bankrupted his competitors.
   
   Many decry Carnegie's business practices, most notably in the areas of labor/manangement relations and anti-competitive practices. However, this demonstrates a very common failing in many commentators; holding historical personages to current standards. The same people that condemn Carnegie's labor practices, denigrate George Washington for owning slaves, or Harry Truman for making racist comments. Each of these, though immoral by current standards, were men of their times.
   
   Owners of manufacturing entities were expected to battle with labor. Labor, in the mid-late 19th century was heavily connected with the burgeoning socialist movement which was looked upon with disfavor by much of society. In fact, it is no coincidence that those of Carnegie's competitors whose labor forces became organized, were largely those that failed in the repeated economic panics of the day. Carnegie succeeded, and grew, as a result of reinvesting profits and maintaining low unit cost. Ironically, though his Homestead steel works became the symbol for labor/management violence, he considered himself one of the most enlightened managers of the day.
   
   Carnegie is viewed, with Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt in the class of "Robber Barons" which sprang up during the era, however, Carnegie is vastly different than each of these individuals. While many of his contemporaries benefited and suceeded largely due to watered stock and market manipulation, he was very proud, and quick to point out that he never operated a corporation and never sold a share of stock. He was definitely NOT a monopolist (U.S. Steel was formed as a result of his sale of Carnegie Steel to J. P. Morgan and investors). He was simply a supreme capitalist and the first of his type and scale.
   
   He is condemned by others for taking advantage of political and business connections not available to others. Again, that was common practice in the era. Many things that he did, while legislated against now, were perfectly legal and accepted business practices of the times.
   
   All that having been said, I get the impression, especially in the later parts of the book, that Carnegie could be an insufferable prig. I imagine it becomes easy to view ones self as omnipotent and all wise, when everything one touches turns to gold and one is constantly praised for his good works. However, it is telling that he constantly bragged of being successful while only working 2-3 hours/day, lecturing his many employees to enjoy leisure time, while at the same time instituting a 12 hour/7 day a week work schedule. It seems almost unbelievable that he was unaware of the hypocrisy of some of actions, but after reading the book, I actually believe that he was. By letting his managers do the dirty work of making his money, he was able to "keep his hands clean" and disavow any unpleasantness that might result.
   
   Though hopelessly naive, it is difficult to condemn a man who literally pioneered the concept of philanthropy and spent his last decade in a never flagging crusade for world peace. He tirelessly advocated the formation of a League of Nations/United Nations style world arbitration body, with military enforcement powers, well before any of his contemporaries. While he would doubtless be overjoyed to learn of the existence of the current United Nations, he would nonetheless be less than pleased with its corruption and lack of effective authority.
   
   All in all, a rather good treatment, not just of Carnegie, but of the period itself and many of the historical figures of the era. At times, the book dragged and became tiresome, but not exceedingly so. I would highly recommend the book for anyone interested not just in Andrew Carnegie but in late 19th century American and British history.



3. David Nasaw succeeded in creating a complete record of the life of Andrew Carnegie. As the reader, you come to know that Carnegie was born to a family of poor weavers in Scotland before moving to the United States, beginning work at a young age and eventually becoming unfathomably wealthy as an investor and entrepreneur in the steel business.
   
   All of the details are there in this book, and in that way, you know the facts of Carnegie's life, but at the same time, you really never get the feeling you know Carnegie. I don't know if that is Nasaw's fault, or if Carnegie is just not a man who allows a biographer to know him very well. Either way, the book feels empty in a way that the best biographies feel full.
   
   You catch glimpses of Carnegie's true personality; he obviously liked to see himself as the wise elder statesman, handing out advice to protoges, even when those protoges were successful 50 year old business men, or even presidents. He seems to wear out his welcome, and relationship with a lot of these people because he only sees the knowledge and advice flowing one way. Carnegie comes across as a man too removed from the realities of life to understand (or maybe care) how he was truly perceived.
   
   Other than that, you never get a real feel for how Carnegie became wealthy, whether he possessed a unique talent or ability which allowed him to become the richest man in the world, or how he fit in to the world in which he lived. I recently finished "Mellon," by David Cannadine, which tackles a similarly tough subject, but I finished that book feeling like I had much more insight into the man than I did in this case.
   
   Recommended for fans of history or biography, but still missing a critical spark required of a five-star biography.



4. Insight into a fascinating and complex person living in a fascinating complex time. A man who was unique and had incredible influence on his surroundings, yet in many ways was typical of his era



5. As a born and bred Pittsburgher, I really looked forward to this history of the Robber Baron years in my home town. I was not disappointed. This is a fascinating tale of Andrew Carnegie's life and his entanglements with the other powers of the era. Nasaw does a terrific job of getting into the detail of Carnegie's dealings and uncovering the myths of this powerful high roller. Living and making his millions before the Security and Exchange Commission came into the limelight, Carnegie and his friends were able to buy and sell stocks with impunity. Trading rights and warrants and patents for stock, these original Capitalists were able to exchange future value for present earnings/dividends. Additionally, their intertwined friendships and business dealings, perfectly legal in their day and totally illegal today, allowed them to acquire wealth by leveraging their current positions of power for insider information and contract preference in order to move money from stakeholders from one company and into their pockets. This was a fascinating time when "buyer beware" was not backed by the Government guaranties of today. They laid themselves on the line and used their own intuition to make their fortunes. Nasaw grabs the facts and headlines and details to the reader how it influenced Carnegie and his peers.
   
   The main avenue of initial funding came from the funneling of money from the Pennsylvania Railroad run by J. Edgar Thomson and Thomas Scott (soon to be Assistant to Secretary of War, Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania) leveraged their holdings and executive powers into contracts produced by Scott during the Civil War which allowed them and their protégé, Andrew Carnegie, to extend their influence and money making via the Pennsylvania RR. This was the relationship (Thompson, Scott, and Carnegie) that funneled money into Carnegie's next set of investments.
   
   This biography seems to be the definitive story of Carnegie's life as it is full of primary references to the original papers written by Andrew Carnegie and his friends and some enemies. This newly manifested documentation puts Nasaw's biography at the forefront. Nasaw often compares and contrasts this work to the widely read and referenced Andrew Carnegie Autobiography and points out the many discrepancies between that work and the actual documentation that Carnegie, himself authored. Additionally, the official biographer of Carnegie, Burton J. Hendrick, chosen by Louise Carnegie, is corrected many times by the exhausting research of Nasaw.
   
   Nasaw gets into the nitty gritty of the financial arrangements of the railroad barons and gives very good examples of the dealings and failings of the system at that time. As I continued to read into this tome, I couldn't believe how it kept my interest through nearly 800 pages. I can honestly say that the more I read, the more I wanted to read. This is truly one of the best written biographies that I have ever read.
   
   The only two small negatives that I found in this book (one is mentioned by at least a couple of other reviewers): there is not a lot to his private life that shows through once he is married. There are glimpses into his vacationing, but not really into the privacies of his marriage or his daughter, Margaret. This might be due to the length of the book. You do not get a good look at Louise or any depth of Carnegie's character away from business. The second flaw comes after the first 600 pages and we begin into Carnegie's retirement years. The book is very detailed and I'm not sure that I'd want it any differently, but these years are not the most exciting. There are very good nuggets of information along the way, but it seems a little long winded on the time frame being documented.

5 comments about Mary Queen of Scots.

1. Antonia Fraser's first biography still stands as one of her best. This is a sympathetic look at Mary who at a young age was used as a political pawn, raised not to be "Queen of the Scots" but to be Queen of France. After the Dauphin died, she eventually returned to Scotland as a stranger to the culture and religion of her native land. Though a strong women, she was easily led astray by her passions and her advisors. Her cousin Elizabeth I, offered Mary shelter after she was forced to abdicate her Scottish thrown. Instead of shelter, Elizabeth held her prisoner moving her from place to place to isolate her as much as possible. This is the first great read from Fraser.



2. Antonia Fraser's book, Mary Queen of Scots, is very readable and entertaining. However, the author's "hero-worship" of Mary and low opinion of English Queen Elizabeth I rings out loud and clear. Fraser makes history come alive; just be aware that this is her version of history.



3. Before this book, I'd only just gotten started on my Mary Stuart research, having only read two "semi-biographies"(Mary and Elizabeth by Jane Dunn & Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Darnley) of her. I was hesitant about buying the book because I read the reviews of it on here and it sounded ugly. But I'm very glad I did buy it, because now I am much, much better informed on the subject of Mary than before.
   
   I'm an Antonia Fraser fan, and this book is written in her usual poetic and heart-warming style. She is, I'd have to say, among my favorite historical biographers. She is clearly very passionate about her subject and I was able to sympathize with Mary throughout. Likewise, she is very good about referencing unlike her counterpart Alison Weir.
   
   I'd have to disagree with the reviewers who said this book made Mary out to be saintly. She is portrayed, in my opinion, as sweet and strong, but by no means perfect. There were times in the bio when I thought she was extremely foolish, and often times I was out and out annoyed by her. I agreed with Fraser's conclusion that Mary probably did not try kill her second husband, Henry Darnley and that it was a political set-up. I also agree with her about the Casket Letters. I'm on the fence about Bothwell. I think many of his actions are not at odds with a rapist and abductor. Likewise, I don't see how or why he would proceed to murder Darnley and just hope that Mary would marry him, which could mean prompt execution or life imprisonment. But I didn't mark this against Fraser, because I'm still trying to figure out what I feel on the subject, and also because she convincingly argued her side.
   
   
   I do take issue with a few slender things in the book. For one, I love Fraser's style, but I did find her constant use of footnotes distracting*. And I definitely agree with the reviewers who said it was biased against Elizabeth. Some of the commentary, such as sharp jabs at Elizabeth's beauty and lifestyle, were entirely editorial and completely uncalled for. Fraser degraded Elizabeth so hard at times that I felt her case for Mary might have been a little too weak. I've read several books on Elizabeth and none so far have made petty, out of place remarks about Mary and rightly so. Both were interesting, incredible women and one need not be knocked down at the expense of the other. This bio would have gotten five stars had there been a little more objectivity.
   
   
   
   
   
   *Most of them I felt could have been worked conveniently into the narrative.



4. amazing book makes you feel as if you want to be in that world most touching and amazingly well written with no bias and no dodgy facts very good choice of language



5. Overall, this is a well-written and well-researched biography, although not objective enough about its subject. I appreciated the beautiful writing and the thorough scholarship of this book, although in the end I could not share the author's unqualified admiration for Mary Queen of Scots.
   
   Ms. Fraser presents enough evidence to convince me that Mary probably was not involved beforehand in her second husband Darnley's murder, and that the infamous Casket Letters were probably forgeries or interpolations of other letters. She was certainly not prepared by her French upbringing to deal with the problems she found in Scotland, and was very ill-served by the brutal Scottish lords there, including her own half-brother.
   
   However, Mary apparently did willingly marry her husband's murderer, which cost her the love of her subjects; willingly fled to England even though she knew she was seen as a rival to Queen Elizabeth's throne; and later on became involved in conspiracies in England to overthrow Elizabeth, which virtually forced Elizabeth to have her executed. Even Ms. Fraser cannot explain away these naive and reckless actions, although she tries. Her bias towards her subject is rather obvious. I also shared other readers' frustration with the many untranslated French and Latin phrases, which slows down the reading for those of us not fluent in those languages.

5 comments about Lee.

1. From the time I was a toddler close to 60 years ago, I was taught that Robert E. Lee was, except for Jesus Christ, the greatest man who ever lived. A lifetime of study has confirmed my parents' opinion...I am NOT unbiased about General Lee. If Robert E. Lee was the greatest man, Douglas Souhthall Freeman was the greatest Civil War author, and he's not unbiased, either.
   
   Anyone reading this probably already knows Lee's story...born of a great mother and a useless father whose earlier greatness was long forgotten... raised in aristocratic poverty....West Point with no demerits...30+ years in the Army as an engineer, with brief combat in Mexico...offered command of the Union Army...a man who cried as he followed Virginia out of the Union...took over the Army of Northern Virginia a year into the war and made it, man for man, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known...held off a vastly larger, and better supplied, Army for three years...surrendered, then set the example for his men in becoming citizens of one nation...accepted the Presidency of a small college, and, in the five and a half years he had left, started it on the road to becoming the world-class school it is today...served God to the end, suffering his final heart attack while running a Vestry meeting at the Church pastored by one of his old generals.
   
   In 1915, a young newspaperman named Douglas Southall Freeman accepted a contract to write a 75,000 word biography of General Lee. Born in Lynchburg, the son of one of Lee's troops, he had learned about the General at a young age. Twenty years after starting, Dr. Freeman finally finished his 1,000,000 word biography, and saw it published in four volumes; those four volumes ARE definitive, and the greatest biography in the English language.
   
   Richard Harwell, who knew Dr. Freeman, made this one volume abridgment in the 1960's [and also a very fine one volume version of Freeman's "George Washington"]....it is very probably the best one volume study of Lee available, for which Harwell would give ALL the credit to Dr. Freeman. OK, what is lost in the abridging? Fair question if you're spending your money for this...I'm going to round numbers. Freeman takes 400 pages for the first 54 years [100 for Mexico], 1,600 for the war, and 400 for the last five and a half years. Harwell has roughly 100 [27 for Mexico], 400 and 100. Lost are the footnotes, the appendecies, the bibliography, much of the dialog, and most of the redundencies....
   
   Should you buy, and read this? Definitely. There are a LOT of one volume biographies of General Lee, ranging from kid's versions, to good, bad, and indifferent. Two or three are by men who actually met him. Harwell has done a superb job. Now the real question....do you need to read the whole four volumes? If you are a poor soul like me, you already have. Your best bet would be a used set, but if affordable, they may not be in good shape, and if in good shape, they may be expensive. [I was lucky to find a decent set for $35]. ["Lee's Lieutenants" is easy to find at a good price, and "George Washington" is impossible]. There were badly overpriced paperbacks available, but I'm not sure they still are; there is a beautiful leather bound edition in print, but you can imagine the price. The four volumes are definitive, and very readable....while you're deciding, read this first...



2. "Lee" is an excellent one-volume abridgment of Douglas Southall Freeman's epic four-volume life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Freeman's original work, published in 1934, was based on over two decades of research into Lee's correspondence and military dispatches, and clearly benefited from contacts with friends, family members, and veterans of the Civil War who had known Lee in life. Richard Harwell's abridgment, at nearly 600 pages, is still an heroic length, but far more managable for the general reader.
   
   The Lee that emerges from this biography is a man who very consciously drew his sense of duty and responsibility from his Revolutionary War forebears. His father, "Light House" Harry Lee, was one of George Washington's cavalry commanders. His wife was a step-granddaughter of Washington himself. Lee knew genteel poverty as a youth, and the burden of caring for younger siblings and an invalid mother. Lee finished second in his class at West point, the result of the disciplined application of an excellent mind and the conscious molding of a self-controlled personality into an officer and a gentlemen in the very best sense of those terms.
   
   Lee's exploits in the Civil War have overshadowed his long apprenticeship in arms, following his graduation from West Point in 1829. As an engineer officer, Lee spent the pre-war years working on a variety of military and civil engineering projects around the young United States, learning the challenges of planning and logistics. His superb performance in the Mexican War on the staff of Commanding General Winfield S. Scott made his reputation in the Army, and gave him opportunities for line assignments in the cavalry he would otherwise have not seen. However, the glacial pace of peacetime promotion prevailed, and by 1861, Lee was only a Colonel. His talents were such that he was immediately considered for general officer command as the Civil War loomed.
   
   Lee's decision to go with his native state of Virginia at the breakup of the Union is one that may be opaque to present-day readers; Freeman does his best to explain Lee's reasons. Freeman's narrative likewise does justice to Lee's increasingly central role in the conduct of the Confederate military effort. The bulk of this volume covers the Civil War, and Freeman does not spare Lee his faults in what was by all accounts a remarkable effort against the odds. Lee was an exceptional strategist and logistician, but his preference for delegating battlefield management to subordinates cost him in a number of battles, especially later in the war as less experienced men took command. Likewise, Lee paid a price for his reluctance to enforce his will on stubborn subordinates. Freeman highlights Lee's conduct of civil-military relations with the Confederate Government in Richmond.
   
   Freeman's account of Lee's brief life after the Civil War may be especially illuminating of the man. Lee accepted the military outcome of the war and got on with his life, in the face of grief over losses, personal poverty, and sometimes studied insults from victorious Unionists. He lent his still considerable talents as an administrator, and his reputation, to small Washington College, saving it from extinction and turning it into a first-rate college for the young men of the South.
   
   Freeman's scholarship, especially in his analysis of the Civil War, is now somewhat dated. However this book is still very highly recommended for its insights into the personality and character of Robert E. Lee, man and gentleman.



3. I preface my remarks by explaining that I am an avid reader of the history of the period from pre-revolution to post civil war.
   
   This book is very readable and not only offers concise detail but also gives terrific insight into the state of the Union and Confederacy during Lee's life. I couldn't put it down, and have since ordered others as a gift.
   
   Lee was truly a one of kind gentleman and American, and had Virginia not been in the south or neutral, he ultimately would have led the Union forces.
   
   It is a must read.



4. Magnificent
   5+ Stars.
   I originally read Douglas Southall Freeman's 4 Volume biography of Robert E. Lee 35 years ago. I was so impressed with both the author and the General that I have been a Civil War buff ever since. Recently, after rereading James Robertson's biography on General A.P. Hill, my interest in Lee was again piqued and I picked up the abridged version of Douglas Freeman's Pulitzer Prize winning classic to refresh my history of Marse Robert. Although I was walking old literary ground, I was amazed at how wonderful it was to again read about the amazing life of one of America's true icons. Absolutely magnificent in all respects. Richard Harwell's abridgement of the 4-volume biography was masterful in every since. Harwell captured both the beauty and depth of Freeman's style without diminishing any of the wonder or essence of General Robert E. Lee the man and General. Extremely well crafted in all respects that none of the Freeman magic was lost or diluted.
   Freeman's style was to view the Civil War events through Lee's eyes, ears, and available information rather than examine events through post war after-the-fact analysis: What did General Lee know at the time with the information he had and could "feel". Without going into an in-depth biographical review of General Lee, suffice it to say Mr. Freeman captured the essence of both Robert E. Lee the man and general. He artfully examines how Lee reacted to various situation and how his prior experiences and nature influenced both his decisions and personal relationships. All in all the absolute best biography ever written on General Robert E. Lee and a requirement in any Civil War expert or buff's library.
   Note: The final 4 chapters are an incredible summation of what made Lee, Lee. Freeman gets to the nub of it all in beautifully written concise statements. The most amazing thing of all is that the characteristics of what made General Robert E. Lee great are as timely today as they were back then. In the pantheon of great Americans he stands tall, very tall.
   Must read for anyone interested in the Civil War. Harwell's abridged version of Freeman's masterpiece is wonderful and although 600+ pages is really a rather quick read due to the excellent writing. I found it very hard to put down and read the entire book in only 3 days. Do yourself a favor and read a magnificent biography on a true American icon.



5. Not much is written about Lee, the man, and this book solves that problem. Excellent.

5 comments about Jane Austen: A Life.

1. Claire Tomalin is one of the foremost biographers in the world today, in an exclusive group that includes Peter Ackroyd, David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and a few others. Having read and thoroughly enjoyed her recent books on Samuel Pepys and Thomas Hardy, I purchased this book to look at one of Tomalin's older works. I also knew next to nothing about Jane Austen. I was not disappointed on either count. The book is outstanding, and I am currently in love with Jane Austen.
   Jane Austen was a brilliant, witty, unsentimental woman who led a remarkably unremarkable life. One expects great writers to live dramatic lives, but this just isn't true in Austen's case. She had written her first three novels by age 24, but wouldn't publish them or write another for ten years. She would never get rich off of her writings.
   Though she certainly drew on characters and scenes in her own life, much of Miss Austen's novels come from her vivid imagination. For instance, Jane Austen didn't socialize with the rich upper crust, but many of her books are about them.
   It seems Jane was a bit of a tomboy as a youth, and her high intelligence and biting wit often intimidated potential suitors. She was apparently in love only once, and this didn't work out. So she became, like her sister Cassandra with whom she was very close, a spinster. At least she was able, in her thirties, to support herself through her writings.
   Jane Austen died young, at age 41. Thus her life, her career, and Claire Tomalin's biography end prematurely. But as Jane Austen herself wrote, "If a book is well-written, I always find it too short."
   This book ended too soon. It is a beautifully written biography, highly recommended.



2. Claire Tomalin in Jane Austen: A Life really delivers a wonderful story, not just a boring listing of events from the author's life. I've used this book for research before, and finally decided to buy it for my own collection and read it just for fun. I recommend this to anyone that has been curious about the author's life or any serious Janite.



3. 1997's "Jane Austen: A Life" is Claire Tomalin's highly readable, even dramatic account of the life of the popular romance novelist. Jane Austen left little for her future biographers beyond her published novels and some surviving letters and manuscripts. Tomalin addresses Jane in the context of her large and interesting family and their Hampshire friends and relatives. The result doesn't necessarily add a great deal to our limited store of knowledge about Jane Austen; it does provide some interesting insights into her context, and should bury forever any concerns about the source of Austen's acute understanding of human nature or the material for her novels.
   
   The good news about "Jane Austen: A Life" is that Claire Tomalin is a gifted writer and her book will be a page-turner for many fans. Tomalin has done her extensive research. In addition, Tomalin is not shy about speculating when it comes to the signficant gaps in our knowledge of Austen's life. Her speculation is generally reasonable and plausible, and almost always fascinating to read. It is less clear how much of the book is reasonable inference from the limited record and how much edges toward historical fiction.
   
   Tomalin includes her own literary criticism on Jane Austen's various works. This criticism is frankly hit or miss. Her comments on "Lady Susan" highlight its unusual leading character. Her analysis of the novel fragment "The Watson" explains why Jane Austen never finished it. However, she unfairly slights one of the main characters in "Sense and Sensibility", misreads the fate of Mr. Wickham and Lydia in "Pride and Prejudice", and perhaps misses the point of "Mansfield Park." Readers familiar with Jane Austen's novels can draw their own conclusions.
   
   Jane Austen is as vivid as Claire Tomalin can make her in this biography, a clever, acutely observant woman who must on occasion have been a little intimidating in person. She is very much a family person, at the beck and call of brothers, cousins, nieces and nephews all her life. We come to appreciation for how difficult Austen's life was after her father died. Her failure to marry lfet her, her spinster sister Cassandra, and her widowed mother in genteel poverty, dependent on support from her brothers and with few choices about where and how they would live. Unfortunately, Jane's writing did not begin to produce real income before her early death in 1817.
   
   "Jane Austen: A Life" is highly recommended as an interesting, even dramatic biography. The book includes an excellent selection of portraits of Jane Austen's family members. It is perhaps ironic that the one verified portrait of Jane Austen in life was said by her family to be inadequate, just as the person behind the novels continues to be elusive to biographers and fans alike.



4. A book with a panaroma view and lots of details about not only Jane herself, but also her direct family (sometimes even including her neighbours and her parents' cousins). Found it extremely useful in learning about Jane's experience as a woman living in the Georgian England. A page-turner indeed! Strongly recommend it!



5. Noticing that one review was very caustic of this book, I would like to say that I thought it was very well written - especially considering that there is very little documentation to go on. I found the author's explanation of child-rearing, at that time, very interesting. I did not feel that she was trying to put it into perspective to "today's standards", as one reviewer wrote.
   
   What was really fascinating, to me, was the difference in what her family lifestyle was like - compared to what her books portrayed. I realize books and plots are just that - but the lives and atmosphere was definitely not as "dark" as a lot of her own was. Just fascinating.
   
   I think she would have been an interesting person to have met because I came away with the impression that she wasn't really the "private" person her brothers and other family made her out to be. Sounds like she had quite a wit - biting at that.
   
   Anyway, thanks to the author for writing this and doing a great job with little documentation.

5 comments about Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley and Livingstone.

1. Henry Morton Stanley, who's real name was John Rowlands- he was left at a horrible Victorian workhouse after his grandfather died (his mother having abandoned him), was a remarkable man. He certainly had his flaws, but considering his lack of family from age five, he did rise to a prominence that would certainly make a Horatio Alger book pale by comparison. By contrast the missionary David Livingston, was a crusading anti-slavery activist who became distracted by the then popular obsession- the source of the Nile. Despite his more prim upbring Livingston had his flaws, which emerge in his journals and letters. He was also a remarkable man and certainly endured (as Stanley did) hardships that should have killed him before they finally did.
   
   This fascinating story, including many details I had never encountered in earlier books, are well recounted in "Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley and Livingston" by Martin Dugard. This is a real page-turner and a story that is not censored to make either man look better than he was. I did find several errors in fact (elephantiasis is not a form of leprosy and one GENUS of mosquitoes transmit malaria, not one species as implied by the author!) However, despite such lapses and an occasional purple passage, Dugard has written a most interesting account of the famous expedition to find Livingston. The reader will also start to realize why Africa is in its current state, what with inter-tribal warfare, Arab and other slave trading, constant raids, murder, endemic disease and colonialism, it is hard to see how anything else could have resulted. The wonder is that any African states are stable at all after their fairly recent history.
   
   A good read and a worthwhile examination of two lives that unexpectedly intertwined.



2. A good story, though not extraordinarilly well written. It does serve well enough as a casual introduction to the story of Stanley and Livingstone.



3. Ever since I read "The Last Voyage of Columbus," I have been a Martin Dugard fan. In "Into Africa," Dugard does an admirable job of mixing adventure story-telling with important historical details to make this a fun, historically-compelling read. As a young child I thrilled at the adventures of Livingstone and openly wished to be like him. Now, many years later, Dugard's prose has pernitted me to relive that childhood adventure while also allowing the adult in me to savor the gritty reality of Livingstone's near-fatal treks.



4. The fact that Dugard kept me turning pages and wondering if Stanley would live to see Livingstone, is a testament to his prose. A great 'adventure story' with vivid background, scene description and character study. Dugard captures the essence of the mettle of the great explorers, creates a vivid picture of the 'safari' before land rovers, helicopters and malaria pills.



5. I've always been intrigued by stories about the jungles of Africa, and this was the one story I'd often heard referenced in popular culture and knew very little about. This book was a fantastic overview of the historic search for Dr. Livingstone, brought to life by vivid imagery and excellent pacing.
   
   I particularly enjoyed the relevant facts about Livingstone and Stanley's background and personal lives prior to their African adventures and all of the discussion of what was occurring in both America and Europe at each point in the journey.
   
   I highly recommend this!