1 comments about Italian American Odyssey: Life line--filo della vita: Through Ellis Island and Beyond.

1. Written by acclaimed artist and educator B. Amore, An Italian American Odyssey: Through Ellis Island and Beyond is not just a single person's memoir - it is the collective memoir of seven generations of an Italian-American family, chronicling the story of their journey to America. Full color photographs and collages are displayed on almost every other page of the English-language first half of the compendium; the second half presents an Italian translation of the English text, though without the photographs. The text is not a single continuous text, but rather an eclectic selection of vignettes, first-person testimonies, letters, insights, diaries, and much more. An Italian American Odyssey is a treasure to be savored a few pages at a time or all at once, and a wondrous window into the difficult yet often rewarding task of adapting to new challenges.

5 comments about Green Suede Shoes: An Irish-American Odyssey.

1. The book as a biography, has a solid enough premise and just the right amount of appealing grit to the cover, that I would have picked it up off the book shelves even if I'd never heard of the band, Black47.
   It's reads easy and pleasant,like a letter from an old friend letting you know what they've been up to. Smart but not "over your head" intellectual, poignant yet witty.
   Mr. Kirwan's writting style I liken to Eric Burdon's in his book,
   "I used to be an Animal but I'm all right now".
   That book has been on my shelf for years, it's all dog eared and the pages are held to the binding by scotch tape and rubber bands.I can easily see Green Suede Shoes right beside it in years to come.
   The CD Elvis Murphy's Green Suede Shoes is good but not necessary to enjoy the book,
   so well written, it speaks for itself.



2. I can only speak from the perspective of a fan of Black 47 who saw them a bit in their early years at Paddy's and someone who has most of their music. Green Suede Shoes is an extremely entertaining memoir by Larry Kirwan, the lead singer and driving force behind the band. The book covers his early years as a rocker/rebel/socialist/republican finding himself as a young man Ireland, to his journey to New York where he becomes a musician and playright, and then to the founding of Black 47, the capstone of his musical career. In between there are stories of loves lost, and lots more of alcohol consumed, and lots of colorful characters along the way, including some well known characters in the annals of music and New York City. Kirwan is the real deal: he and his bandmates are committed to their music and their fans, and that bond has made them "New York's House Band" for fifteen years; they respond to requests shouted out, to e-mails sent, and mingle with the crowd after the show. That passion comes across in the book. The story also involves his relationship with his parents and touches on the universal immigrant experience of never being able to go home again.
   
   Certainly for any fan of Black 47, or even someone who is just familiar with their music but shares the New York Irish American experience, this is a great read; it rekindles interest in their music, but speaks to an era through the eyes and experiences of one of New York's all time great artists.



3. This is a delightful book! Larry Kirwan has a wonderful way with the English language. I swear he could write the ingredients in a box of cereal and make it a joy to read. He has a real knack for sharing experiences with a sense of humor and a lack of pretentiousness. I'm buying a second copy to give as a gift- I won't be parting with MY copy (I got it autographed). This book is a great read & and a refreshing, insightful look at modern America and the New York music scene.



4. Green Suede Shoes is much more than the stories behind the songs that start each chapter of this book, whose author is the driving force behind the Irish rock band Black 47. The subtitle is "An Irish-American Odyssey," which is a tip-off to the true nature of this book. Kirwan takes you from his upbringing in Wexford to his insane early days trying to make it in New York, to the rise of Black 47 and beyond. Refreshingly suspicious of fame and celebrityhood, Kirwan is indeed a true artist---however presumptuous he or his old friends back in Ireland might regard the claim---who is passionately motivated by his music and by his uncompromising commitment to tell political and moral truth in his songs. But don't read this book---just as you wouldn't listen to Black 47---because of Kirwan's idealism, politics, or good intentions. Read it because it's a great story, told with formidable narrative momentum and artistry, filled with humor and emotion and all kinds of behind-the-scenes craziness.



5. 
   Larry Kirwan, the driving force behind Black 47, is a rarity in the world of rock and roll. His talent is just as apparent on the page as it is in song. GREEN SUEDE SHOES is a collection of stories about his life, from his youth with his grandfather, a sculptor of monuments in County Wexford to the wild days in NYC as a struggling rocker. Each section is introduced with the lyrics of one of his songs; songs that offer a slightly distorted reflection of what really happened. A classic example of this method is "Funky Ceili" where the song tells of a young man forced to leave Ireland because of the very unhappy father of his pregnant girlfriend and the real story is more of two people in love but both afraid to give up what they really want for the other. This story and others show the relationship of life with art in Kirwan's music and gives the reader insight into the creative process. Kirwan tells the stories of his youth with humor, passion, and poetry with each piece crafted lovingly; his ability to pull you into his stories is incredible. You get the feeling he's sitting in the room with you "spinning his yarns" as you sit with rapt attention. The book does bog down a bit when Kirwan's career does and this time period becomes a bit of a chore to read through, but the overall pleasure of reading about this intriguing life more than make up for the few less exciting entries. It's the rare occasion when a musician's written work can match his musical ability; Kirwan's GREEN SUEDE SHOES is a fine example of when it does.

2 comments about Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World (CUSA).

1. Lacey Baldwin Smith has crafted an engaging book that investigates great martyrs through the centuries. Although the book is subtitled, "The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World," it is rather a careful review of primarily English speaking "martyrs", and the events that lead up to their demise.

   Some of the greats, such as Thomas Becket, do not bear well to close scrutiny. Indeed, some across as ravenous murderers: John Brown, in particular, is revealed to be little better than a common terrorist. But many of these individuals had great stage presence and oratory power they used to their advantage when finally put before the docket. Many also had an incredible ego and were incapable of understanding their opponents concerns or views. And not a few wanted martyrdom and forced their opponents' hands to achieve their goal.

   The author's selection of martyrs (because he focuses upon English speakers) is a bit uneven. However, the author's short digression into martyrs of the Holocaust was interesting and ethically valuable.

   The author provides photos or illustrations of the main protagonists which help to imagine them in more human light. The endnotes and index are excellent, and the writing itself is entertaining if a bit caustic on occasion. Omitted is much discussion of the political campaigns that helped these fools and traitors be designated as martyrs. Despite this, Smith has created a unique, fun, and educational book you're sure to enjoy.




2. This is a very good book that deserves a higher sales ranking and a better review than it has at the moment. What Smith does is compile a very eclectic set of martyr stories, illustrating the facts that (1) not all martyrs are religiously motivated and (2) not all martyrs are nice people. Some ARE blood-thirsty killers. And it is not the cause that makes someone a martyr. It is two important things: absolute certainty that the martyr is right and everyone else is wrong, and a belief that martyrdom somehow makes the cause more noble. Both of these facts are scary.
   As Smith states more than once, the martyr is the ultimate egotist: he/she is right, the world is wrong, and he/she is showing the world something with his/her self-sacrifice. But that cannot be true: there have been lots of martyrs for lots of causes--in fact, even diametrically opposed causes. The Allies who died in World War II could call themselves martyrs for freedom, and the Nazis who died could call themselves martyrs for Nazism or Germany. Who decides who is a martyr...and what cause is noble?
   The martyr is in the additional tricky position of wanting and needing to die without APPEARING to want to die. That is just suicide. The martyr must think that death is perhaps avoidable, and also that death will mean a greater success than life could have accomplished. It is a fine line to walk, one that ultimately not only fails but is contradictory.
   People who respect martyrs, or who want to be martyrs, should read this book. Also, read my new "Violence and Culture" (Wadsworth 2005), that puts martyrdom and other forms of ideological violence in perspective.
   And remember, terrorists often think of themselves as martyrs, and martyrs often think of the ones who kill them as terrorists.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.



2. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



5. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.

5 comments about Let Me Die in Ireland, the True Story of Patrick.

1. I just grabbed this book for something to read on the bus and didn't have high expectations for it. Although I'm starting to get into the writings of early Christians, I didn't thnk Patrick would be that important. Was I wrong! His story is very interesting, but more important I was extremely inspired by his message and convictions. A couple of examples in particular are how he prayed like "the persistant widow" to get out of Ireland where he was taken to to be sold as a slave, and how when he did escape, God called him back to spread the good news. The seriousness of his commitment inspired me deeply. He did not hesitate to excommunicate anyone who wasn't living according to the Word and he preached that the decision to become a Christian is not something to be taken lightly. "...there is no turning back. It would be far better to never become a Christian than to become one and revert to your former ways." Also, just how he totally devoted himself to Christ, was willing to put up with hardship and make any sacrifice, had utmost integrity and forgave his betrayors. You can sense the struggles reading this book, but he persevered.
   The book is a quick read, and while the author admits using artistic license to recreate the dialogue, his main sources of information for the book are Patrick's "Testimony" and his letter of excommunication sent to the British king.
   I highly recommend this very inspiring book.



2. We do have Patrick's autobiography, and little else. This book adds to this some commentary and extra which show a particular point of view. It is an interesting point of view but not entirely doucmented.



3. A sixteen year old boy - Patric - from a prosperous family belonging to the autonomous Celtic church is taken captive, along with some of his family's servants. Patric is portrayed as whiny and snobbish, which provides more depth and drama as he learns to survive in a strange, savage land where he is kept as a slave. The only thing that turned me off was the way people spoke in modern English. Bercot didn't need to make them use "thees" and "thous" - but he fubbed up in using "Don't kid yourself". Through the help of an elderly slave, Cedd, who is also a British captive, Patric finds faith, and purpose, and meaning in life. After God has decided his time of trial in Ireland is over, He helps Patric escape. This suspensful journey is the a real heart-throbber. Then comes the tear-jerker, as Patric, who is now a grown man, is finally reunited with his parents. When it looks as though his life was about normal, Patric has a dream where God tells him to return to Ireland. Oh no! Patric doesn't really want to go back, but knows he must, and faces ridicule and rejection as those around him respond with either condecension, or with jeers. A wise man advises him to wait until the church leaders send him, rather than going on his own, and years pass without them doing more than elevating him to the office of a deacon. Finally, after another church sends a missionary to Ireland, people realize that Patric's bright idea was more than an idea: It was a calling. Journey with Patric as he shares the light of the Gospel with those he has come to love, and receives the answer to his prayer, "Let me die in Ireland."



4. Despite my opinion that David Bercot is one of the best writers around, interesting and captivating, this book is not. I couldn't get through it, though I eventually will. A good friend did get through it, and he told me that it gets interesting around the last quarter of the book. I'm interested in Patrick, but the story format just isn't captivating. Even my friend, who finished it, said he debated putting it down several times, but he really wanted to get to the end.
   
   The history's accurate, I'm sure, because Bercot's careful to use original sources and interpret them reasonably, but as a story, it's just dull. Again, that's amazing, because Bercot is an gifted and captivating writer. My thought is that he should have approached it as a history rather than writing it as a story, because his history books can't be put down.
   
   I'm only giving it 3 stars, because I know the history can be trusted.



5. There is a lot in this book that I never knew about St. Patrick. Here in America the person is never considered, mostly just the country of Ireland around St. Patrick's Day. It was an easy read, which I finished in just a few days. It definately helped strengthen my realationship with God to see one person's conviction so strong.

5 comments about Las cenizas de Ángela.

1. Es una historia real. Es increible como su hijo mayor saco su familia adelante y como su padre no le importaba su familia dedicado al alcohol. Fue muy duro en que los ninos se acostaran sin comer cuando su padre se bebia el dinero, y como la gente era tan ignorante para todo. Aveces leia y me daba coraje. Queria meterme en ese libro y caerle a patadas al padre y toda esa gente ignorantes. Hoy termine de leer mi libro y quisiera leer la continuacion. Es un libro maravilloso y triste. Quisiera saber cuando van hacer el proximo libro en Espanol. Estoy impaciente por leerlo.



2. HABRIA MUCHAS FORMAS DE DESCRIBIR LA HISTORIA, MAS TAL VEZ SERIA SUFICIENTE DESCRIBIRLA COMO LA HISTORIA DEL SER HUMANO QUE POSEE CALIDAD Y BRILLANTEZ. VALORES QUE EN ESTE SIGLO SON OLVIDADOS POR LOS INSUFRIBLES VALORES MATERIALES.

   DE LECTURA FLUIDA, SIN GRANDES PRETENSIONES ESTRUCTURALES MAS CON UNA SENSIBILIDAD DIGNA DE SER VIVIDA, ESTE ES UN LIBRO QUE NOS RECUERDA QUE EL SER HUMANO, ADEMAS Y ENTRE OTRAS COSAS NUNCA DEBERA OLVIDAR SU PROPIA CONDICION HUMANA. ES A FIN DE CUENTA LA LITERATURA QUE NOS NUTRE HORA TRAS HORA. Y ESTA ES A FIN DE CUENTAS LA CULTURA QUE NOS PERMITE CRECER.

   LO RECOMIENDO SIN NINGUNA EXCEPCION.




3. Soy aficionada a la lectura, y en especial las autobiografias y memorias me atraen, Frank McCourt definitivamente es el mejor, sus letras son reveladoras, dramaticamente expresadas, y un vocabulario sencillo y real del vivir cotidiano, su libro Cenizas de Angela es una historia que llega al corazon.



4. Este es uno de esos libros que te hacen cambiar las expreciones en tu rostro mientras los lees, pueder reir, llorar, mostrar asombro o asco mientras pasas un par de paginas. Exelente narrativa, impresionante la manera como el autor describe cada detalle de la de las situasiones que atraviesa y de sus pensamientos mientras estas situaciones ocurren.
   
   Una vez que comienzas a leerlo ya no puedes parar y te quieres llevar el libro a todas partes, para saber que le depara a Franky en el proximo capitulo.



5. Este es definitivamente uno de los mejores libros que he leido. Indiscutiblemente, te hace ver la vida de una manera distinta. La narrativa es simplemente unica. Te envuelve de una manera en la que no puedes dejar de leerlo y te hace sentir parte de la historia, parte de la vida de Frank McCourt

2 comments about Sweet Robin: A Biography of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester 1533-1588.

1. Mr. Wilson's Sweet Robin is a well-written book that is supported by many facts, but not stuffy and hard-to-read, unlike many other books written about England's history. Most people think of Robert Dudley as a blue-blooded scapegoat that history would be better off without. Most scholars nuture this image, painting him as a black-hearted villan. But Mr. Wilson offers us a refreshing change in perception: that of a nobleman trying to survive the tumultuous times of the era in which he lived. That in fact, far from being an evil knave, he, like his forefarthers before him, was guilty only of an extreme loyalty to the particular monarch which he devoted his whole life to. Sweet Robin opens in the time of Robert Dudley's grandfather and continues through his life, chronicaling all the events that shaped him and the people around him. It finally ends a little while after his death, to show how little real influence he had on the changing times, other than through his special bond with Queen Elizabeth. While Robert Dudley is not the most important man this world has ever seen, he is certainly one of the more colorful personages of his time. I commend Mr. Wildon for writing an excellent book!



2. 
   Wilson shares his appreciation for the Earl of Leicester. His role as a leading spirit of the Reformation and as an early patron of what becomes known as Elizabethan Drama has been overshadowed by his unique relationship with the Queen. The book explains his roots, his passions, his successes and limitations and the personal and financial cost of his association with the queen. The reader gets insight into his character and his relationship with Elizabeth.
   
   This compares well with the new publication Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics. Of the two, this one, humanizes Dudley such that the reader understands more of what Elizabeth saw in him. Wilson deals more powerfully with the attachment of these two star crossed would be lovers and you feel the loss and disappointment the two shared. Gristwood sticks with the record.
   
   I would give this 5 stars but the beginning is so slow and genealogy laiden that I almost put it down and throughout there are long quotes from original sources. I presume the long quotes are there to give the reader a feel for the sentiments as they are directly expressed, but many are so formal and tortured that they only demonstrate why general readers need historians like Wilson and Gristwood to interpret them for us.

No comments about The Woman Who Took Power in the Park: Mary Robinson.

No comments about Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite.

5 comments about King John (English Monarchs).

1. I was a little hesitant about ordering this book at first for fear it would be dry and complicated. I was very happy to discover it was neither. It is well researched and well written. Warren gives you a good feel about the period and the challenges John faced. I even found myself asking "what would I have done in his place?" This book busted a few of the "Bad King John" myths as well as some of the "Good King Richard" ones. This is a very readable book provided you have an interest and a little knowledge about the period. If you are looking for a "Robin Hood" type story this isn't it. It's not a page turner but nor should it be. This is the story of a complex man during a complex time and Warren did a great job of bringing it to life without making it dull.



2. This book shows the "dastardly" King John of Robin Hood fame in a more realistic light. He is seen to be an enlightened ruler who reviewed the law courts and other English institutions and who truly, of all the previous Plantagenet kings, preferred England as his inheritance. He is not the cowed king who is seen to have signed the Magna Carta, but a king who was faced with the accumulatiom of misrule by previous Plantagnet rulers including his brother Richard the Lion Heart. This book does not hide the King's less likeable attributes, avarice, lustfullness, a bad temper, a vengeful nature, but then Richard Coeur de Leon had that too. This book shows that John was no worse than his predecessors. Read also "Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Alison Weir, which corroborates this book very well..



3. King John has the reputation as being the absolutely worse King England has ever had. Accused of lechery, murder, treason and much more, John is looked on as an absolute failure, and is warped out of all recognition as the bad Prince John of Robin Hood. The only bright spot in his reign is John's grant of the Magna Charta, which is looked on by many as the ultimate foundation stone upon which English and American freedoms rest.
   W.L. Warren, in this exhaustively researched book, paints a full picture of the life of this least successful of English kings. Dr. Warren points out that much of John's bad reputation results from writer's contrasting him with his brother, Richard the Lionheart.
   This book gives us the reality of King John. It doesn't excuse him. It does explain him.



4. An excellent history book, factual as a text book but reads like a novel. Hollywood could never dream up a life or character so complex.



5. In this excellent book, W. L. Warren attempts to rehabilitate the image of King John of England. Warren sees a gulf existing between the reality of John's reign and its popular perception. He writes, "It is a gulf that I have attempted in this book to bridge--reassessing the reign of King John in the light of the most recent research, and presenting it in a way that is, I hope, both readable and sound" (xi). In KING JOHN, Warren succeeds in this aim by producing an accessible text that illuminates the complex rule of John.
   
   Warren begins by analyzing the source materials and the biases that the sources contain. He explains how depending on which sources you believe, John was either an industrious and clever, yet flawed, monarch, or a foolish and wicked do-nothing king. Warren convincingly argues for the former portrait of John.
   
   John's reputation is much lower than that of his father and elder brother, but Warren's book shows that in many ways he was much like them. John was far from being the inept successor to great men. John had Henry and Richard's talent and energy, but he also had their heavy-handedness. John inherited a dire need for silver and an unstable political situation on the continent from his brother. These things coupled with John's inherent distrust of his barons robbed him of much of his continental territory. John's reign, however, was not merely one of failure. Though he didn't regain Normandy, he did consolidate power over Ireland and manage to frustrate Philip's seemingly realistic dreams of conquering England. Warren's portrayal of John is much more interesting than his reputation as the wicked king. KING JOHN is an excellent example of biography, both convincing and readable.