5 comments about Johann Sebastian Bach: Life and Work.

1. This book came to my attention from a long review of it that appeared in the
   Intl. Herald Tribune by William F Buckley of all people. It is all that he said and then some. It is clearly written for the expert, and so there is a lot that is beyond both my interest and abilities, but there is enough that I seek to keep me engaged. Now, I admit my interest in Bach is highly specialised: I am a novelist and seek to place Bach alongside Caspar David
   Friedrich, Germany's great romantic painter, and Goethe all in various settings, but mostly in Dresden, Leipzig and Luebeck, which this book turns out to be highly useful. Handsomely bound and highly readable. A wonderful addition to a serious reader's library.



2. It's strange that with someone as famous as Bach that we really know very little about his personal life. In this book Martin Geck has written as much as we know, and has had to expand that with some of the generally accepted rumors. He has done a very good job in this area. That takes about a third of this book.
   
   The other two thirds of the book is on Bach's music. In this area, the book is absolutely supurb. Mr. Geck has been a professor of musicology at Dormund University. He has written about the other German major composers and now has produced this masterpiece on Bach.
   
   He covers every aspect of Bach's music from technique, to the impact on the listener. Surprisingly his analysis is not too technical so the average enthusiast can understant what he is saying. The last section of the book is called Horizons, and while fairly short (30 pages or so) he offers some opinions on Back's art, theology, symbolism and other aspects of his work that are seldom covered.



3. Other reviewers (three at the time of writing) have adequately addressed the scholarly content of this book, so I shall confine myself to a stylistic problem that none of them mentions. Perhaps it didn't disturb them? It certainly did me; in fact, it drove me crazy.
   
   And that is (if you will forgive me), that the author cannot make up his mind whether he spoke of Bach in the past or the present tense. For instance, on p. 38 we have:
   
   `Eisenach not only provides his musical world but is also the site of his upbringing and education' (etc.)
   
   But then:
   
   `The hymnal, the catechism, Latin texts -- these elements dominated the early education of young Bach.'
   
   Again:
   
   `At all events, he sets out on foot in March 1700 for Lüneburg, to arrive there before Easter. His classmate at the Ohrdruf lyceum, Georg Erdmann, released from school several weeks earlier, may have accompanied him.'
   
   These examples, perhaps not particularly egregious, are merely chosen at random from those that pervade the book.
   
   German is sufficiently like English, that it seems safe to assume that this is a characteristic of the original, and not of the translation (especially since we're told that the translation is `skillful'). It would be interesting to know for sure; I looked at Amazon Germany's website, but Search Inside was not enabled.
   
   Sad to say, the mannerism also affects the analysis portion of the book, contaminating not only syntax but semantics. On p.355 we read:
   
   `Bach continues his experimenting. For the very next Sunday, the fourteenth Trinity Sunday, he writes an opening chorus for the cantata BWV 25...'
   
   Since we have by now grasped the fact that Bach is dead, we can safely assign this event to the past. But then we have:
   
   `Taking a broad view of Bach's music, the musicologist Gerd Rienäcker speaks of a "consciousness of catastrophe," located in Luther's theology but...' (etc.)
   
   Is Rienäcker a denizen of the 18th century, or the 20th? Or is it the 19th? We have no easy way of telling.
   
   I personally find all this, as Caligula supposedly found Gemellus's cough, very irritating. While I would not go so far as to suggest Caligula's remedy, I would certainly hope that enough people will expostulate with the author and/or publisher that it will be corrected in future editions.
   
   The rating is a compromise between five stars for content and two for style. If you're a music student, this review probably won't -- and shouldn't -- affect your purchasing decision; but if you read merely for pleasure, you may want to take note.



4. This book is a strange combination of some interesting content (especially the part about the works; the biographical information is dry and gives no idea what kind of a person Bach was), and some very misguided choices in translation. Aside from the occasional translation error, the translator seems not to realize that the "historical present", which is used in German, does not exist in English (other than rarely). This gives, as another reviewer pointed out a sensation of cognitive dissonance. As I translator myself, I'm used to seeing this is French (the language I work from), but when I read a French book using this, it is rarely as disturbing as it is here. The translator should have normalized this into English, that is, using the past, but also should have normalized the disturbing shifts of time from the past to the present that occur on nearly every page.
   
   The biographical section is, as I mentioned, dry and static; you get no feeling that Bach ever ate a meal or went to the bathroom. It is fact after fact, date after date, written document after written document. The parts about the music itself are more interesting, but the overall feeling this book leaves is one of confusion. The decision to separate Bach's life and work is curious; the two were intertwined (especially because the author talks so little about Bach as a person, there's nothing else to hold up to the light).
   
   All in all, this is not a good book for someone wanting to understand Bach's life. Alas, in spite of the many books about Bach, not many of them do so. Others are also plagued by translation errors, or academic prose, and a real humanist biography of Bach is needed.



5. This book, like most written about J. S. Bach within the last hundred years, paints a man who wrote "J. J." at the top of his compositions as a humanist! (The two "Js" stand for "Jesu Juva," a Latin inscription meaning, "Jesus, Help Me." These same manuscripts were ended with S.D.G. = Soli Deo Gloria or, To God, Alone the Glory.)
   
   Men like Geck, with long strings of letters after their names, rush to derail the abundant and irrefutable proofs that J. S. Bach was a devout, believing and practicing CHRISTIAN, and they misrepresent him as a humanist. Some books, like this one are downright silly in proposing that a man who set to music more than five hundred deeply spiritual and Christ-centered cantata texts, did so while not believing a word of what he set. To accept the Bach as a humanist would mean that on every Sunday (except during Lent) and on all the major Feast Days, from 1723 to 1750, Bach's choirs sang a lie and he directed those lies.
   
   Bach never wrote words himself, or set to music words of anyone else who believed or espoused the Humanists mantra: That mankind's strength comes "from within." Read the words to the recitative for bass in the Christmas Oratorio that state: "My Jesus, when I die, I shall not die eterally. Thy name upon me Thou dost write, which puts the fear of death to flight!" No one, who reads the texts to Bach's Pentecost cantatas can come away with any doubt that the composer truly believed in an in-dwelling Holy Spirit and in the life-changing qualities of that infusion of God's power.
   
   To the unbeliever, these words are suffocating and seem excessive. But further familiarization with the texts Bach chose, reveal other, innumerable instances of just what he believed. Bach did not believe, as humanists would propose, that man is basically good. Bach did not believe that man can improve himself by merely being kind to others and by drawing upon some mysterious, self-contained strength.
   
   To confirm this, read the margin notes he wrote in his Calov Bible. The book is in the library of Concordia College in Missouri, USA. The "New Bach Reader" contains all these notes with very clear explanations of them.
   
   Further, Geck's book indicates that Bach was a pietist. This is clearly WRONG. Bach put up with a pietist rector in Muehlhausen and stomached the incursion and growing popularity of pietism, but he was an ORTHODOX LUTHERAN and he retained and practiced all the elements of that strong faith, inculcated in him and his father, Ambrosius, all his uncles and ancestors, going back to the earliest known ancestor, Lips Bach!
   
   J.S. Bach set to music and wrote in his second wife's "Notenbuch," arias, recitatives, chorales and choruses that support the teachings of Martin Luther: That man's salvation comes only through the grace of God, as a gift. It cannot be "earned" or "bought" as the Roman church had taught. He believed, as Luther did, "By Adam's fall, we sinned, all." Further, as Luther knew, Bach knew that good works are not the recipe for eternal life.
   
   Humanists believe doing good is what makes a person better. Luther (,St. Paul) and Bach believed people are worms to start with and that once you had accepted Christ's gift of salvation, one would WANT to do "good" in order to serve their new Lord and his creation. Geck apparently does not share or understand this, so he (and others) attempt to ignore or twist Bach's Orthodox Lutheran beliefs to suit the revisionist and humanist view of what the sermons and cantata texts in the Thomaskirche stated clearly.
   
   This is a long treatise on Bach's beliefs, but a full explanation is required to point out how misguided and uninformed Geck and the others are, when they minimize, debunk or distort Bach's beliefs and replace them with what most of "academe" thinks is a smarter and better-informed interpretation of them.
   
   The book does reveal Geck's sometimes extravagant conjectures about known happenings in Bach's life, but I could not discover anything new and useful. Instead, I found a tiresome re-hashing of popular fable and baseless and untruthful revisions in what Forkel and Spitta wrote about when it came to the great Sebastian's beliefs.
   
   Michael Lonneke
   Round Hill, VA

5 comments about Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography.

1. This is a comprehensive story of one of the most interesting women in history. Marion Meade gives us everything we would ever want to know about Eleanor of Acquitaine. Of course, what makes the book more interesting is the huge cast of supporting players in Eleanor's life. The story begins with her father and his castle of courtly romance. We then see Eleanor married to Louis Capet, King of France. He takes Eleanor on crusade to the Holy Land where their marriage falls apart. This sets the stage for her marriage to Henry Plantagenet - one of the greatest kings of England.

   We get the full story of Henry's struggle with Thomas a Beckett. We see the gradual dissolution of his marriage to Eleanor, and we see the famous children they sire - especially Richard Coeur de Lion.

   This is a long book but it is a well-written and fascinating read for anyone with even the most casual interest in history.




2. This was a wonderful book. I would read as much as I had time to each day and then spend time thinking about Eleanor until I could get back to her story. I have read other accounts, one historical, of Eleanor of Aquitaine, but this one brings her to life more than anything else I have read about her. She truly was a remarkable person by any standards and Meade made me feel as though I was right there watching it all unfold. I would highly recommend this book, particularly, if you have not read anything else on Eleanor and I guarantee you will want to find out more.



3. This book provides a detailed, insightful and thorough examination of a woman whose life would have been radical by modern standards. However, Eleanor lived nine centuries ago, in an age when patriarchial attitudes, values and mores were completely dominant. In such a world, Eleanor not only survived, she thrieved. The wife of two powerful Kings, Eleanor was a match for any man. She floutted convention, wearing armour and riding a charger on crusade, Eleanor remained sexually attractive enough to have the King of England, a man fourteen years her junior, marry her without regard for her lack of the normal virginal requirements of a queen consort.



4. "Meade's history [of Eleanor] is full of color, but based on facts," a reviewer wrote in 1999. As indeed it should be. Those qualities are not antithetical: history is often colorful and always based on facts. Reading reviews of Marion Meade's "Eleanor of Aquitaine: a Biography" (1977) is to discover that this writer is defending Meade's book against comments such as: "[It's] a very good read, but one suspects it is a poor history." And, under the heading "Entertaining fiction, not history" a reviewer describes Meade's book as, "indeed entertaining, and paints a vivid portrait... one that many readers have complained is missing from other biographies of this most fascinating queen." But then the reviewer changes direction, adding: "A substantial proportion of that portrait is conjecture."
   
   Some conjecture is essential to a quality biography from a faraway time. (Where would a jury be without connecting facts?) Meade's book is readable, superbly researched--as one expects from an accomplished journalist--and colorful. It is what a lengthy biography of an amazing woman should be, especially when the adventure of that long, exceptional life was so extraordinary.
   
   Marion Meade's diversity of interests is intriguing. She has written biographies of Buster Keaton, Woody Allen, Dorothy Parker, and tales of the roaring twenties under the title "Bobbed Hair and Bathtub Gin." On the other hand, here is this well-researched, compelling biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a rebellious life, to be sure, but a life pushing forth from the stony soil of the straightened, misogynistic twelfth century. Eleanor's life and times clearly made an impact on the author. Two years later (no doubt using some of the same hard-won research) she gave us the tale of Eleanor's near-contempory in "Stealing Heaven: The Love Story of Heloise and Abelard." Eleanor may have heard Abelard preach in Paris. Like Heloise, in Meade's capable hands Eleanor of Aquitaine comes across as the mistress of her life--even, be it said, of her life's many frustrations.
   
   Robert Fripp, author of
   "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine"



5. I am not much of a reader of biographies as many of them read like text books. Meade has managed to do a superlative job in creating a biography that I found myself unable to put down.
   
   I have read the critics stating the book is more fiction than history. Without personally researching every document Meade used to develop her book (a task I am sure the critics did not perform), I felt able to easily understand where Meade made conjectures about Eleanor's thoughts and motivations for the actions that she took, most of which were well documented by Eleanor's contemporaries - particularly in the accounting department. It is apparent to me that Meade's conjectures were based on these solid facts along with a good dose of understanding what it much have been like for a women of means and will to be constantly under the thumb of men.
   
   Critics also state that Meade painted a woman without faults. Obviously they did not read the book. The description Meade gives of Eleanor's second attempt to regain Toulouse with her land hungry second husband shortly after a friendly truce with her ex-husband was gained, amounted to Meade basically stating in so many words, "What was she thinking?"
   
   Rather than faultless, Meade gives a detailed description of a complex woman; a woman of intelligence, but also a woman easily succumbed to flattery; a woman of independent will consistently struggling against a society clipping her wings.

5 comments about Sleeping Arrangements.

1. Like another reader, I was drawn to the unusual cover of this book--a sweet lil' girl's face superimposed over a faded shot of two older men--in these pedophiliactic times of Michael Jackson and Catholic priests, I assumed it was yet another sad story of abuse. Wronnnngg! This is so outrageously funny that you can almost laugh through the sad passages, while still appreciating the depth of tragedy that befell Shaine's unusual childhood. Her uncles really did sound like a couple of Marx brothers, but the love this odd family shared always shines. I'd teach it in my high school classes, but a few passages here and there probably make it questionable--although the haunting description of her continuing search for her father would resonate with many kids. A great find that I stumbled on while hunting for something else at B and Noble.



2. This book's emphasis on prurient material turned me off. Also, the "characters" did not seem to behave in an age appropriate manner, which led me to wonder if the author didn't exaggerate many of the escapades described in the book.



3. I cannot wait to read more of her work. I loved this book! I loved her writing. This is a must read!



4. Very well written. I felt I had met these people. The writer's words flow smoothly, and I had to slow myself down or the book would have ended too soon. Some of things very young Lily and friend did were hair-raising (in a dark park, cavorting with perverts). What I liked best about this book were her uncles, particularly Uncle Gabe. In fact, I have now purchased Laura Cunningham's book "A Place in the Country" so I can read more about her uncles. I enjoy memiors that deal with unconventional families that provide a nurturing environment and a great deal of love, and this book is that sort of memior.



5. I found myself struggling to finish this book. I almost gave up several times. The first several pages were quite good then it looses steam.

5 comments about The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler.

1. I do not pretend to be an expert on European History from the end of WWI until the end of WWII. Additionally I hesitate to judge anyone's book as I realize that a book represents a huge amount of work and an author spends a great deal of time crafting conclusions or even questions that the author says cannnot be answered. However, I have read perhaps a dozen books including Toland, Shirer, Fest and even that recent book by Junge that deal directly in large parts with the life of Hitler. I have also read perhaps four dozen academic books dealing with European history in the first half of the 20th century. I am aware of the of the feuding conclusions regarding Hitler's and the German people's culpability and conduct regarding WWII. I thought this book might give me more insight or least throw some weight to one of the sides of the current historical arguments.
   
   After reading the book, I found myslf severely disappointed. This book is so basic, it reads like a high school textbook. Indeed, it deals with areas of historical dispute by simply ignoring arguments in an almost breathtaking ways. For example, the author, absent one passing comment, simply rejects the argument that the Nazis had been behind the burning of the reichtag in 1933. Likewise, the author left out some of the most basic points found in any serious study. For example, he writes that Germans, dressed as Polish military, seized a German radio station. Although perhaps a bit too much to ask, the author totally leaves out the multiple postponements leading to the jump off. Not surprisingly, the auhor left out the fact of the German units that jumped off early and had to come pack over he border. As to the seizure of the German radio station, the author left out that the Germans left dead concentration camp inmates [called



2. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil leaders in human history.he dreamed of making Germany the most powerful country in the world.Hitler hated Jews,communis,andgypsies.He led to the organized murder of over 6 million men,women,and childern.



3. This book is about Adolf Hitler. Before I hated Hitler blindly only because of the Holocaust. Now I still hate him, but with a bit more understanding. There is no excuse for what he did, but I believe it may not have been entirely his fault. As he had a difficult child, with his father abusing him or his brothers, and later, after his father died, living homeless and poor in Vienna and Munich, I believe he may have been looking for a center to focus anger and to blame for his misfortune, and he found it in the Jewish people. On April 20, 1889, Hitler was born in a small village in Austria named Braunau. His mother pampered him, but his father had a short temper and would yell at and whip his children often. Adolf was not particularly good at school, gaining average grades at best. He was described as thin and pale. Hitler's ambition was to become an artist, but his father refused. Hitler only went to the college his father wished him to go to because that college had drawing classes. Hitler's father died on January 3, 1903, and in 1905, Hitler got a lung infection, and used it as a reason not to go back to school. Therefore, Hitler's education officially ended when he was sixteen. A couple years later, in 1907, Hitler's mother died of breast cancer. Hitler became homeless and had very little money. For years, he survived by painting postcards and then selling them. He barely managed to afford a small one-room apartment. When WWI started forcing Austria to conscript soldiers, Hitler at first avoided being drafted into the army. However, when Germany entered the war, Hitler willingly entered the army. He got many awards, but had to quit when his eyes were damaged. He soon started plotting to become Chancellor of Germany. He didn't want to be President, because the President actually had no power, and the Chancellor was the most powerful. Eventually he got his wish and made the Chancellor and President the same thing and even became the dictator for life of Germany. He wished to expand Germany and moved first into Austria. Austria was given to him to avoid war, and he even got part Czechoslovakia without bloodshed. However, as he moved on Poland, WWII was started. After many defeats and losses, Hitler turned to a goal of his- to destroy the Jewish people. An "option" was suggested and mobilized. Soon hundreds of Jews were being carted to death camps where they were exterminated or sent to factories to make supplies for the war. An attempt to assassinate Hitler failed, but injured him so he diminished. Always a powerful speaker, Hitler remained this, but was so shaky, the effect was diminished somewhat. Eventually, Hitler was pushed into an underground bunker in Berlin. There he shot himself in the head, and his new wife, Eva Hitler, took poison so as not to be captured by Allied troops. They were then cremated and buried. Several of Hitler's followers also killed themselves, preferring not to be killed by Allied persecutors. I would recommend this book to anyone who wished to know a bit more about Hitler or students who want to do a biography on him.
   
   T. Sprock



4. This book is very informative. It gives the background of one of the world's most infamous men. It is not biased in any way. Instead, it gives a clear history of Hitler's life. Readers might be surprised to find out about the many accomplishments of this much-hated man. It made me think about how Adolf Hitler could have contributed to society, instead of hurting so many people. Things could have been VERY different...It is so sad to realize he wasted his talents and destroyed many lives because of hate.



5. This is a vague, basic overview that should not be considered by anyone who is searching for insight or more than general recall.

5 comments about Johnny's Girl: A Daughter's Memoir of Growing Up I.

1. I read this book after seeing the movie 'Johnny's Girl' which is based on Kim Rich's life story. As I suspected, the book offered a fuller portrait of the struggles Rich endured and the sense of survial she must have felt. Her writing style is fluid and funny and moving and I recommend this book to readers who value excellent literarily nonfiction. I look forward to her next book!



2. Kim Rich, who grew up in Anchorage during the 60s and 70s, had the parents from hell: Mom was a prostitute who ended her years in a mental hospital, and dad was an operator of illegal gambling joints who was eventually murdered due to a dispute over ownership of a massage parlor. Her parents tried to create the facade of a respectable middle-class family when Kim was a child, but all for naught; Kim imparts such experiences as being mistaken by the police for a prostitute, at age 13, when they raided her house.

   I sense writing the book was an act of therapy for the author, who was trying to reconcile the fact that although her parents loved her, they were, at the core, bad people. It is deeply moving to see how the author struggled to have a normal childhood and normal teenage years despite the underworld characters who surrounded her and the emotional baggage her parents saddled her with. This well-written, articulate book is also a portrayal of what Anchorage, Alaska, was like during the 60s and 70s.




3. I am a person who finishes a book of this length in a day. But this book I held onto for weeks. Such extraordinary courage and objectivity it must have taken to write this book. One should be proud. My Holiday Greetings to Kim Rich and her family.



4. Although biographies are not my favorite reading, I was drawn to this when it first came out. I still remember the feelings evoked by how she was able to deal with her parents and her life -- her strength and resilience as she was growing up. Her strength in her later search for answers, her maturity and understanding, and her forgiveness and love for her mother and father, although both parents were flawed and could not give her the kind of love and life so needed by a child, is a powerful statement.



5. I grew up in Anchorage during the same time that Kim Rich did so I bought this book for my sister for her birthday. It got passed from family member to family member until it made it back to me in Texas. My mother doesn't usually read books and even she couldn't put it down. I found it to be very interesting although it may not be as good to those without ties to Alaska. I knew that Anchorage has its sleazy side but I had no idea about the activities described in this book although I do remember some of the characters and murders. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and recommend it.

No comments about Charles, Prince of Wales: A Birthday Souvenir Album.

5 comments about Joan: The Mysterious Life of the Heretic Who Became a Saint.

1. Having seen several films on her life, I wanted to know more.
   The book explains the Englishes motivation to prosecute her, the wisdom of her responses, her belief in her life purpose/mission and expectation of an afterlife.



2. Spoto's picture of Joan is of a brave, patriotic, spiritual girl who followed what she believed to be God's will.
   
   His descriptions of her months of loneliness, terror and suffering -- chained in a dark dungeon and nearly starving -- and the disgraceful and dishonest onslaught from her tormentors will touch even a Joan skeptic.
   
   Spoto's message: 1) God is against imperialism; and 2) He often sends the least likely person to do the job (in this case, defending the French nation and culture from English invasion).
   
   Spoto's writing is lively, and he doesn't try to hide his admiration for this teenaged girl or his religious sensibilities. It is not a sermon, though, but an enthralling biography that makes a good introduction to Joan of Arc or adds to the understanding of those whom she continues to fascinate nearly six hundred years after her execution.



3. Donald Spoto takes a departure from the pop-culture biography and applies his efforts toward the life of a young woman whose name is recognized by practically everyone, but whose life, although very well documented, has been perpetuated with myth and mysticism. There is something about Joan of Arc that that draws affection and devotion from people, something beyond her remarkable exploits--something about Joan herself. As Spoto tells her story, he avoids the mythological and mystical: he does not dwell on the provenance of her sword, her seemingly divine ability to have been able to recognize the dauphin Charles, or the sudden change of wind at Orleans. He focuses instead upon the girl, in language that is often poignant and revealingly endearing.
   
   For those who have studied Joan's life, through countless books, films, poems and plays, Spoto's take will read with the freshness of clean mountain air. Those who are just now taking up Joan's life (and especially those who have only seen the movies) will probably benefit more from Spoto's telling than any other available account. He embeds a chronology into the story, sometimes a day-by-day account, which helps the reader to comprehend events. He applies some of his own translations, which helps to clarify some of the fuzzier aspects of Joan's popular interpretation, and he includes some key details that are often overlooked, such as the unrelated deaths of Joan's older brother and sister, that two other brothers joined her during her campaigns, that her mother and father met her at Reims, and that her family was in Rouen during her imprisonment and execution. These are small details, but make for a more thorough story while eliminating the embellishments that have given rise to so much mythology. Spoto shows that Joan's factual life is much more compelling than her mythological life.



4. "Joan: The Mysterious Life" provided a chronological descripton of Joan's short life in a way that made her very human and compelling. This book provided great historical perspectives that gave insights into the possible thoughts and motivations of Joan, her supporters and her enemies - I learned a good deal about the French and English situations and ambitions in the early 15th century, and of the Church - enough to especially dislike the betrayal of Charles VII in failing to rescue the very person that gave him the crown and effectively saved France. It was emotionally involving, the things many people will do for money and power -- contrasting so sharply with the self-less, faith filled purity and purpose of Joan. Not that faith makes a differnce here to me (and the book does not take on the debate if Joan's visons were revealtions from God or not - only correctly suggests that Joan believed them them so, and this was enough), but Joan's purpose was decribed in such a way that reveals that her motives were indeed inspired and are inspiring.
   
   To provide more understanding, I also just finished "Beyond the Myth: The Story of Joan of Arc" which got 5 stars as opposed to this book's 4. "The Mysterious Life" presented Joan with much more personality and insight, "Myth" was more like a flat list of Joans' actions and activities by comparison.



5. Donald Spoto's Joan of Arc is powerfully written. The book addresses her early life as the daughter of a relatively prosperous farmer, her great piety, and, of course, the voices that she followed. Spoto describes earlier women who were believed to have been on divine missions and medieval beliefs regarding angels.
   
   Spoto chronicles Joan's journey to the Dauphin's court and her successes at Orleans and Reims. He debunks the commonly accepted view that Joan's role was only inspirational: she actively led soldiers in battle (twice wounded) and helped draw up battle plans. Yet, she never personally killed an English soldier and would weep when she learned of English war deaths.
   
   The treachery of Charles VII is well known and is reviewed by Spoto. That Charles did nothing to secure Joan's release remains beyond belief.
   
   The puppet master at the interrogation and trial, Bishop Pierre Cauchon, is brilliantly portrayed, as is the whole sham tribunal. Joan's ability to match wits with the "learned" men who mercilessly interrogated her is, itself, a miracle.
   
   Refreshingly, the author makes clear his own deep religious convictions throughout the carefully researched text.
   
   This is a good, concise biography. Highly recommended for anyone who has any interest in keeping alive Joan's memory.

5 comments about The Death of Sigmund Freud: The Legacy of His Last Days.

1. The Death of Sigmund Freud is a perfect companion book to the bigger Freud biographies ... a critical addition to the Freud section of your personal library on this fascinating man, doctor, thinker. The author begins the narrative just before Freud fled Vienna for England ... and it ends with Freud's pitiful death.
   
   The comparative exploration of the life of Hitler and Freud as Europe began to change is interesting and well constructed, but the real fascination is found in the details of Freud's working and personal life. I think the real punch in a biography is felt at the point in the book where you feel the subject's been fleshed out ... really captured by the author ... and Freud is now more real and understood in my mind than ever before. He's a mythic personality now. He was back in his day. Edmundson has rendered Freud's human, day-to-day life beautifully ... and what Freud professionally and personally believed, whether it's believable to us or not.
   
   Reviewer Todd Sentell, a Psychology major who graduated "Oh Lordy," is also the author of the hilarious social satire, TOONAMINT OF CHAMPIONS



2. Outstanding book....couldn't put it down. As a psychology teacher this book really put into perspective Freud and his relationship to Hitler and many other prominent leaders of the time. Historically, it brought together so many of the major movers and shakers of Hitler's quest for power. Highly recommend for those interested in Freud or Hitler.



3. OK, who were the most influential people of the 20th century? Einstein, Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Freud. You can jockey the order, probably add Hitler depending on your definition of "influential", but that's the short list.
   
   Freud's life as a writer/thinker, like Churchill's and Einstein's, was very long. If you want to learn something about this giant, you definitely want to start slowly. THE DEATH OF SIGMUND FREUD is a great way to get a feel for both the man and what he stood for. Mark Edmundson picks up Freud, after a brief introduction about Vienna in 1909, in 1938. Freud is 81, in poor health, and about to come under Adolf Hitler's Anchluss.
   
   Edmundson, in this short volume, gives you a great feel for how Sigmund Freud lived: how his study looked, his industriousness, his love of dogs, his relationship with his daughter Anna, his relationships with his disciples, what Freud's Vienna was like, what he collected, his (ultimately dangerous) love of cigars, etc. Even if the book did nothing more than accumulate these bits of Freud's life in 1938 and 1939, it would be wonderful, because what can an author do beyond transporting the reader to a place and time? And what a place and time! Freud, Hitler, Vienna, Anchluss.
   
   The author also gives readers a great short course on some of Sigmund Freud's work. As certain subjects dominate the last year of Freud's life - the rise of Nazism, his relationship with his daughter, the need for conflict in his life to create brilliant work, his enjoyment and suspicion of fame, his need to shock and create controversy (to name a few) - Edmundson describes how Freud wrote about those matters, quoting from and summarizing Sigmund's most famous theories and ideas, usually from works created decades before.
   
   Even as an introduction to Sigmund Freud, this book is incomplete (though by design). But it gives you a taste as well as a feeling you're following Freud at the end of his life, trying to make sense of it all. You may find yourself, like me, back on Amazon.com looking for a comprehensive biography of Freud and ordering translations of some of his classic works. I'd say that's a pretty high compliment for the book and author.



4. This is not intended as a complete review, as I have nothing to add to the other reviews which appear in this space. However, in what is otherwise a thought-provoking and inspiring book, there are some lapses in German usage which are a little disconcerting. Nouns in German always capitalize the first letter, so it is a bit wierd to see Hitler referred to as "the fuhrer" rather than "the Fuhrer". (And the capitalization would give a better sense of his own self-importance.) Also, in spite of the fact that recent spelling modifications now render the combination "oe" as a single "o" with an umlaut, this does not usually apply to dead historical personages such as Goering or Goethe.



5. "The Death of Sigmund Freud" is a timely look at the last days of Freud since he was facing the march of Nazism, and since after 9-11, the US has tilted quite a bit to the Right, and it is wise to weigh into possible reasons to be concerned about tilting further, and a look from Freud's perspective is certainly interesting.
   
   Since anti-Semitism was rampant at the time, from the book, critics did say that psychoanalysis was right, just that it was a 'Jewish Science' only applying to Jews, an attempt to discredit it. Some of Freud's thoughts on the matter were:
   
   1. Freud called the relationship crowds form with an absolute leader, erotic. Hitler, himself, in his speeches said that he made love to the German masses. Essentially, the crowds become hypnotized. Not that we are anywhere near such a situation, but one surely can notice a more 'patriotic' tone to many of the current presidential supporters and calling dissenters un-patriotic.
   
   2. Inner conflict, between one's ego, id, and superego, is not only inevitable, but desirable to better modify behavior. Seeking some perpetual, peaceful state is dangerous because it is more likely to erupt into really bad behavior. So, public dissent is healthy and should be encouraged.
   
   3. Freud, a Jew, recognized in monotheism, that the ability to internalize an invisible god prepares a person to think more abstractly. He saw Jews' long history with that as allowing Jews to distinguish themselves in math, sciences, law and literary arts, ways which effect some control over nature. Better to have some invisible god, than some human authoritarian one, be it political or some religious one who tries to have crowds focus on him or her. Freud felt that such thinking made Jews more likely to reject pageantry and less susceptible to elevating humans to god-like status, one reason for anti-Semitism to run rampant as Nazis knew they would meet resistance from Jews. Not that one should conclude that Judaism is superior, just that the internalizing of an invisible god is the important part of monotheism.
   
   4. Rather than blame something about Germany, Japan or Italy for the rise of 20th century fascism, Freud felt that internally we are all fascists/fundamentalists, at least potentially. So, it is the inner conflict we need to use to overcome it. Once again, dissent is healthy.
   
   A very interesting book!

5 comments about The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House.

1. While I hated to see Clinton move into the presidency, and, of course, hated his actions even more following Lewinsky, it's a wonder that we still have a country at all. I most certainly would not buy anything that might give him (or her, for that matter) any type of grace, and only scanned the pages at a local bookstore. That was quite enough for me, thank you very much. Now, unfortunately, it looks as though Miseries Clinton might be our next president. Hold onto your wallets, people!



2. Moron Tyrell is yet another wingnut who can't accept that Clinton is gone. They must all have a secret yearning for Hillary in '08 to make their pathetic lives seem worthwhile. Maybe they're all in denial after seven years of G. W. Dumbass and the weekly scandals of his crooks and cronies.



3. This is a must read for anyone considering putting another Clinton in the White House.



4. Tyrell has made his living pandering to the neocons who consider sex between a man and a woman to be more important than national security, foreign relations, and domestic policy matters. If you want to get a sense of why the neocons have become the laughing stock of the free world just read this book and then do your own research to find all the fictional statements Tyrell makes on virtually every page. As is typical for neocons they continue their hatred rant about America when American is doing well, but claim to love America when we're being broken apart and the Constitution is thrown in the trash - as the neocons have been trying to do for decades. This is a great book for America-bashing neocons in order to get a false sense of vindication.



5. Perhaps it is because Mr. Tyrrell is, in my opinion, an intelligent and well researched writer, which gives him the factual perspective enabling clear-headed criticism. For many years, there has been embarrassment, humiliation, and utter disbelief surrounding the actions and inactions of this former president, his apologists and enablers. Almost en masse, the media has dutifully carried his water, parroted his lame excuses, giggled at his "bad boy" philanderings, made us all a little smaller for it, and helped to make the highest and most respected office of our land a playground for this sad man. It is thanks to people like Mr. Tyrrell who take on the burden of supplying documented background, so the rest of us can have the proof that unfortunately, many people do not seem to want. Additionally, he maintains a level of humor about darkly disturbing human behavior, which allows an element of pity to be conjured for this former president.

5 comments about With Honor: Melvin Laird in War, Peace, and Politics.

1. WITH HONOR...MELVIN LAIRD IN WAR, PEACE, AND POLITICS...Dale Van Atta
   There are three story lines in this authorized biography. The most prominent and both best and least known is getting out of Vietnam. It is surprisingly timely as Laird's warning to Bush Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--"It's a helluva lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out one"--plays out in 2008 headlines. The almost eerie coincidence is that the Laird book was released the week that the generals were telling Congress that they needed more troops and more time. According to this book Laird [who removed General Westmoreland who asked him to "send me 500,000 more men" as Vietnam commander] would have (a) done the testifying himself and (b) would have asked "Did you expect the military to ask for fewer troops and less time? "
   During his entire four years as Nixon's Secretary of Defense Laird was if not the sole the most prominent advocate of what came to be known as "Vietnamization," his plan to disengage from that ill conceived and unfortunate military adventure. Everyone else in the administration was either opposed to or ambivalent about "getting the hell out" in Laird's words. President Nixon was alternatively both of the above, and Henry Kissinger, his main adviser on foreign policy wanted a peace treaty first, which put him more in the Nixon camp than on the Laird bandwagon.
   One of the most cogent quotes from the book was Laird's advice to the military, the White House, and anyone else who would listen that "time has run out."
   When President Bush invited all the living ex-secretaries of defense to a show and tell session at the White House it quickly became obvious that his administration which had unanimously been, in Laird's view, "bent on war" was really looking for affirmation not advice.
   One of the questions the book answers is how Laird got away with something verging on insubordination that no other Secretary of Defense has even attempted. Forty years later it is easy to say "because he was right," but that wasn't evident then and there are some who will argue the point even now. The real reason is that Nixon needed Laird more than Laird needed Nixon. This was obvious at the outset when Nixon gave him a free hand [in writing, on a napkin] to make all the "presidential" appointments in the Pentagon to convince him to abandon the Congress, which he loved, for the most unpopular and difficult job in the government. It was confirmed continuously over the four years Laird served as Laird won every vote from the Congress that he asked for Defense and the administration.
   The second story in the book is the gossipy one about Laird's relations with Nixon and with Kissinger which will attract the attention of the gossip addicted. The non-stop one-upmanship encounters on matters large and small with Henry Kissinger are given extensive play in the book. What is underplayed is that the two remain great friends and mutual admirers. Their struggles were a kind of gamesmanship it seems even though they involved a very high stakes game.
   What will titillate is what the book has to say about Laird's relations with Nixon starting with the quote: "...sometimes orders that came at night were not good orders to follow" and the fact that Nixon lied to him about Watergate to get him to come to the White House and try to salvage a crumbling administration.
   
   He also told Nixon that he would get along with the Congress better if he didn't make them feel he was smarter than they were. "You can't get a vote if you start on a pedestal," he told him.
   What is most admirable about the book is the third story, the often too short descriptions of his accomplishments over an extraordinarily wide range and the very high regard in which he was held in many important places. What he really wanted was something he never got and something he gave up when he took the job at Defense. He wanted to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. His name did show up on several short lists for jobs he neither sought nor wanted. He was regarded as a possible candidate for president or vice president. He might have been commissioner of baseball, and could have been chief executive of a large assortment of large, important corporations. The author does not say why he didn't pursue any of these. He was 50 when he left the Defense Department in 1972. My own observation was that he had aged 20 years in the time he was in that job. I was told that will happen when for 4 years every time the phone rings, it's bad news.
   The dichotomy is that when you consider what he did before, during, and after his stint in Defense, perhaps we lost more than we gained because of this important and perhaps indispensable diversion. We could, after all, be almost halfway to our 100 years in Vietnam but for Mel Laird.
   But still.
   Laird and his great friend and ally Rhode Island's Democratic Representative John Fogarty on the Health subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee can single-or double-handedly be credited for making the National Institutes of Health and Center for Disease Control into major institutions. They were also responsible for creating 13 "Lairdettes" on campuses across the country including the McArdle Center at UW-Madison to do cancer research. They did all of this over the dead bodies of notable fiscal conservatives in the Congress and the White House including President Eisenhower.
   Eisenhower, as well as his two immediate successors John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, named Laird the US representative to the annual conferences of the World Health Organization.
   His unprecedented base closing record while at Defense, incidentally, indicates he didn't abandon his own fiscally conservative roots altogether.
   He introduced Nixon to the Wisconsin concept of revenue sharing whose initiatives gave that idea a short and not so sweet run at the federal level.
   Talent was at the head of his criterion list when recruiting for the Defense Department. Of the 68 top jobs there, a little over half were filled by Republicans, the rest by Democrats, Independents, and a few "unknowns" which may have been "unasked." This worthy idea was discarded by the Reagan administration and hasn't surfaced since.
   He put his most trusted recruit Bob Froehlke in charge of a reorganization of the several intelligence agencies whose reports he always regarded with something approaching suspicion. The project improved inter-agency communication and reduced costs, which was either hoped for was what they got.
   He was always open with the press and the public and told his staff that the way to deal with bad news is to expose it. When he left the Pentagon, the Washington press corps presented him with a football inscribed Laird 194 Press 0.
   He is responsible for the military's medical school which has supplied most of the doctors needed by our forces in times of trouble.
   He and Bob Froehlke took the lead on designing and promoting a post-Vietnam amnesty program for young people who eluded the draft.
   He ended the draft.
   New York's Democratic Governor Hugh Carey gave him credit for saving New York City from bankruptcy.
   He orchestrated the appointment of Gerald Ford to the vice presidency fully aware that Ford would soon be president, because Laird knew that Nixon had lied about his involvement in Watergate and could not survive the ensuing ongoing cover-up.
   The book doesn't make the claim, but it is hard not to believe that he also got President Ford to name Nelson Rockefeller to the vice presidency. So at one time in our country's history, the man from Marshfield had a major role in filling the two top jobs in the country.
   He and Senator Adlai Stevenson crafted a presidential nominating plan that would limit the number of primaries to 16 and give a more important role to something now known as "super delegates" which is further proof that the law of unintended consequences cannot be repealed.
   He and fellow Wisconsin Congressman John Byrnes worked with the National Football League to preserve their monopoly, distribute their soon to be riches democratically and evenly, and, not so incidentally, save the Green Bay Packers.
   His dogged demands for diversity were rewarded with the unprecedented promotions of large numbers of minorities and women to flag officer status in all branches of the military.
   What we will never know is where else Mel Laird would have gone or what else he would have done if events and pressing national needs had not altered his own best laid plans. What we do know is that he did what he did with, as the book's title claims, honor.
   



2. This biography of Melvin Laird was written in a style that makes one not want to put the book down. For anyone who lived through the turbulent 1960's and or are veterans of the Vietnam War, this book is a must read to clearly understand the politics and actions of our government during that period. For others, the story of Melvin Laird is an inspiring history lesson of a dedicated and influential elected official and Secretary of Defense that gives the reader insight into the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon presidential policies and decisions. Having read most of the self serving memoirs of the top players of the 1960's, I thought this book was the most balanced view of the major political and military decisions of that time in our history.



3. I grew up in the late 60s and early 70s thinking of bullet-headed Melvin R. Laird as a warmonger who helped perpetuate America's anguish in Vietnam. I was astonished to discover just how wrong I (and many of my friends, as well as much of the press at the time) really were. Though the account is fascinating of how Laird, despite resistance from both Nixon and Kissinger, was actually working hard but finally successfully to get us out of Vietnam, I found the book more valuable for a different reason.
   
   Anyone who objectively reads "With Honor" will learn at least one thing: That it is (or at least once was) possible for Republicans and Democrats to work together and actually realize important goals for our nation and the world. What they accomplished through their efforts, with the integral help of Laird's talent for behind-the-scenes leadership, is nothing short of inspiring. It is a shame that Laird and his Republican allies, together with the Democrats they befriended, aren't working together again, just as this book shows they once did, to salve and solve some of the wounds our nation has endured of late.
   
   But "With Honor" is not just a history lesson that shows us "what could have been," had we true leaders like Melvin Laird and his friends working together again today. Finely written and easily accessible, "With Honor" accomplishes something political biographies often fail at: It manages at once to be a smooth, pleasurable, and entertaining read, yet at the same time sacrifices none of the details, facts, and stories that make this account so rich. And, as the best biographies usually are, the book is chock full of never-before-told anecdotes and facts -- some scandalous, some uplifting, but all interesting. Surprisingly, there is even quite a lot of humor (The story of the smoldering cigar in Laird's suit pocket at the Vatican is worth the purchase price alone!)
   
   Even people not normally interested in politics will find this book both entertaining and compelling -- not to mention hugely educational in the way of showing just how dicey was the birthing of many of the most important institutions of 20th Century America -- hinging as they did on a few key people with their hearts in the right place, working together for the good of all. There are real lessons today's politicians could learn from Mel Laird. Recommend they read it today!



4. For every Joe McCarthy, there was a Joseph Welch; for every Nixon a Woodward/Bernstein team; etc. We all know about those guys. However, the real story of our nation's history cannot be understood without a record of the decent, hononorable and wise persons who have been present throughout our history, and who have prevented the country from veering so far off course that it can't get righted. (I hope there are at least a few such people left in 2008 to get us back on course now!) My father was a life-long, Democrat who voted for Mel Laird in every one of his elections, because Laird was such an individual, and I wish my parents were around to read this book.



5. I loved this book! It helped me finally find a piece of history that was missing for me. I was born in 1962 and while I was living during the time period in which most of the events in this book unfolded, I did not have any recollection of them or their significance. I feel like I have a better understanding of my own time period. The book is well written and chocked full of important information. My hat goes off to Dale Van Atta for all of the hard work and effort that must have transpired in order to complete this comprehensive volume.