5 comments about Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary.

1. Maybe its unfair that I read this book after reading the spectacular autobiography of John Lewis, Walking in the Wind. However, I found that this book was too detached from the man. I did not come away from this book with a better understanding of this man than I did before hand. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most important people of 20th century America but you don't see why in this book.

   The major problem with this book is its writing style which makes reading this book tedious. I found myself bored by page 200. Also, I believe the Brown decision is given 20 pages and his solcitor general appointment is given more.

   If you want to learn more about this guy, study the cases of the era. Sweatt v. painter, Brown of course, etc. Marshall's personal life really is irrelevant towards understanding this man's accomplishments. I would not recommend this book.




2. Juan Williams' biography of Thurgood Marshall is a worthwhile read. Williams has a great sense of the dramatic story in this man's life and he firmly sets him in the historical context of a nation in turmoil. I went away from this book with a better understanding of Marshall's life, personality and importance in American History. Williams also does a very good job with contrasting Marshall's social and political opinions with those of civil rights leaders in the 60s and 70s, with whom he occasionally butted heads. Williams paints him as the feisty individual that he was but he also does not sugar coat his flaws and mistakes. For me, the most interesting aspects of the autobiography were the accounts of Marshall's trials and travels with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and his inexhaustible energy to confront the laws of the times. If you have any interest in learning about this man and his place both in history and in the Civil Rights Movement, defintely pick up this worthwhile book.



3. As a white man from the deep south, it boggles my mind how a totally free republic could twist the best Constitution ever written to deny a class of people their freedom. Civil right, the Vietnam war, the 1960's in general fascinate me.
   
   Mr. Williams book is particularly good at setting up how Justice Marshall came to his way of thinking. He learned early on how to play the game in the other man's (whites) territory. If you want to know how hard it was to operate during these times, with the threats and bigotry, I suggest this book. I think it is paramount for the younger people in today's society to understand the severity of the risk and opposition that people like Justice Marshall had to deal with. I think it would make them realize that even though progress still needs to be made, these individuals put their lives on the line to advance society to where it is today.



4. As a review on the back cover states, this book truly "reads like fiction." It gives a fascinating perspective of his life, and although I've read other technical biographies and his opinions, lectures and decisions, I would recommend this as a "first read" for anyone studying Thurgood. You feel as if you know Thurgood after reading this, and knowing his personal background helps you understand his professional background. His role in black freedom is no less than that of Martin Luther King's. (And quite frankly I think he should be revered as such.) The realities of black history nauseate me, and I can't comprehend how people historically treated blacks -- but Thurgood fought, and he fought legally and intelligently. Our children need to learn more about Thurgood and his overcoming adversity and changing the history of our country.



5. I think this book a "must read" for anyone who wants to know the truth about "back in the days" and "Jim Crow" days and such. Thurgood Marshall was the most inportant African-American man of the 20th century and probably of all time! The things he did have never nor will they ever be equaled. I only wish I'd had the pleasure and blessing of meeting this great man and shaking his hand. I recommend this book to everyone.

5 comments about Mary Chesnut's Civil War.

1. Mary Chesnut was a name dropper, and thank goodness, because in passing along her gossip, opinions, news, and personal undertakings, she created the most comprehensive day-to-day record of life in the Confederacy that we have. Although this is both a diary and a later refurbishment of earlier writings (to the point it almost becomes a memoir in epistolary form) Mrs. Chesnut, an aristocratic lady in a position to know a great deal about the workings of her short-lived nation, makes everything seem like a first-hand conversation. Chesnut, like Mrs. Grant and Amanda Wilson, a Civil War-era diarist from Cincinnati, Ohio, has a true gift at making the distant seem immediate. Her reports on the initial euphoria of southern independence from the north and later the reality of hardship and war, are touching, even for one not in deep sympathy with her ideals. What I took away from this diary was something of the horror of loss, as Mary Chesnut's society reeled from death after death, not just of men from combat, but children and women in part from the deprivations war mandated they endure. By the mid-point of her diary, it is a rare entry, indeed, in which Chesnut does not tell of the passing of at least one more friend, or son of a friend. She lived through the destruction of a society and a war in which blood flowed in rivers. Chesnut personally knew a number of the primary figures of the American Civil War, including the wife of Jefferson Davis. She gives a point of view that is not hamstrung by being modern in sensibility, and charts a course of the war's prosecution that might vicariously suggest a later alteration of the record in northern-authored history books. For all these reasons, Chesnut's diary is worth reading.



2. This book is very interesting but it is hard to follow. The intro is very interesting but once you get into the diary part she skips from one topic to another and it assumes a lot. I think it will be worthwhile - it is just going to take me a while to get through it.



3. Reading this book is like opening a door through time and having a daily cup of coffee & gossip session with Mary Chesnut. She was from a fine family with her father being a senator and one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina. Her husband, John Chesnut Jr., was also a senator before the war. He remained politically connected in the Confederacy. He was a general and an aid to Jefferson Davis. Given her situation in life it is not surprising that Mrs. Chesnut had an elite circle of friends and knew everyone that was anyone.
   Mary loved to gossip and name drop and had very strong opinions on any given subject. She had no children so she had plenty of time to be self indulgent and a bit vain. She really must have been a fascinating person as people seem to be drawn to her. Varina Davis was one of her closest friends and she visited the Davis home frequently. She believed slavery to be wrong & hated the fact that there were so many racially mixed children that looked very much like the master of the plantations. She complained about the costs involved in keeping slaves and thought the time had come to abolish slavery. On the other hand, she spoke of slaves like children that needed to be cared for. She also had never had to take care of herself or run a house. She relied totally on her servants for everything.
   She wrote this diary with the intention of including rumors, facts,and anything she might be thinking at the time. John Bell Hood was a frequent visitor and is talked of in her diary quite frequently. She talked about Hood's love for a woman and of his wounds. She referred to him as their "wounded knight". She was a very opinionated, outspoken, and (I think) spoiled women. There are no great military strategies and battle description in her book. She describes the dinners they had or how people were dressed. She talks of all the gossip about all the differert generals and the politics of the day. Reading her diary is like sitting down for coffee with her and listening to the events,real or rumored, that she chats about. She loves all the gossip and thrives on attention She had a front row seat to all events about the war, civilian life, and the downfall of the Confederacy It's wonderful to have the chance to get to know Mary Chesnut with her candid way of writting. She also writes of the trials and tribulations when everything was crashing down aroound her. Her first experience of wearing old clothes, food shortages, no money, & wondering all the while what was going to happen to her and her husband. People were dying all around her and her. Her entire culture & lifestyle were disapearing, everything simply falling apart, yet she kept up her writting. What a fascinating woman Mrs. Mary Chesnut must have been.
   It may be a little difficult to read for some. I think maybe most difficult for men for much of it is "idle chatter" that women do when they get together. There is much information in here that you can only get from someone in the middle of it all.



4. Mary Chestnut was an insightful, well educated, frustrated woman in a society that did not openly encourage women to become interested, certainly not involved, in politics. James, Mary's husband, was what we would call a Washington/Richmond insider. Poor Mary had to convine herself to venting in her diary which requires a good background in the politicians of the day to be informative. For this reason I give it only 4 stars, The earlier edition,Diary from Dixie, was edited by the diarist to be more politically acceptable and better able to sell. There is a considerable amount of gossip in the book which will be interesting to those interested in the personal lives of prominent Confederates, e.g., the affair between General John B. Hood and Sally Preston. Anyone willing to wade through the book with the help of a good who's who in the Confederacy will indeed find this book valuable and interesting.



5. I bought this book while at the Lookout Mountain battle site in Chattanooga. If you watched the PBS Civil War series, you will recognize Mary Chesnut's name.
   
   This is a annotated compilation of her original diaries. Her husband was high up in Jefferson Davis' cabinet, so there are all sorts of stories about the Confederate elite, and the personalities involved.
   
   There are even funny stories, and gossip.
   
   Even though you know how the story will end, it's an interesting read, especially toward the end, as Sherman is on the march. It's long, but you can pick it up and put it down without losing the continuity.
   
   Mary was a witty and perceptive woman who was ahead of her time. She's someone I'd like to have lunch with.

5 comments about Andy Warhol: Giant Size.

1. Fantastic pictorial book...worth every penny. If you are a fan of Warhol, this is the book to own. Great prints of Andy's work from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - including rare prints. You won't be disappointed - it is all here. The dimensions are impressive at 17" x 13" x 2 1/2", and it makes for a beautiful coffee table book that you will be proud to display. The pictures are sharp, both in color and b&w, and many are full-page, including pics of Andy and Edie. Outstanding!



2. Definitely worth the money!
   
   I've recently got into andy warhol and this is the second book i have by him. The book has stunning portraits/photographs/art thats what i love about andy warhol everything is unique and different.I wasn't sure what to expect with this book however i'm glad that I purchased it.
   
   You also might want to check out "Men - Andy Warhol"



3. My daughter is 24 years old and she is an aspiring artist. Andy Warhol is her very favorite. I got her this book for Christmas and it is her most favorite thing. She says that the detail that it has is facinating and compelling. One word of advice though...it is one HEAVY book so make sure that you are in a comfortable place to support it while you are reading.



4. This is a real great (and large ;-) ) book with beatiful reproductions of Andy Warhol. My children love to go through it. It was also for sale on the Warhol exhibition in the "Stedelijk Museum" in Amsterdam last year.



5. Bought as a gift for a 21st birthday. Will be a memory that he can keep for a long time with a personal message on the inside front cover.
   
   Great gift idea! Would highly recommend

5 comments about After the Wall: Confessions from an East German Childhood and the Life that Came Next.

1. When I was born in 1945, my mother, a German armed forces helper on the way from Prague (deep South) up to an isle named "Ruegen" (in the very North), in the middle of her long journey through a breaking down Germany: she came down with me and, after one day in hospital, she stuffed me away into a children's home (in a town called "Wuppertal", West-Germany) - and left me to my fate. So she robbed me (among others) the experience of a childhood in the GDR, German Democratic Republic, "Wuppertal" should be "West-Germany" (American sector), the isle of Ruegen became Russian sector, behind the "Iron Curtain". So I did not learn anything about "Young Pioneer meetings", socialism, communism, STASI (the secret police) or summer camps of young "Pioneers". In the Western hemisphere I grew up, drinking Pepsi Coke, receiving American Care packages, later on: listened to the Beatles, noticed the students movement in 1968, had no Ulbrich or Honecker, but chancellor Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl. But I tried to find out the place, where the woman could live, who had born me in that dark year 1945. After 40 years of persistent search, 1985, before the Berlin Wall fell (1989), I found out: She was living behind the "Iron Curtain" on the isle of Ruegen. And I started to look at this lost childhood, which I did not enjoy: She showed me her photo album: summer beach near "Kap Arkona" at the north-point of the isle, snowy winters on Hiddensee, flight ducks, cranes - but on the other hand coal heaps on washed-out sidewalks. Color films (Orwo), books, Trabi substitute parts: only hard to get. Nevertheless, I wanted to make up for my life in the GDR - in 1990 when the Berlin Wall was fallen: A schools inspector on the island pointed into a corridor, filled with former Stasi employees (security police) and informed me in this manner in an almost dumb "cadre conversation", he unfortunately (thanks to the "reunification" of East and West-Germany) would have to hide many people in the teaching profession now (in hastiest kind). I should return please to West-Germany, where I just had come from. The direction of my journey seemed to be absolutely atypically, out of character, and not recommendable. No "Ossi" (vs. "Wessi") - no job. As a result my mother, noticing, that all her dreams collapsed, joined an acute epidemic disease at that time: She committed a so-called balance sheets suicide. I was deprived of the chance to become a "zone child" a second time. Did I miss really much? Because the book of Jana Hensel has stimulated me to these thoughts - maybe her sometimes nostalgic "Ossi" writings (of course very different to my "Wessi"-point of view) are not as superficial, simple, banal, as I thought in the first moment? Compare her point of view ...



2. Whereas one of the previous reviewers may not have "gotten" this book, I did. I visited East Germany right after the fall of the wall, and then five years later. What a change there was. Not only could you tell the difference on the outside, but the people changed too. Hensel writes about these changes and how it affected her. Then she relates how it affected the older generations. Hensel is a little flip, but maybe she has a right to be. There were big changes, and the young adapt to change. Older people do not. This is a story about one young lady changing to the new landscape. East Germany no longer exists physically, but does emotionally in millions of Germans.
   
   This is a nice read for those interested in Germany. I found myself laughing at some of Hensel comments. I can relate how she experienced life.



3. I recently spent 2 1/2 months in the former GDR working at a university. My trip was a great experience and I was really struck by the historical remnants and stories of those that had grown up and moved into the former GDR after the fall of the wall. When the wall fell I was only 9 years old and many of my friends there were in my age range and we had few memories of this time. Jana Hensel's book provided me with an in-depth understanding of what life was like for my friends and their siblings during the reunification. It was interesting to hear stories of her childhood that were similar to my friend's stories.
   
   "After the Wall" was fabulous and a must-read for those interested in the real-life of former East Germans.



4. 
   The book is written as an extended essay. There is very little observation of actual events. The author's account of life in the GDR lacks realism and is really quite shallow.



5. This book is beautiful.
   
   Having briefly visited East Berlin in 1959, I was impressed with its cleanliness and dullness in contrast to the chaos, colour, mess and joy of life in West Berlin. Hensel explains the difference with skill and personal example: East Germany, the most successful and prosperous of the Soviet satellites, was a collection of industrious, intelligent and obedient ants.
   
   In many ways, her life until the collapse of "The Wall" was marvelous, packed with activities, programs, events and adults intended to uplift, enlighten and motivate youngsters to do good for others. The frightening aspect of her life was the unrelenting pressure to support these organizations to do good for others. East Germany was a cult without charisma, a ritual without religion in a minutely organized system designed to eliminate every element of chaos from the otherwise free human spirit.
   
   She is acutely aware of her parents' and grandparents' generations who lived a rigidly controlled life for almost 60 years, during which even so much as smiling at the wrong event would bring suspicion and possible punishment. When very young, Hensel knew it was dangerous to pick up a discarded Western chocolate bar wrapper from the street; but, she also knew the pure joy of such rebellion. As a teen, she suddenly plunged into a free lifestyle in which almost everything was possible and nothing was unlikely.
   
   This is a beautiful portrait of her astonishment at the democratic freedom -- much the same sense of astonishment I feel, having lived all my life in the luxury of such freedom -- the chaos and pure joy of "leaving people alone". In today's politics, too many talk about creating an inspiring sense of purpose for their country; Hensel deftly and with chilling starkness portrays the cost of such enforced "purpose", and the wondrous freedom and peace of mind that comes from respecting the rights of others.
   
   The happiness of Americans is the ability to celebrate or condemn their consumer culture without restraint; this book is a warm, human and personal memoir of what it is to not have such freedom. This book is everything anyone could want in a good book; it's well written, concise, poignant and utterly relevant to American society and the world at large.
   
   Thank you, Jana Hensel, for a marvelous explanation of what I saw in Berlin almost 50 years ago but didn't fully understand until now.

5 comments about Scipio Africanus: Rome's Greatest General.

1. This author has written a highly-readable and thoroughly researched biography of history's forgotten genius. Such work is long overdue. For those who enjoy learning about men who were clearly ahead of their time, read this book. Genius and greatness transcend time, and Scipio's accomplishments are evidence of that. This is a must read for anyone with an interest in military history or leadership.



2. Richard Gabriel is a distinguished military historian who writes well and in this book provides a wealth of information and speculation concerning Scipio. Most noteworthy are the logistical analyses, which in general are well researched and highly informative. There are some problems with this book, though, despite its overall high quality. The author tells us that a lot of the best research on the Second Punic War is in German, which fortunately he is able to read. Wunderbar, I told myself. But examining the bibliography at the end of the book I was surprised to discover several German titles rendered ungrammatically, a children's book by Donauer included as if it were a scholarly work, and the works of the top scholars of the Punic Wars publishing in German over the past few decades (Jakob Seibert, Pedro Barcelo, Karl Christ usw.) blatantly missing.
   Gabriel's attempts to present Scipio as a "brilliant" operational commander and "brilliant" strategist greater than Hannibal fail to convince (as do equally misguided attempts by others to portray Wellington as greater than Napoleon--Napoleon, by the way, regarded Hannibal as the greatest general of all, see the Memorial de Sainte-Helene by the Comte Emmanuel de las Cases). As the author suggests, the brilliance of a general depends on the quality of his defeated opponents, but the only great opponent Scipio ever defeated was Hannibal at Zama, a victory scored by luck and the fortunate arrival of Massinissa's cavalry at the battlefield in the nick of time (even Gabriel concedes that Hannibal had the better battle plan). To boost Scipio's credentials Gabriel claims repeatedly that the incompetent Carthaginian generals Scipio defeated in Spain were actually competent, especially the bungling Hasdrubal Gisco, surely the sorriest excuse for a commander in the Punic Wars. He credits Scipio with great military innovations, but fails to mention that he copied these from the organization of Hannibal's army, which Scipio experienced at the Roman defeats at the Ticinus, Trebbia, and Cannae. Scipio's victory at Ilipa owes more to Hannibal as a model that to any ingenuity on Scipio's part. The author even tries to credit Scipio with deriving the gladius hispaniensis from the Spanish falcata, although anyone who has held a falcata and a gladius in hand can tell they are totally different weapons. The gladius was based on a Spanish sword, but it is unlikely it was the falcata. Scipio is presented as an honorable man, and unfortunately Gabriel whitewashes his atrocities in ordering the butchery of the civilians in three cities (excusing the terrorism because "it served his strategic ends"), not to mention the scourging and beheading of his own officers after they rebelled because of lack of pay, even though he had promised them clemency if they surrendered. (Hannibal, by the way, although he fought in enemy territory for 15 years without ever being defeated, during which time he often could not pay his mercenaries, never suffered mutiny, which perhaps shows which commander was better able to inspire loyalty in his forces). Gabriel attributes Scipio's refusal to engage Hannibal in Italy to some grand strategic plan concerning Rome's future security, which supposedly demanded he be defeated in Africa, when there is a much simpler explanation, namely that Scipio was afraid he would be defeated if he faced Hannibal in Italy and needed to get him to return to Africa minus his cavalry in order to have a chance of victory. Scipio was clearly an opportunist concerned with his personal glory and refused peace overtures (even betraying the Carthaginians when he pretended to consider their very reasonable proposals, and then burning their camps in a treacherous night attack). He was willing to sacrifice countless lives (of his own soldiers and those of the enemy) in order to win a triumph for narcissistic glory. Hannibal was definitely the greater commander and the better man, a patriot who sacrificed everything for his country. The notion of his being motivated by hatred of Rome is a myth created by Roman propaganda, bent upon demonizing Hannibal and the Carthaginians, This is evident in the writings of Livy and particularly Silius Italicus, a poet and not a historian, whose versified fictions Gabriel accepts as reliable historical sources. Even among Roman generals, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and above all Ceasar far outshine Scipio. Gabriel's claim that Caesar displayed no originality or innovation in the battlefield is belied by that brilliant defense in the siege of Alesia, to mention just one example. Gabriel's book, although in many ways a significant contribution to the field, suffers of bias in his efforts to achieve "majorem Scipionic gloriam." And as to the claim that Rome's victory over Carthage was good for posterity, the reader is urged to peruse Neil Faulkner's excellent book "Rome: Empire of the Eagles" to evaluate the destructive and predatory imperialism of Rome which can be contrasted with the tolerance of Carthaginian culture, destroyed in a frenzy of genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Romans in 146 BCE.



3. Sharing Mr Gabriel's observation that no one has written a biography of Scipio which truly evaluates the man's place in Roman military history, and being myself something of a fan of the great Africanus, I was very much looking forward to reading this one, but could only struggle about halfway through before giving up in frustration and annoyance. The sources of both are many. While conceding that Gabriel's descriptions and speculations about Scipio's campaigns and battles are interesting--even when he overlooks his own earlier solutions to questions which he later poses--I found his projection of the modern political and military mindset onto Carthage and Rome most annoying. Both states emerge in his narrative as modern entities of some sort, in which a thought-out policy is established by the civilian government and entrusted to the military for execution. Such was certainly not the case with either city, and certainly not the case with the Barcids' activity in Spain, which was viewed with enormous suspicion by their political rivals in Carthage. Equally annoying is the author's habit of contradicting himself within a matter of lines, e.g., the Spanish city of Saguntum is identified as an independent city and half a paragraph later is said to revolt against Carthage; his obvious unfamiliarity with the Latin language and its terminology, e.g., his translation of "mare clausum" as the enclosing (instead of enclosed) sea and identification of the term "legion" as deriving from Romulus' primitive army instead of the word for "to pick" or "select"; and his tendency to the grandiose, e.g., describing the situation of Rome's allies as obliged to help her "for decades" against Hannibal, thirteen years after his arrival in Italy. Gabriel's description of the Roman army is a true pottage of information taken from works written over the past century and a half (I was surprised that he did not cite H. P. Judson's long-outdated "Caesar's Army") which describe the Republican army at different eras and stages of development, but are applied to that of Scipio's time as found convenient to whatever thesis the author wishes to argue. Likewise, he boasts of his familiarity with the German and Italian literature on Scipio and the second Punic war in his introduction, but fails to include in his bibliography two recent and noteworthy English works, viz., Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Punic Wars" and "Cannae". And how can one not mention the small things, such as the use of "legionnaires" for "legionaries" and the spelling errors ("make due" for "make do") liberally scattered about the text? While I agree with Mr Gabriel's statement that an up-to-date biography of Scipio is needed, I fear that his does not qualify.



4. Scipio is one of the great Roman heroes and I was looking forward to this book with the hope that it would offer a biography more in historical context than earlier works. It may have succeeded but as I was unable to finish it, I'll never know. There is a good bit of theorizing about minutiae of interest only to an historian and none to me. The thread of Scipio's life eventually go so lost in interpretations and asides that I gave up.



5. I am writing this review to correct what are very serious errors by the first review that appears here, and what also appear to me to be a bewildering perspective given in that review, in the hope that those who are not familiar with the history of the second Punic War and its aftermath may be more encouraged to read the book and the few that have proceeded it - including the history of Polybius. In the first place, the first review completely fails to note that Scipio Africanus faced a far more professional set of generals than the likes of Marius, Sulla, or even Julius Caesar. He did this, despite the lack of full support of Rome. To compare Scipio to them is absurd as their circumstances and the significance of what Scipio faced and they did are so far apart as to render comparison meaningless. The reviewer fails to note Scipio's defeat of 4 Catharginian armies in Spain, 2 more in Africa, before meeting Hannibal at Zama; all armies were led by well seasoned and highly professional commanders. At Zama Hannibal had advantage of his veteran troops, 80 war elephants, and a well manned cavalry. The two sides were rather evenly matched. Hannibal's veterans troops were at the rear - so why do you think Scipio had Laelius and Massinisa first drive the Hannibal's cavalry off the field and then encircle Hannibal's veterans? Luck? Now comes a typical Hannibal apology - "It wasn't Scipio that beat Hannibal, it was the Roman cavalry" - Oh lord! Let me digress a bit to demonstrate the nonsense of this type of "reasoning". Try saying it wasn't Montgomery and later Patten that drove Rommel all over North Africa, it was the British and then the American armored divisions. The comment is absurd of course, but that is my point! Scipio fully realized the criticality of a well disciplined cavalry and very effectively built one, first around Laelius, and then around Laelius and Massinisa. He also built an effective naval force as he needed it. He revolutionized Roman tactics, which of course the likes of Marius, Sulla, and "what's his name" inherited, but never really did themselves. As for a grand strategy, that began with Scipio's father and uncle who decided to press on to Spain rather then turn back to face Hannibal - the battle of the Tinicus was more of a standoff then a victory for Hannibal! It appears that the reviewer would benefit from a bit of background reading and not rely on Hollywood movies for his "facts" and perspective.
   
   To call Scipio Rome's greatest general is quite appropriate - after all, within 53 years after Zama Rome went from being an Italian city state to ruling most of of the world it knew - did the others accomplish that? Hannibal and his country lost it all. But, as Hart had told us, folks like the loser, not the winner.

5 comments about The Education of Henry Adams.

1. "The Education of Henry Adams" is a difficult book to review. But be forewarned: "The Education" will not appeal to many readers. It is hardly a book you'd bring to the beach or try to read for leisure. I first came across the book in a foreign policy seminar I took in college. While my professor took great pains to tell us how important "The Education" was -- it was named by Modern Library as the greatest non-fiction book written in the 20th Century -- the book was just boring to a 19-year, and almost certainly beyond my limited means and interest. Recently inspired by a blog series on the New York Times web site about "The Education", I decided to dust off my old copy, hoping that a few years wiser, I would be able to get through the whole thing, and even more importantly, have a better appreciation for Adams' book. After finally finishing it -- including the many detailed footnotes in the Samuel' edition -- I can safely say that while several parts of the book were very interesting, I would not recommend "The Education" to everyone.
   
   "The Education of Henry Adams" is for all intents and purposes, a very unusual autobiography of Adams -- though I am sure Adams would disagree with that label -- told in the third person, chronicling the interesting life of a man born into an extraordinary family history, who led a fascinating life, but who never quite fit into the changing America as the 20th Century began to dawn. Henry Adams was a historian and one-time professor of history at Harvard. Born in 1838, Adams was the great-grandson of John Adams, the grandson of John Quincy Adams, and the son of Charles Francis Adams, the esteemed Minster to England during the Civil War. The book is written in such a manner that each chapter covers a year or series of years in Adams' life, beginning in 1838 and ending in 1905 (though Adams himself died in 1918, he ended the book in 1905; further, the book does not cover the 20-year period of his marriage to Marion "Clover" Hooper, who tragically killed herself in 1885 following a long depression).
   
   Part of what makes "The Education" so compelling -- at least to me, is that the book serves as an eyewitness account of some of the most important events and periods of American history between 1840 and 1900. Adams offers very insightful and sharp observations of many of the great events of his time; though, it is important to note that Adams was in Britain for the entire Civil War, serving as a private secretary to his father, so Adams does not offer great analysis of what was going on in America during the Civil War. Perhaps not coincidentally, some of the most boring chapters in "The Education" are those covering the years 1860 to 1870.
   
   More than anything else, however, "The Education" is a story of a man who felt out of place in the fast-changing America of the late-19th and early 20th Century. From Adams' perspective, the book is a tale of his pursuit of an "education" in life that would help him adapt to, understand, and live in the new America. Throughout the book, Adams laments his abject failure in accomplishing this objective, and generally considered himself a failure unable to live in the United States as it entered onto the world stage as a super power. Reading the book, it was very interesting to me how Adams conceived himself as a man of the 18th Century, and I think his inability to live up to the political successes of his ancestors -- who could?! -- was hugely depressing to him as he went through life.
   
   "The Education" has several chapters on numerous recurring themes which Adams well examines and often lampoons, such as American politics and the U.S. Senate (his chapters on the pitiful Grant Administration and the state of U.S. politics are extremely funny and pretty much on-the-mark, even 130 years later), the conduct of diplomacy (given Adams' family history and his own interests, he had a tremendous background in diplomatic issues, and was best friends with Secretary of State John Hay), and the rise of technology and its affect on the United States (his chapters on the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 and the 1900 Paris Exposition are two of the best chapters in the book). Regarding the latter area, Adams was both intrigued by and terrified of emerging technologies like the faster locomotives, cars, and other devices, which he called the "dynamo". In several passages, he predicted that while new technologies would advance civilization and America's standing, they would also reap devastating results for the world. Given the birth of the Atomic Age and what has happened since, one could argue that Adams was incredibly prescient.
   
   Despite the book's many pluses, it is not without its considerable flaws. Perhaps I am just not educated enough myself, but the book is extremely hard to read today. First written by Adams around 1903, "The Education" does not all translate well to 2008, and I had to read many of the passages and pages multiple times to understand what Adams was trying to say. Further, while Adams' wit and self-deprecating humor are amusing at first, it becomes very grating as Adams seems to refer to himself as a failure on every single page. Finally, there are certain periods of Adams' life -- particularly his lack of service during the Civil War and his marriage (which he does not mention once in the book) -- which he disappointingly did not discuss much at all.
   
   As I mentioned at the beginning of my review, "The Education" is not a book for everyone. It takes a good deal of time to fully read and digest, and its themes are fairly nuanced and not always terribly exciting. That being said, if you're a student of history and interested in learning about American development between 1840 and 1900 from one of the 19th Century's great historians (Adams wrote a nine-volume history of the U.S. during the Jefferson and Madison Administrations, which, to this day are considered the gold standard in early American history books), you should consider checking the book out. If you do want to read "The Education", I strongly recommend that you purchase Ernest Samuel's edition. Samuels wrote a three-volume biography of Adams, and knew more about Henry Adams than anybody else. Samuels also included a wealth of detailed footnotes throughout the pages; while many people like to avoid footnotes, they are quite valuable with a book like this where Adams is constantly referencing old German words and 15th Century French figures as if his readers were all supposed to know them! So, the Samuels edition (the one with the green cover and published by Riverside Editions) is the edition you want.
   
   I liked "The Education" and I would like very much to read his forgotten histories of the Jefferson and Madison years, but I have to admit that I don't know if I could ever make it through them considering Adams' writing style!
   
   Three stars.



2. It took me a few months to grind my way through this, and I must conclude that unless you are a serious student of history--a professor or grad student, or highly-motivated undergrad--you are not going to get much out of this book.
   
   I've got undergraduate and masters degrees (in computer science), am fairly widely read, and have a pretty good knowledge of history. Nevertheless, I usually could not figure out what Adams was getting at in his overly poetic abstractions. As other reviewers have pointed out, Adams can never simply describe concretely what he sees, but instead has to formulate some sort of generalization, as when the "dynamo"--a machine he sees at a World's Fair--becomes a symbol for the sweeping forces of mechanization and industrialization. That sounds insightful, but did he really need an entire chapter to describe how it upheaved his soul?
   
   Adams wrote this book for his close circle of friends, not the general public. This manifests when he casually tosses around the names of obscure people without explaining who they are, as if we are just supposed to know. I often kept Wikipedia open as I read.
   
   Unless you are already an expert on 19th-century U.S. history, be prepared for a hard slog and, I regret to predict, a lack of fulfillment.



3. The main problem I had with this book was the format. The 7-1/2X9-15/16" and the very narrow margins made reading difficult for me. I had to bend the binding back to read the end of a the very long line of text on the left page and the beginning of a line of text on the right. I also often had to use my finger to return the to the correct start of the next lenghty line. The truly made reading less enjoyable than it should have been. I suspect I would rate it higher in a more standard format book.
   This will be one of my book club's readings this academic year and I can review it after the meeting within 12 months. I suspect many of us in the club will give it higher than 3 stars - which as I have indicated is marred by the difficulty in the physical (visual) reading.
   
   
   
   
   a
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



4. I bought this version and started reading it, but ended up buying another version. This version is poorly printed - the pages are overlarge for a paperback, and the margins at the spine are too narrow. Because of the width of the page it wasn't possible to read one line without moving my head, and since the book didn't lie flat I would have to peer into the spine area to get the last word on any line on the left hand page. Pick another version that's easier to read.



5. Note that this review is for the audio book narrated by David Colacci. I have been on a kick the last year or so of listening to the `classics' on my daily commute. This book has been on several lists of great books and I decided to give it a try. I started out wondering why this book would be considered so good, but after a few hours of listening I learned to appreciate the unique writing style and personality of the author.
   
   The narrator was perfect for the part. His voice and manner of speaking fit the style of the book very well. He sounded just like I imagined Adams himself would have sounded if he had read this book.
   
   I have always been a fan of history, and his perspective as a minor participant in several great events was fascinating. From the Civil War to the Teddy Roosevelt administration, he provided several interesting insights into those events. He knew many of the key players. His overriding theme of obtaining an `education' was also interesting and he looked at it much more broadly than most people would. He lived at a time of great technological change, especially from a perspective of power and seemed concerned that society was not ready to handle that much power. He saw the source of power switching from Christianity (The Virgin Mary) to the dynamo.
   
   I initially didn't like him. He seemed almost too humble and didn't seem to have a strong opinion of right and wrong because he wasn't sure which was which. In the end I appreciated his perspective and thought he would have been an interesting person to know, though I wouldn't consider him as a great leader. I also would have liked to have him talk more of his personal life; note that this book omits the years 1872-1891, which would have included his marriage.
   
   Overall I recommend this book for anyone interested in history and a unique literary style. He was clearly an intellectual and it gives a good snapshot of the intellectual views of that era.

5 comments about John Marshall: Definer of a Nation.

1. I think it can be argued that, next to Washington, Marshall was the most significant of the whole colonial group, and fortunately, this excellent biography rises to the occasion, telling the story of this truly remarkable American. The best proof of my enthusiasm for the book is that I have already purchased four copies for friends with more undoubtedly to come



2. .....though we can still debate whether he defined it correctly. John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, and remains, one of the absolute giants of our history. Washington fought the battles, Jefferson and Madison composed the theories, but it remained for Marshall to elucidate what it all meant. This is, to my mind, the definitive biography of a titan.
   
   John Marshall was born in what is now Northern Virginia in 1755, the child of a fairly well off family. On his mother's side, he was descended from the famous Randolphs; his father was a surveying associate of George Washington. His dad taught him a love of education and good books that continued all his days. Before embarking on a career in Law, Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, serving with Washington in several major battles. After marriage to young Polly Ambler, he was a law student of the great George Wythe [also the law teacher of Jefferson, and of Spencer Roane] at William & Mary. Successful practice, and politics, soon followed...Marshall served on the Governor's Council, and was the leading advocate for Constitutional ratification in the Virginia convention; his battles with Patrick Henry are the stuff of legend [though they served as co-counsel in several cases]. He was a constant supporter of Washington, served as one of Adams' three ministers to France in the XYZ affair, and was briefly a Congressman and Secretary of State. He it was who said of Washington "First in War...", though he let Light Horse Harry Lee speak the words, and get the credit. In 1801, John Adams made a "midnight appointment" of Marshall to be Chief Justice, preventing the incoming President Jefferson from making his own choice...
   
   For the next 34 years, Marshall solidified Federal power, freely interpreting the interstate commerce clause, and the clause which allows Congress to make enabling legislation. Marbury v. Madison asserted the right of judicial review, and further cases expanded it. He wrote the judicial opinions that remain the basis of Federal centrilization of power to this day. Smith gives great detail of individual cases.
   
   One of Marshall's great strengths, and we shouldn't make light of it, was that he was a nice guy. A sociable host, his friends loved him, but even total strangers could find him thoroughly modest and charming. Quoits, and good Madiera were real passions. Even his enemies [with two profound exceptions] liked him. His basic decency certainly aided his consensus building.....
   
   ...the two exceptions were Spencer Roane and Thomas Jefferson. Roane was the son-in-law and political ally of Patrick Henry. A long time neighbor of Marshall, and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, Judge Roane believed completely in States Rights and held the US Constitution to be a voluntary compact of free and independent states that could be broken at will. What Spencer Roane proposed, Jeff Davis disposed... Alas, where Marshall was a prince among men, Judge Roane was of such acid, unpleasant, temperment that even his friends and allies couldn't stand him...
   
   ....and then there was Mr. Jefferson. The feud between Marshall and Jefferson is one of the absolute central themes of American history. It was multidimensional...personal, familial, political, philosophical...for about 40 years, the conflict was one of cordial, respectful, dislike; after the Aaron Burr treason trial of 1807, it turned into blind, unreasoning hatred. Part of it was rivalry between branches of the Randolph family; part was Jefferson's civilian service during the revolution while Marshall was in the field; part was publication of a letter to Jefferson from his daughter stating "Mrs. Marshall is insane" [sadly, true]. Mostly, the problem was that Marshall and Jefferson had totally different theories of government and visions of America. [They agreed about religion, though Marshall was a founder of, and regular attender at, Monumental Church in Richmond]. In 1807, Aaron Burr was charged with treason, accused of wanting to set up his own empire. He was tried in Richmond, with Marshall sitting as trial judge. Marshall's friend, neighbor, and occasional law partner John Wickham served as defense counsel, along with the drunken genius, Luther Martin. In what is today generally considered a rigged trial, Burr was acquitted. During this trial, an incident occured that is the only evidence of improper conduct on John Marshall's part that I can find; while Burr was out on bail, Wickham threw a grand dinner party for him. Marshall was invited [not improper], went, and stayed the whole evening. You can well imagine the spin that sympathetic Jefferson biographers put on this; Smith doesn't mention it.
   
   John Marshall was a great and brilliant man; he was also a good and decent man. He had his problems; Polly was an invalid with a combination of physical and mental problems for years...one of his sons was essentially worthless. Thru it all, John Marshall was faithful to both his public and private duties. Now, I'll get personal....my copy of this wonderful book was a Christmas present my wife bought me at the John Marshall House in Richmond. Located at 9th. and Marshall, near the Capitol, it is lovingly maintained by a fine staff of really nice people [the Director even helped me with research for a small biography I wrote of Spencer Roane]. The house, and Marshall's grave in Shockhoe Cemetery a few blocks away, are cared for as monuments to greatness, which they are. The house is nice, but not spectacular; Marshall was a modest, unassuming man [John Wickham's house, two blocks away, IS spectacular]. At the John Marshall House [yes, I contribute financially], and at his grave, I feel awe, intellectual interest, and profound respect; at Monticello, I feel reverence. Maybe I think Jefferson was right about the issues, but I can still look up to John Marshall. If you want to understand America, you need to read this book.
   
   This is the best available biography of Marshall, maybe the best ever. If all you want is case histories, read Hobson; if you want a highly technical biography, read Newmyer; if you want to understand the great cases, AND the great man who decided them, start right here. Newmyer and Hobson wrote fine books, but any intelligent person [not just specialists] can read this one.....



3. This was one of those books I knew I SHOULD read, but its heft put me off for months. When I finally did pick it up, I couldn't put it down.
   
   John Marshall doesn't have the cache or enduring fame that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or many others have - and it's a shame. He formed the institution of the Supreme Court, and in so doing, shaped many of the ways our country (tenuous at the time, mind you) began its journey, and perhaps why we've endured this long.
   
   The author does a fantastic job of painting a picture of life in the day, John Marshall's life and contributions, and how he and others in his era related to each other and the world at large. The cases that came before the early SCourt were fascinating, if only to illustrate the thorny issues and perils of the time. The extent to which he was able to be brilliant, rationale, and to build consensus focused on the original intent and vision for this country is impressive, and sorely needed today.
   
   Funny story - I finally DID start reading this book on the beach in Mexico. Not quite the fluff one typically carries to the beach. The first day, people remarked as such, and by about day 3 or 4, they are saying "wow, you are really making progress on that!" as the bookmark moved steadily towards the back.
   
   Don't wait for the beach - get started!



4. Not all historians are fine, interesting writers. Fortunately, Jean Edward Smith is a superb writer, making Chief Justice Marshall's long life an interesting, even fun, read. Moreover, the writing paralells the substance contained in the Book. I wish all historical biographies were of this quality. Buy the Book.



5. This is a full-length, 500 page biography of the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. It is superb. It is very detailed, yet easy to read. Smith follows the conventional chronological format for a biography, starting with Marshall's birth, and then describing his life sequentially from his childhood, his education, his youthful service as a light infantry officer in the Revolution, his work as a lawyer, his early political career, his rise to national fame as an envoy to France during the time when the nation almost went to war with France during the Adams Administration, his service as Secretary of State to John Adams and finally his long service for 35 years as the Chief Justice who established the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.
   
   What I find most admirable about this book is its balance. It gives you everything that you want in a biography. It is very scholarly, and very readable. It gives you a very good sense of John Marshall, the human being, but it also fully explains the significance of the events in which Marshall participated. As an example of the human side of Marshall, Smith gives us a very moving picture of Marshall's lifelong love affair with his wife, Polly, starting with the dramatic courtship by the penniless young officer and ending with the 80 year old Chief Justice walking twice a week to visit her grave. As an example of how Smith explains the significance of what Marshall did, not only did Smith explain the key decisions, but he gives the facts on what impact they had. In the steamship case, for example, Smith both explains the legal and political issues and gives the economic statistics on what effect the decision had on trade.
   
   I highly recommend this book, both for the excellence of its writing and the importance of its subject matter. John Marshall is one of the most important people in American history. He was instrumentals in making real the balance of the Constitution envisioned by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He was critical in creating the pre-conditions needed for America to be a rich and prosperous nation, with great opportunity for the great majority. Marshall was also a wise and a good man, which shines through on every page of this book. The book is worth reading, finally, as a way to come to know such an extraordinary man.

5 comments about Red China Blues: My Long March From Mao to Now.

1. Jan Wong,a Canadian journalist of Chinese ancestry, in this illuminating volume writes of her experiences as an ardent young Maoist in the early 1970's who actually went to China to work and study.
   She hauled pig manure in a Chinese re-education farm, and at Beijing University she turned in a fellow student who had begged her help to escape to the West.
   Slowly she realized the evil of the Communist system in China and was repatriated to the West in 1978.
   Wong returned years later as an undercover journalist to China where she covered the Tianmen Square Massacre, in which three thousand pro-democracy students were mowed down in cold blood by Red China's army, on the orders of dictator, Jian Zemin.
   She also covered China's contradictory development into a capitalist state under a Communist dictatorship, or a Communist dictatorship with a capitalist economy...akin to Fascism!
   She covers the Tianmen Square Massacre of 1989, letting the the reader know of some of the lesser known details, and how the Communist army opened fire on the students after they began leaving the square:
   "A [...]girl was killed and they just brought her body back...After the third barrage I counted more than twenty bodies. One cyclist was shot in the back right below our balcony. There were two big puddles of blood on the Avenue of Eternal Peace. People carried the body of a little girl towards the back of the hotel. After twenty three more minutes, a few people gathred up enough courage to aproach the wounded. The soldiers let loose another blast, sending the would be rescuers scurrying for cover. The crowd was enraged. I grimly kept track of the time. An hour later, the wounded were still on the ground, bleeding to death.
   She speaks of the great poverty of the new Red China, with inequalities far greater than anything in the liberal democracies of the world, and crushing poverty in the rural provinces. Despite economic changes, China remains a brutal dictatorship, with no political liberalization or democratization having been allowed by the iron grip of the Communist Party.
   Peeople are still opresed in day-to-day life. People are not allowed to own dogs, and to deal with a fad of people acquiring dogs as pets in the early 1990s, special police squads swept through the neigbourhoods, strangling dogs with steel wire looped at the end of metal poles.
   The author recounts some regret at buying into the Communist lie, with the realization that "The Western world, especially Canada, is far more socialistic than China has ever been, with it's free public education, universal medicare, unemployment insurance, and government funding for television ads against domestic violence. China has made me appreciate my own country, with it's tiny ethnically diverse population of unassuming donut-eaters. I had gone all the way to China to find an idealistic revolutionary society, when I already had it right to home."
   She ends of on a positive note, predicting, in 1997, a great change in China , and the death of the Communist Party, and real democracy.
   Ten years later, this is not close to being realized, with a tightening of political control by the Communist dictatorship having taken place.
   Despite being one of the most brutal dictatorships on this planet, China has gained international acceptibility, without improving democracy or human rights!
   Nobody bats an eyelid at the Olympic Games for 2008 being set in Beijing.
   The worst abuses of the Communist regime has it's apologists in the WEst.
   The Stalinist Workers World Party in North America, (which has praised Stalinism in the Soviet Union, and applauded suicide bombings against Jewish women and chidren in Israel) congratulated the Chinese regime after the Tianmen Square Massacre, for having 'won a battle against imperialist and counter-revolutionary forces."
   The fact that such sentiments can be uttered makes one wonder how far the world has actually come.



2. Red China Blues is the story of a woman who, in her youth, idealizes communism. This idealization is partly a lack of understanding about how communism in China really worked, and partly rebellion against her own Canadian culture.
   
   As she goes to China and slowly comes to understand the horror of China under Mao, we too see and understand both the regime itself and the ways in which the people dealt with their lot. She wants so much to believe in the dream-China she's created in her head that it's painful and difficult for her to see reality. This is a sin most humans commit at some point in their lives, and many readers will wince as they're reminded of their own delusional moments.
   
   Ms. Wong does not attempt to censor any of her own sins. From simple arrogance to participation in active thought control, she tells us everything she did and leaves it to us to decide what to think of her. The same is true of the people around her: she honestly talks about the good and bad in all the people she describes to us. This lends a wonderful humanizing touch to the book and turns it from the story of a regime into a story about people *in* the regime, living as best they can. You will not be able to forgive some of them, while others will move you. Mostly, Ms. Wong leaves you to decide for yourself which people fall into which category.
   
   In other words, this is a book that lays out facts and lets you decide your opinion for yourself. She gives you the facts, tells you her opinion, and leaves the rest to you. For a clear, honest look at China's people under Mao and after his death, read this one.



3. If you want to understand China, you will need to read a considerable range of titles in order to see the country, its history, people, culture and so on from numerous and unique angles. Jan Wong's RED CHINA BLUES offers a very unique angle. Jan was born in Montreal. Her father owned a popular restaurant in that city and by the time he was thirty, he had made his first million. Jan herself, apparently suffering from an identity crisis, became disenchanted with Canada/Western culture and decided to head to China to find herself and her roots - during the height of Maoism.
   
   Young and impossibly niave, Wong hurtled herself into the Chinese world. She learned the language, demanded not to be given preferential treatment, shoveled manure on a pig farm/re-education camp, and worked in a machine factory. Ever so slowly, her idealism faded, but, as other critics have noted, this took a very long time. At one point, for example, she mentioned how at the machine factory the workers spent half their time going to political meetings as opposed to producing. One of the primary tenets or aims of Marxism (to which Wong subscribed) is to creat a "superabundance" so as to achieve economic surplus over material necessity. Only then will art, politics, philosophy, etc. be able to reach fruition. When factory workers ask Wong about conditions and money re a similar job in the West, she is reluctant to tell them. But such isolated inconsistencies didn't dampen her idealistic fervor; not for something like six years anyway. Wong returned to China in 1988, and from here the book really gears down. Because she looks and can speak Chinese, she is able to to go places and do things that real outsiders never could. Her visit to a labor camp is interesting and her first hand account of "the Tianmen Incident," (people being shot right outside her window) is, as you might imagine, chilling. This was either the first or second China book I read, and it made a lasting impression. I highly recommend it.
   
   Troy Parfitt, author



4. This is a beautiful book to read. It's well written and you can hardly put it down. Jan Wong let's us be witnesses of her life choices and their consecuences. It's interesting how and why she decides to go and live in communist China, how she strugles to get adjusted to that kind of political system and way of life. She then turns into a great journalist and let's us see some unknown aspects of modern China. It's a good book to learn more about China's history. I enjoyed it a lot!



5. An enthusiastic young activist, Jan Wong left Canada for Beijing in 1972, in hopes of simultaneously aiding Mao's cause and pursuing her ancestral roots. This well-written, enlightening account of her "journey from Mao to now" takes readers through her six years as a student and subsequent six years as a reporter in Red China's capital city.
   
   Wong was uniquely qualified to write this book, which privileges readers with deep insights into why things were the way they were then, and are now, in China. Having Chinese parents, but being raised in the West, rendered Jan part of both worlds. She experienced the Cultural Revolution and post-Mao China as both an insider and a "foreigner," resulting in a perspective on those periods that only a few can claim, and fewer still have written about.
   
   The first part of the book tells the story of the author's Beijing University days. In 1972, armed with only the vocabulary she had acquired in Mandarin 101, Wong left the comfort and security of her Montreal life to spend a summer in China. Inspired by what she observed in Red China, she found it a natural progression to move from worrying about feminist issues to supporting Maoism. So she petitioned and won permission to stay in the country to study at Beijing University for the next two years. Anti-establishmentarianism was "in," and "China was radical-chic" at the time, she explains. Western youth looked to the East for answers and antidotes to racism, "exploitation" of the masses, and materialism. Becoming a journalist seemed like the perfect job for a young woman seeking to change the world, so she decided to remain in China to learn Mandarin, Chinese history, and Maoism. Her goal was to bring knowledge of all that she thought China was doing well to the West.
   
   As a starry-eyed young Maoist, Wong did not realize how miserable people really were. Instead, when she discovered that she and the other foreign students were being given better rooms and special food privileges, they protested until they were allowed to eat the miserable starvation-level rations given to the rest of the students in their dingy canteen. Then she and her foreign friend petitioned to join their Chinese classmates in undertaking the required physical labor projects they had been exempted from. She was finally allowed to dug ditches, haul bricks, and harvest crops with everyone else.
   
   The author's first clue that Communist China might not be the paradise she had dreamed of came when the school asked her to end her friendship with a young Swedish man or be expelled. The school actually played a distressing mind game with her over this issue. From this experience she learned that in China people were not only unable to do what they wanted, but they were also not free to think what they wanted.
   
   Yet, Wong remains zealous in her attempts to prove that she is a good Maoist. In fact, Part One of the book culminates in her informing on two students who asked for her help to leave China for the US. At the time Wong thought she was doing the right thing by turning them in, but now she regrets her decision and feels great remorse for the terrible fate that probably befell these people after that.
   
   In Part Two, Wong returns to Montreal to complete her McGill University degree. Still supportive of Red China, she lectures locally in an effort to muster public support for the country and its political agenda. After graduating in 1974, Wong won a Canadian government scholarship to study at Beijing University, and off she went for more of the same. In addition to learning more about her school experiences and deepening understanding of what was happening on a personal and political level, the author meets and marries Norman Shulman---an American. After her studies end, she takes a job as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. She finds that her Chinese appearance and fluency with the language give her a unique ability to get the local people to open up to her, when other reporters are unable to get interviews or comments.
   
   Wong reaches a turning point when Madame Mao and the rest of the Gang of Four are arrested. As she watches people rejoice in the streets, it dawns on her that the people hadn't believed in the Cultural Revolution for a long time. She feels betrayed and foolish because of her blind faith.
   
   Wong left China in 1980 to pursue a journalism degree at Columbia University, and then worked at various prestigious publications in the US and Canada for seven years. But in 1988, she was too curious to know what was really happening in China, so she asked her employer, the Toronto Globe, to transfer her. The third section of the book thus covers the late 1980s and early 1990s. The highlight of her career was covering the Tiananmen Square protests, the resulting massacre, and resulting fall out. This event served as the catalyst for shattering the last of Wong's illusions about communism in China. She declares herself no longer naïve and believes that she finally has a clear view of the "real" China.
   
   The last portion of the book presents some of Wong's most interesting interviews and perspectives on life in China, centering on human rights issues and social problems like how to uncover how many people really died in the Tiananmen Square massacre, poverty, the effects of the economic boom, retardation, drugs, prisoners, kidnapping women as brides, and the new robber barons of China.
   
   Wong left China in 1993 with no regrets. She concluded that without having spent 12 years living in and observing Red China, she would not have realized that what she was striving for all along was the socialist life style she enjoyed in Canada.
   
   Filled with interesting stories and well told, this book is a must read addition to your "good books about China" collection. As more and more people with Chinese roots return to this country, hopefully more voices like Wang's will emerge to give us perspective on what's happened between 1993 and the present, picking up where she has left off.

5 comments about Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.

1. Allan Bullock's biography is comprehensive. Any history book exceeding 800 pages falls into this category. However, do not let the scale of the book deter the reader from gaining an insight to this mad and evil man.
   
   In terms of the history of the 20th Century, Hitler is certainly one of that century's more influential characters. From a political perspective, the "pantheon" of significance would include Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Note that no democrats get a look in here. Perhaps the nearest in terms of influence would be Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Thus, no history of the last century can be complete without a thorough understanding of Adolf Hitler and his vast and demonic influence.
   
   Bullock's work covers Hitler's life in its entirety. We begin with his birth in 1889 in Austria near the Bavarian border, through his years as a rabble rouser and gutter politician and finish with his last days in the bunker in Berlin with the Red Army literally only a few hundred metres from capturing him. Yet through all this period, Hitler's core personality is unchanged. He has a seemingly innate hatred for Jews combined with a belief that Germany was conspired against from the inside when the First World War armistice was signed. These views lead Hitler to indulge his fantasies that Germany will rise again and that only he is able to lead the nation. The end, of course, is the absolute defeat of Germany such that a platform is provided for its splitting in two during the cold war. It also provides the scope for Stalin to impose his wishes upon Eastern Europe. This piece of modern day imperialism only ended in the final years of last century.
   
   To complete a reading Allan Bullock's work is not an easy task. It is truly an immense and impressive work. Yet, if the reader perseveres with the task, the reward is that one is left with a clearer picture of the mad man who legacy was death and destruction. It is the diary of madness succeeding over reason for too long. The consequences of this "success" were truly horrible.



2. I've never been drawn to the study of Nazi Germany as so many have, nor am I "fascinated" by the sweaty little man with bad hair and daddy issues who brought about Europe's most costly war. I've read a few books about Hitler, mainly because I was directed to do so in various classes, and of them all, this was the best. In dubbing Hitler : A Study in Tyranny the best, I mean it presented copious information (nicely backed up with an immense quantity of footnotes) and never strayed into validating the myths about its subject. One can read this abridgment of Bullock's work (I have never seen the long version) and come away reasonably well-informed about Hitler, his rise to power, the Second World War, and the Nazi regime with its various social misfits, failures, and assorted lovers-of-self. Bullock is an admirable sort of historian, one who does not inject his own personality far into his material and does not speculate so much as simply present facts through as little cultural filter as possible.
   
   In my views, as the title of this review declared, Adolph Hitler is given more credit than he deserves. Yes, he is at times too readily written off as "a nut" and left at that, but just as often (and increasingly in this century) he is unfairly praised and credited with accomplishments that were not fully his own. He is usually described as, "Boy, he was evil, but he was a genius." Was he? Was he truly?
   
   Not only was the hard-working German nation by 1933 on the path to an economic recovery of amazing scope, but the unrest of the 1920's with its inter-party feuding and Communist threat, was largely dissipating. Hitler is falsely believed in the popular view to have single-handedly set his nation on a path out of depression and into prosperity, while simultaneously quelling unrest and restoring order. In fact he had little to do with either, he came along at a time most propitious for him to make claims of responsibility for these things, but he did not author his (adopted) country's recovery.
   
   As for Hitler being " a genius" let's consider for a moment the deeds of this "strategic mastermind." Rather than containing his aggressions, Hitler took on virtually ALL the powers of Europe and eventually--in a fit of bad judgment so profound it should dispel his mystique right there-embroiled his nation in war with the United States, against whom the American people were not at war and were unlikely to be after the Pearl Harbor attack. Hitler allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk, he invaded his own ally, the Soviet Union, he so centralized power within the military that on D-Day his generals were paralyzed without authority to act without the go-ahead from Berlin, and he set into motion such cruelties against his own citizens and the populations of those lands he occupied that any widespread support he might have gained was almost entirely lost to his armies.
   
   The man was not a military mastermind, not a political genius, and beyond any doubt not the savior of Germany, which he all-but destroyed in his less than dozen years as absolute ruler. Hitler was the architect and inspiration for mass murder and more human misery and suffering than any one person the world had witnessed up to that time. Alan Bullock is to be praised for remembering all of these things and tossing the Hitler myth out of the window. I wish more people would read books like these before they go on perpetuating misinformation about an evil man they do not know as much about as they likely think they do.



3. Alan Bullock is one of the foremost biographers of Hitler. Unfortunately, when he wrote Study in Tyranny, few documents were available for him to write a complete work like his Hitler and Stalin. Bullock concentrates more on Germany as a whole instead of Hitler. Unlike his dual biography, Study in Tyranny has a tendency to bash his subject unnecessarily. Given the date of publication, Study in Tyranny is a good survey of Hitler and Germany before and during World War Two. Unfortunately compared to Joachim Fest's Hitler or Bullock's Hitler and Stalin, Study in Tyranny is lackluster but not due to Bullock's fault.



4. This was the best profile of Hitler when I read it forty years ago (it's only rival was Shirer's `Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'). Bullock skillfully explores Hitler's public and personal world in three sections (Party Leader, Chancellor, and War-Lord). Some of his surprising habits (non-smoker, vegetarian, and teetotaler) stand in contrast with the criminal war he launched and the innocents he killed.
   
   `A Study in Tyranny' has since been supplemented with accounts by Fest, Kershaw, and several others, but Bullock remains well worth reading for those serious in the subject.



5. I enjoyed the book very much as an amateur historian and read it often, so much so that my original copy fell apart over the years.
   
   The book itself compares well with Shirer's 'Rise and Fall of The Third Reich', which I personally consider to be 'the bible' as regards the Nazi era.
   
   The abridged version of 'Study in Tyranny' I found a bit dis-appointing after having the original, full text edition as the bench mark. I found there was, naturally, some parts of the text absent and that was dis-concertiong plus the larger print of the new version was a shade off-putting.
   
   My paperback edition of Shirer's work is full text, with naturally smaller print, but it is the full magnum opus, which is also an overweight Irish cat.
   
   I fully commend 'Hitler, A Study in Tyranny' to the student of The Third Reich but I would re-commend you purchase the full length version to gain the best from this work.

3 comments about Elizabeth's Spymaster: Francis Walsingham and the Secret War That Saved England.

1. I have always been fascinated by the work of Sir Francis Walsingham so I bought this book in eager anticipation - and was terribly disappointed. It is basically a mix of generalist Elizabethan history and rather boring details of Sir Francis' expenses. The one operation about which we have lots of information is his campaign against Mary Queen of Scots and this is covered in some detail in the book but we are told no more than is revealed in a lot of other books about Mary, her imprisonment and trial. I was hoping to find out exactly how Sir Francis got started in the spying business and how he built up his spy ring. Although the author implies that, as a neighbour of Lord Burlegh's he was introduced into the world of Tudor politics and espionage, this is never explained fully.
   Perhaps the irony is that Sir Francis was so good at what he did that we will never be able to find out how he did it!



2. A little dry in style, but with good information, and a good bibliography. I enjoyed reading it.



3. I walked away with the feeling that the author intended to write a history of Queen Elizabeth's intelligence operations, but the publisher forced him to make it a biography. This book is an excellent history of internal and external politics of England during Elizabeth's reign. As a biography, it's only OK; not bad, but not great. As an adjunct to Shakespeare, it is brilliant.
   
   I never really understood the events surrounding the detention of Mary Queen of Scots and the Spanish Armada until reading this. Now it all makes perfect sense. Vignettes about the implications of over-aggressive operations against religiously based insurgents are rife. Read with a broad veiw of current events, this book is very relevant.
   
   As a bio, it's kind of flat. Walsingham was a character, and very good at what he did even if not appreciated by Elizabeth. He was a passionate intelligence professional, and ran some brilliant, if ethically dubious, operations. I think the material about Walsingham really got lost in the history.
   
   As an adjunct to Shakespeare, this is excellent. This book reviews what would have been recent history and current events at the time Shakespeare began writing. The tone and references from Shakespeare make a lot more sense after wrapping myself around the life and times of Walsingham. The treachery and conspiracy culture that permeated Elizabeth's court is described in detail, and especially in "Measure For Measure" and "Two Gentlemen of Verona", the reader can better appreciate the complexity and risks of court life.
   
   I really enjoyed and learned a lot from this book, and recommend it to any student of that period's history, intelligence history, or Shakespeare.
   
   E.M. Van Court