5 comments about Fifty Dead Men Walking: The Heroic True Story of a British Secret Agent Inside the IRA.

1. I liked this one! It shows how McGartland, an intelligent soul, was plucked from his lifestyle by British Intelligence to became "Agent Carol", the government's best informant in Ulster for decades.



2. The moment I started to read this book I couldn't put it down. I read it in a day and even now months later I remember it like I read it yesterday. The images Martin McGarland created will stay with me for a very long time. This book is not only an education into the troubles in Ireland it is also a testament to the strength and courage of an amazing man. I would recommend this book to everyone and anyone.



3. The moment I started to read this book I couldn't put it down. I read it in a day and even now months later I remember it like I read it yesterday. The images Martin McGarland created will stay with me for a very long time. This book is not only an education into the troubles in Ireland it is also a testament to the strength and courage of an amazing man. I would recommend this book to everyone and anyone.



4. Tremendous book . I had Read It Several Years ago , When i was in the Uk, saw it on Amazon , and read it again .
   Martin Mc Gartland is a tribute to the Irish People .
   A young man who became an agent for the special branch, knowing that if he was found out by the IRA it would mean Torture , then certain Death.....
   He was known as 'agent Carol' and gave vital information which saved many lives both protestant and catholic.
   His title of the book "Fifty Dead Men Walking" is an understatement , i truly believe he saved alot more than fifty.
   It is an essential read, and also to read his second book "dead Man Running" Thankyou Martin , for all you have sacrificed.....



5. Was it worth it Martin? Hero is no word for a hood turned tout.
   
   Recommended reading would be a book called "Ten men Dead" about real men and real heroes who suffered at the hands of Thatchers Government and the RUC, a far more truthful account of the troubles.

5 comments about Richard II (The English Monarchs Series).

1. Richard II has been a controversial figure from his deposition from the English throne in 1399 to our own day. Like his later fifteenth-century namesake Richard III, interpretations of him and of his motives have varied widely, and were dominated for much of the twentieth century both by Shakespeare's play and by the image of the mad autocrat first painted by Anthony Steel in his "Richard II" (1941). Now Professor Nigel Saul has given us what will deservedly be the standard life for at least the next half-century. This work, first published three years ago, forms part of an outstanding series of lives of the English kings, and is every bit the equal of the best of them, from Warren's "Henry II" (1973) to Barlow's "William Rufus" (1983). Saul presents Richard as a man thrust, at the tender age of ten, into an office and a domestic and international situation which he could not fully grasp, and forced to do the impossible: fill the gargantuan shoes of both his grandfather, Edward III, and his father, the outstanding warrior Edward the Black Prince. The uncertainty of Anglo-French relations during this stage of the Hundred Years War, and the expectations of Richard's magnates and subjects - that he would be a military leader and vigorous defender of the English position in France like his predecessors - bedeviled the king during his minority and placed constraints upon his behavior which he found unbearable. Saul examines the entire context of Richard's reign and the forces at work in his world, from Richard's peace overtures to the French (which were opposed by his magnates as insulting to English "national" honor) to his support of unpopular court favorites, and even to the king's religious attitudes (traditional in a time of growing discontent with the Papacy and the Catholic Church). He thus gives us a complete structure to support the fascinating final chapters of the book. It is here, just as in any finely crafted piece of literature, that we see all the strands of Richard's life and character woven together with what, for him, was a terrible finality: his revenge against those, including members of his own family, who had insulted and demeaned him in his youth, his growing paranoia, and his assault on the property rights of his magnates, rights which were a cornerstone of the late medieval English state. The result, as Saul rightly puts it, was a "terrible denouement" in which Richard, showing a tragic lack of judgement (as he had so often done), lost his throne to his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. Saul's final view of Richard as psychologically disturbed, but understandably so, is well supported by evidence and is very plausible. The book has no major weaknesses and few minor ones, and will provide a thorough understanding not only of Richard II, but of power and its limitations in late medieval England.



2. Richard II was a fascinating and enigmatic character, whose reign was marked by his being dethroned not once, but essentially twice. This in addition to Richard's being faced with that oddity, a nearly successful popular uprising. Thse two losses of power constitute about as disastrous a pattern as any ruler can produce. What the sources of the turmoil were and why Richard was so spectacularly unsuccessful at dealing with them should make for an absorbing tale. Unfortunately, Nigel Saul is good neither at telling the events of the reign nor in laying out the nature of Richard's character.

   It may be no easy task to build up a character on the basis of the fragmentary and often very dry records left by medieval English society. However, as some fine volumes in this series illustrate, this task can be accomplished with aplomb, even by authors working with even weaker material than Saul has and with a less gripping tale that they might tell. Saul falls into a number of traps. The most blatant of these is his repeated failure to distinguish trivia from significant facts. He also fails to distinguish speculation from well-supported fact and makes little attempt to eschew the former as much as possible. Furthermore, Saul repeatedly presumes detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the individuals and situations under consideration to a quite unreasonable extent for anything purporting to be a book for anyone other than an expert. At other times he belabors matters that need little exposition for anyone with much familiarity with the subject.

   The presumption of knowledge is most annoying when Saul is discussing taxation. Saul never explains what a "fifteenth and tenth" was; though he has Parliament grant it to the King repeatedly in the early going. What is totally lacking in the book is a discussion - and here there is a lot of material available - on what the sources of revenue of the English crown really were, and how they were used.

   Another example of the author's annoying habits is illustrated by the offhand way in which Harry Percy (Hotspur) is introduced which presumes a full and immediate knowledge of who he was. (To make matters worse, the index doesn't even list the real introduction, which is in a footnote.) It is not clear that Hotspur needed to be mentioned when he was, but if he is going to enter the tale, we should be told who he is when he appears, especially since the real Hotspur differed in very significant ways from the picture to be gleaned from Shakespeare.

   And so it goes. Lists of names where some analysis is needed, places visited with no explanation of why it would matter, etc. The book is so badly organized so that it is repetitious without being illuminating. Lengthy disputes with other scholars are undertaken on minor matters, while little care is given to establishing what is and is not known about major matters.

   The general background of a society in transit, with serious demographic dislocation from the Black Death, is not analyzed and not related to Richard's troubles and successes. Only in discussion of religion and Lollardy do we get anything like an analysis of the background. This temporary strength is marred as Saul breaks off for meaningless (since there has been no clear analysis of the roles of the individuals) lists of adherents, and the thinnest of analysis of Richard's beliefs. Much of this latter involves the interpretation of an altar piece in whose design we are given no reason to suppose that Richard himself was involved.

   Even the concluding chapter, which is probably the best of the book, is marred by raising material to buttress arguments which was not covered earlier and by making points quite unsupported by any material that went before. That chapter also quotes Shakespeare, with chunks pulled randomly and out of order from the play, and one can only conclude that Shakespeare, though no historian, had a better grasp of the situation than does Saul.

   This is supposed to be the best biography of Richard II available. It may be - I am no expert - but if so, the field is crying out for a better one. One hopes that it is already sitting on some scholar's desk or in some editor's briefcase. In the meantime, there are many far better books on British medieval history and the character of its kings to absorb the energies of the interested reader.




3. If you are not well-versed in this period of English history, then reading this book could be a struggle at times. It is not the best-organized book I have read; there were several times I had to re-read for 4-5 pages to make sure I was following the narrative properly. Also, the author assumes that the reader knows the subject thoroughly. Do you know the difference between the Great Seal, the Privy Seal and the signet? The difference between scutage and amercements? That the names Duke of Lancaster, Prince John, John of Gaunt and Gaunt all refer to the same person (sometimes several being used on the same page)? The difference of a "grant in fee simple" and a "grant in tail male?" The author assumes you do, for he offers no details. If you are in the dark about this, you will remain utterly confused at times with what appears to be meaningless terminology.

   Also, echoing another reviewer, the author bases a number of assumptions on some rather sparse documentation. He may make an assertion and in the next paragraph observe that there is virtually nothing in the historical record to indicate one way or another what exactly was going on? Is the author then simply guessing at times? This is a little troubling for the reader.

   The narrative can get unnecessarily tangled at time as the author gets bogged down in what seems to me to be minute details. This was a gripping period of English history, a prelude to the War of the Roses, where one witnessed a struggle for power between Parliament and the King, as well the struggle within the royal family itself, a struggle that would erupt more violently two generations later. This story would seem to provide a gripping narrative, but at times the prose is positively leaden. Be warned, the words do not flow gracefully from Saul's pen.

   If you are able to stick with it, you will find this book to quite informative, but I cannot believe that this book could not have been a bit more accessible.




4. I found Nigel Saul's biography on King Richard II to be pretty complete and interesting. It pretty obvious that the author have a pretty good knowledge of his subject and the period he lived in. The book appears to be well researched and while the writing seem bit awkward at times, I enjoyed reading it and for most part, it flowed pretty nicely. The book covers most of the aspects of Richard's reign although I am bit disappointed that it doesn't covered the subject between Richard and his wife, Anne of Bohemia. It supposed to be one of the great love stories of the English crown but it don't get a lot of pages.
   
   The book appears to be written for people with good background on English history. It definitely wasn't written for the popular masses and I agreed with some of the previous reviewers that the author take too much upon himself to believed that everyone knows much as he does on the period at hand. At times the book appears to be overly complicated.
   
   But for those who do have a high level of interest in this period of history, this book proves to be filled with information and facts that the author laid out with considerable skill and insight. He looked at Richard with a fresh perecption and logically followed his strengths and flaws. Comparison made between Richard II and Edward II proves to be interesting.
   
   For correctional purpose, I offered to point out that in 1961, Harold Hutchinson wrote a biography on Richard II titled "Hollow Crown". I thought that was a pretty interesting book as well and well written for novice reader. For some reason, this book completely escaped the author's radar.
   
   However for modern biography, this one on Richard II come highly recommended only if you are well versed in English medieval history.



5. As I picked up Nigel Saul's mammoth "Richard II" (1999, 514-page paperback) I remembered that some have blamed the rule of this troubled monarch for planting the seeds for the War of the Roses (a hundred years later). I thought it exciting to again step into the 14th century's chivalrous pageantry, political mayhem, and late medieval preparation for the age of discovery.
   
   Saul's is a fascinating story of the birth of English appeasement politics. Although the "a word" ("appeasement") is only sparingly used here, this history surprisingly demonstrates Richard II to be the first great appeaser in English kings history. It is shocking how quickly king Richard, when he's allowed to control the government, gives away the farm.
   
   According to Saul, the king is too generous with friends (Burley, de Vere, de la Pole, etc.) and foes (handing over huge tracts of English continental land to France for uncle John of Gaunt to become duke of Aquitaine). Through "Richard II" one sees why Parliament's commons, dukes Gloucester and Arundel, and Londoners were so often frustrated, to the point of royal disposement. (Richard II lost royal governance to them twice!)
   
   This interesting book is too long (thus earning fewer stars). The helpful eight pages of black and white photographs, the 29 pages of appendix and bibliography, and the 18 pages of exhaustive index are to be expected from a Yale University history series. The downside of this book is Saul's reader expectation. He assumes vast reader knowledge. His historical explanation is only a canopy over Richard II information. Also his grammar is not always clear (i.e., see page 116 for a list of royal uncles that seems to include royal friend Michael de la Pole, a syntactic mistake).
   
   This book is a good overview and therefore should be brief (perhaps the author's droning is a cover for story vacancies). It is recommended to everyone familiar with Richard II that has plenty of time for only his highlights.

2 comments about The Village.

1. If you would know Ireland, don't read McCourt or Cahill; read Alice Taylor. This book is typical of her work in revealing the island as it actually is and not as some do who have an agenda and don't hesitate to "spin" the description to attain the reaction they want. Excellent writing from a truly extraordinary woman with a heart as big as the Republic.



2. A truly wonderful book that would be good for any age. I've read all of the author's books as a result of the charm, insight, emotion and uniqueness I encountered in this book. This should be reissued and incorporated into high schooler's history classes on life in the first half of the twentieth century. The author's descriptions of daily village life in Ireland charms.

2 comments about Princess Margaret: A Life Unravelled.

1. This is absolutely the very last book that I will ever read about Princess Margaret as I'm sure that I've read everything that could possibly been written about her and her life. What a poor, wretched,unhappy woman she was..spoilt dreadfully and therefore unable to feel any kind of satisfaction in her life. Idolized by her father as a child, she reacted with spoiled petulance to any form of discipline and managed to charm her way out of trouble with her mischievous sense of humour, but, always walking in her sister's shadow. Her truculent attitude towards what she considered was the correct way to speak to her, may have been accepted and expected, centuries before but even in the second half of the 20th century, total subservience to members of the royal family was a thing of the past and, only in her immediate circle of cronies, did she recieve the grovelling, self effacing behaviour that characterised her needs. Her self indulgent life style caused her to suffer from poor health and she ended her sad life as a lonely, sick woman...what a waste!.



2. This is a thorough book about Princess Margaret's life. A life of struggles with moments of joy, just like most people's lives. This book shows that though she was royalty, life plagued her. She may not had to worry about many things that they average person did, but she still suffered. She found ways to cope and experience joy also. Good book.

2 comments about Mary, Queen of Scots: Pride, Passion and a Kingdom Lost.

1. This, at last, is a book that focuses on what MQS actually DID as a queen, and what she didn't do. It measures her against the same stick used to measure other rulers of the same age instead of the usual sturm un drang offered up. She was no marytred saint, yet she was no she demon in velvet skirts. She was charming and lovely, however she was also inadequate. Kind of Queen-Lite, if you will.
   
   I found it very interesting that her much toted tolerance concerning religion is revealed to be otherwise. She demands the right to practice her own religion, but denies that same right to other Catholics. It is hard to hold up the banner of Catholic martyr when she did nothing good for that cause in Scotland, empowering the Protestant at the expense of the Catholic.
   
   And yes, I'm glad that Wormald came down on the side of Mary being involved in the plot against Darnley. Leave MQS some shreds of intelligence. If she didn't know, that makes her and Darnley the only ones in Scotland and Europe who were unaware of the plot. Her actions definitely speak loudly when she lured Darnely out of his family stronghold and brought him back to Edinburgh and death. It was politically astute and necessary. Only her blunders afterward destroyed her reputation. Handled differently, she could very likely have weathered it.
   
   Good read, well written and neither rabid nor fawning.



2. This is a valuable book that focuses on Mary Stuart as a ruler rather than Mary Stuart as a heroine in a historical romance. It is not a mystery about who killed Lord Darnley. It is a critical analysis of what occurred when someone who was historically ordained to rule, but who possessed none of the qualities to make that rule successful in the dynamic of the sixteenth century, attempted to lead Scotland through the religious and political minefiled of its pre-modern politics. Some writers tend to think that Wormald is too tough on the historical Mary Queen of Scots, but there is good basis for her analysis. The essential question about the Scots Queen in not really whether or not she wrote all or some of the Casket Letters, and whether or not she was a player in the murder of her husband Lord Darnley, but whether she faired any better than most of the other Stuart kings who followed her in dealing with the great issues of her day. She clearly did not. While my own review of the letters insofar as they presently exist, the evidence from a variety of sources, and my own experience as a successful prosecutor leads me to believe that I probably could convict her of conspiracy to commit murder , but not as an aider and abettor of murder itself, if she had been less a French queen and more a Scot, had she seen her role more as an obligation to her own historical niche and less a license to behave as if she were answerable to no mortal, her monarchy might have ended quite differently. No one would have cared about Darnley. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, and even Thomas More did not put an end to Henry VIII, Essex did not end Elizabeth I, and the disposal of an unpopular sometimes Papist consort, would not have ended Mary's rule. Her prolonged absence from Scotland during her childhood, her identity with powers that were not in step with the religious and political changes in Scotland, her reliance upon her half-brother and other men to lead her country and usurp her power to make decisions are among teh flaws that are exposed and highlighted in this short but important book.

No comments about Entangled in Terror: The Azef Affair and the Russian Revolution.

No comments about Brilliant Brits: Elizabeth I (Brilliant Brits).

2 comments about The Courtship of Julian and Frieda.

1. This is an utterly facinating story that is treated fairly and presented with immense talent by the author. As it is both a historical record and a love story, it will prove interesting to a variety of readers. Although many people toss the phrase around, this is truly a book that is hard to put down.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it to anyone interested in a well-written account of a young couple's experiences during WWII. I would love to read other books by this author - she is very talented. Thank you for providing me with a book that I really couldn't put down!! Good luck with future endeavors!

1 comments about With the Heart of a King: Elizabeth I of England, Philip II of Spain, and the Fight for a Nation's Soul and Crown.

1. King Philip II of Spain was also the King of England when his wife devout Catholic Mary sat on the throne. Like his spouse he loathed the Reformation and tired to end its pervasive insurrection while also building a powerful empire. When Mary Tudor dies, which means her widow is no longer an English monarch, her half sister Protestant supporter Elizabeth I becomes ruler of England. Philip proposes marriage, but she rejects his offer. Instead she challenges his Catholic ways with her Protestant ways leading her nation into being a rival maritime superpower until by 1588 he sends his powerful armada to conquer England.
   
   This is a terrific historical account of how personal alliances were amongst the sixteenth century European monarchies. In some ways the tome feels like a romance novel as the widower pursues his former sister-in-law who rejects his advances. However, their dysfunctional relationship represents the war between Catholic and Protestant domination of Europe and the New World. Well written and fun to read, Elizabethan aficionados (sorry Philip but history is written by the winner) will appreciate this insightful look at the latter half of the sixteenth century when national conflict was personalized.
   
   Harriet Klausner

1 comments about An Un-American Childhood.

1. So I had Ann Kimmage at SUNY Plattsburgh for freshman comp. I read her book and I absolutly loved it. She tells her story in such a way that you feel like you are right along side of her. Livingi n Russia during the time she did was very dangerous. I loved the stories about her parents. They seemed like the coolest people out there. This book is great and it is true. Ann is a wonderful lady and a good teacher. No wonder why her book is awesome!