2 comments about The Lincoln Family Album.

1. Mark Neely has compiled a fascinating collection of the Lincoln family's pictures from their family album. What's interesting is what is NOT included in the album: not many photographs of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the most photographed president of the 19th century. But the pictures of his children and grandchildren are especially interesting and poignant, especially those of a grandson named Abraham (Robert's son) who died at 16 but who bore an uncanny likeness to his famous grandfather. An important addition to any serious Lincoln student's library.



2. Being a Lincoln fan, I pride myself on keeping up on the latest books that come out, and usually, one way or another, end up purchasing them. So, imagine my surprise when I visited a local bookstore, and was browsing in its impressive Lincoln section to find this jew, "The Lincoln Family Album". What, a book that I hadn't heard of?
   
   At first, I thought it was just a simple recounting of the many familiar books with Lincoln photos in it. But upon glancing inside, I realized how wrong assumptions are. The pictures in this book are from the actual Lincoln photograph album, kept through the family generation after generation, until the last surviving member of the clan died in 1985. Up until then, the book lived in secrecy, but now, in this stunning paperback, the photographs have been reproduced. Each page contains a picture, and a small vignette that describes the person in the picture, and why it would be found in the Lincoln family album.
   
   I found myself engrossed, not only in the pictures, but the information contained in each page. For some reason, the pictures came more alive to me with this information than any other picture book of Lincoln. Especially touching are the pictures of Lincoln's kids, Tad, Willie, and Robert. As proud parents would, they are well-documented in this book.
   
   If you are a devotee of Lincoln, I highly recommend this book. With an engrossing first chapter that talks about how photography was catching on just as Lincoln became President, and a wealth of knowledge of the Lincoln family, this book is sure to please you!!

5 comments about Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book.

1. Stan Lee has been the center of debate in the comic book world for years as to his being an innovative genius or a credit-stealing hack. As this book ably demonstrates the truth is closer to the middle. The authors use extensive research and in-depth interviews to make their case that despite Lee's grabbing of other credit that belonged to other artists, Lee's legitimate contributions to comic books should establish him as true innovator. The book asserts that Lee was able to create unique personalities and dialogue for his characters that distinguished them from other comic books as well as each other. This approach made Marvel's characters different from the cookie cutter personalities that DC had to offer at this time. However, Lee failed to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of other artists to his "Marvel Method," and this has hurt his reputation significantly. This book is balanced in its treatment of both Lee and his critics.



2. This book gives an excellent overview of Stan Lee and his contribution to Marvel and the history of comics. It came across as a balanced view, praising Lee's strengths as well as showing his weaknesses (and we all have them.)
   
   As I read, though, I wanted more detailed information on the 1960s glory years of Marvel; instead, this decade had the same amount of information as the rest and sometimes not as specific. I would've liked some interviews with others as to what they thought of Lee's working relationship with Kirby and Ditko, for example. Overall, though, highly recommended!



3. An awful lot of fun to read. Moves quickly without leaving major gaps. It's a balanced telling of Lee's growth and influence within the comic book industry while addressing the changes the industry also went through. The book doesn't lay the story down in black and white. We hear of wise choices and poor choices made by most parties involved through Stan's years. If you have grievances with the man, you may feel it falls a little short; if you are a fan, you'll feel twinges of regret when some thoughts, actions, and motives are revealed. In either case, it's hard to dismiss the infectious spirit and nature Stan Lee carries with his work and you have to admit his influence continues to be felt in the comicbook/storytelling world.



4. This book has some pluses and minuses. It DOES desperately need illustrations; however it's well-written and a fascinating read. Raphael and Spurgeon do a great job of overviewing the history of comic books, describing the business side of the industry, and explaining the importance of Stan Lee's contribution. However the authors' finale is, IMHO, unfairly negative. Lee gets needled here, not I think out of bias, but as a bit of fudging the truth for entertainment purposes...
   
   Comic books were invented in 1934 and the first superhero, Superman, debuted in 1938. Stan Lee entered the field shortly afterwards as a go-fer at the publishing house of his cousin, Martin Goodman. Lee soldiered on for Goodman as the boom times gave way to bust, and essentially single-handedly kept Marvel going during the mediums' '50s decline. If Lee hadn't been Goodman's cousin, or if Lee had just given up on the medium and looked for other work, the history of comic books would have been VERY different. Instead Lee created the environment in which superheroes were reinvented in the '60s, reinvigorating the mainstream. He then became essentially a PR person for Marvel in Hollywood.
   
   Lee is an engaging and relentless promoter of the medium in general and Marvel in particular, and in the cynical '80s he was castigated for taking too much credit for his role in creating characters produced by the collaborative model he invented for comic-book production. Raphael and Spurgeon give a qualified defense of Lee against these charges but are not, IMHO, entirely fair in evaluating Lee, particularly in the terms of the complex circumstances surrounding Jack Kirby's claims on the "Marvel Universe." Ultimately the authors condemn Lee as a phoney and almost a hack, a conclusion I think is very unfair.
   
   As someone who was reading comics from the late '60s into the '70s, I don't remember fans of the MEDIUM under-appreciating the contributions of Kirby or Ditko. On the contrary, those interested in comics as an art form tended to give FAR more credit to the artists of the mainstream than to Lee and his fellow editor-writers at DC etc. Fans of the Marvel LINE undoubtedly did worship Lee - and therefore bought the comix, which was really the whole point of the Lee persona! As for Lee not giving credit to his collaborators, Marvel was THE comix publisher that trumpeted who the artists were: try reading a '60s Dell, Gold Key, Tower, or even DC comic and try to figure out who the penciller, inker, writer, or colorist were!!! Lee, editor, writer, office manager, chief-cook-and-bottle-washer, put that info on page one, in BIG letters: step one to getting the artists the credit and remuneration that even Bill Gaines never gave away. Kudos to Stan Lee!



5. This is an intruiging narrative of Stan Lee's career & his influence on the American comic book industry. The title is a bit of an oversimplification, the industry went through many business cycles of highs & lows over the twentieth century. Marvel went from an IPO, bankruptcy, & than an unexpected resurgence in the past decade or two.
   
   The author gives you a not so surprisingly "Marvel centric view," which is fine up to a point. I did find his describing the creation of Spiderman & the X-men very good. The former remains my favorite character. Had there been more on DC Comics Superman, European, & Japanese influences I might have given it 5 stars? But, Stan Lee & his cocreators at Marvel provides the reader with a deep & vivid life at the prolific & hectic early years with Lee presiding as editor & writer over many artists who worked slavishly for low pay.
   
   I can see why so much bitterness & controversy erupted over the decades about Mr. Lee's putting his name on most Marvel productions was certainly shameless self promotion. On the whole, the writing is fairly measured to impart a balanced account. Noting that in the old system where work-for-hire was not well defined & comic book artists had little profile in the limelight. Tod McFarlane & Frank Miller appear to be the exceptions. as you get deeper into the book, you get the sense that Sstan Lee sided with the corporate side over the petitions by the artists out of necessity rather than malice on his part. Perhaps, Mr. Lee's convivial nature hid his own insecurities about his own talents?
   
   I got the feeling that some points were discarded & the book is only a half history. Nonetheless, it fills the void in an industry that never got the respect it deserved & I give it four stars. Perhaps, someday someone will write a complete history of this fascinating topic?

5 comments about Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (The Fred W. Morrison Series in Southern Studies).

1. Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy by Stephen Kantrowitz is a well written and well researched voyage through an ugly chapter in American history that still reverberates strongly throughout the entire culture. The selection of Ben Tillman as the focus point through which to examine the victory of white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction is brilliant and frighteninly effective. This book is not so much the biography of Ben Tillman but really the biography of white supremacy as a political idea and ideal. This book captures all of the evil idealism, political pragmatism, the unique blend of bomblast and subtlety, and, especially, the terror and violence used by Ben Tillman and his ilk to secure their goals of making the political system of South Carolina all white and all Democrat. It is a wonderful book of an ugly time that is important, unfortunately, to understanding our own time. Well done.



2. I'm currently reading "Ben Tillman And The Reconstruction Of White Supremacy" as part of my ongoing effort to understand the failure of Reconstruction. This is an excellent book that, as one of the reviewers has indicated, is more a history of the post-Reconstruction development of white supremacy in the United States than it is of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, although Tillman's life story may be said to be a perfect illustration of white supremacy. Tillman, as a "Red-Shirt" mob and militia leader, governor, and U.S. Senator,loved to brag of his successful efforts to disenfranchise Afro Americans through fraud, murder, manipulation of the laws and legal processes, usurpation of legitmate governmental authority,campaigns of terror, lies, deceits, and the dividing and conquering of any cooperative, biracial political efforts by playing whites and their fears of "negro domination" against Afro Americans and their interests. But more, Tillman did not limit his attacks to Afro Americans aspiring to realize the full benefits of citizenship: poor, landless, uninfluential whites, supporters and sympathizers for Afro Americans' increased citizenship rights, whites who disagreed with his policies and political rule, Republicans, and the federal government were all his enemies and he attacked all of them with the same duplicitous ferocity. It is all too apparent that the legacy that he left was embraced by racists and segregationists throughout most of this century in their opposition to civil rights activities.

   For those interested in the "real", too long hidden history of race and race relations in this country, this book is an absolute must for their libraries.

   In my view, Kantrowitz joins Leon Litwack, Ira Berlin, Eric Foner, W.E.B. DuBois, Frazier, Woodward and the other luminaries of historical writing who worked to provide an accurate, inclusive history of the peoples of the United States of America with this book. "Ben Tillman..." is a book that will fascinate, enrage, infuriate, disgust, amaze, and disturb its readers, especially those who recognize what appear to be parallels between the latter parts of the 19th and 20th centuries and the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries regarding race and politics.

   Perhaps history is circular after all. Read the book and decide for yourself.




3. Professor Kantrowitz, a professional historian, has written a book that is revealing of the man and the times but too long and detailed for the nonprofessional reader of history. He has mined old newspapers from South Carolina and other documents energetically--and it would appear that every one of his index cards, so to speak, has been carried over into the text. Consequently, there is more detail than this reader needed or could possibly absorb. This failing is compounded by the author's inadequate treatment of Tillman's life. Milestone personal and family events are mentioned in a sentence, with no indication that the author is interested in Tillman the person--although, to his credit, he does on several occasions remind us that Tillman was devoted to his wife and wrote her loving, and playful, letters. But Tillman's relations with his children are not covered adequately. Nor do we learn much about his nonpolitical relationships with friends, relatives and neighbors. In other words, Professor Kantrowitz has scanted the biographical aspects of his book in favor of doctrinal analsyis. He has given his readers too many excerpts from Tillman's speeches, letters and interviews--primarily on how he felt about the place of Negroes in a white-dominated society. Kantrowitz shows that Tillman took a hostile view towards Negroes, as African Americans were called (and worse) in the 19th Century, and yet he and other farmers needed them as low-wage laborers. His racism and support of violence, part of his calculated appeal to white "producers," are well established early on. But the point is made over and over. Tip to readers: Kantrowitz, a disciplined writer in some respects, introduces paragraphs with topic sentences. Very often the supporting detail that follows can be skimmed or skipped because the general point already has been made.



4. The reader from Washington says the book is too long, but he wants more personal detail! How would that happen? Fact is, for a major figure in American political history, Tillman has found biographer whose economy of language is commendable; Kantrowitz only uses 309 pages to do a magnificent job of storytelling and analysis. And it is a great read, especially given the deep and subtle insights that Kantrowitz squeezes from this Dixie demogogue's pernicious but important career. And he does so without turning Tillman into a demon, but rather by revealing that the Senator was not so much a tribute but a trickster of the people, and far from being a populist, served the richest and most powerful of his constituents as he poured salt into the worst of the nation's wounds--the scar of white supremacy. This book is eloquent and profound, and could scarely have been better crafted.



5. Obvious agenda here by a shallow author looking to capitalize on a recently re-elevated subject. The entire book fails to make any positive remarks about the most popular and elected politician in the history of the state of South Carolina. Most of the research by this "author" is conveniently taken from anti-Tillman press while bypassing all of the many contributions to the state and to the U.S. Senate. Tillman was honored and revelled by many fellow U.S. Senators from opposing parties (and from Northern States). He established Clemson University, Winthrop College and the Charleston Naval Shipyard. There were two U.S. Navy Ships named after him. None of these accomplishments and honors are worthy of mention by this spin artist. He conveniently chose to omit, and obviously failed to research, Tillman's admirable private and personal life as it would destroy the credibility of the subject and agenda.

   Kantrowitz fails miserably in the area of accurate and balanced historical journalism. The slant is conspicuous and offensive and breaks the golden rule of interpreting sources and historic events in the context of the times they were written.

   Don't waste your time or money.

5 comments about America's First Dynasty : The Adamses, 1735--1918.

1. I've read all of Richard Brookhiser's biographies of the Founding Fathers (Washington, Hamilton, Morris) and I've enjoyed them all, but I liked this one the least. Brookhiser writes very well and his observations on the character of his subjects are always revealing. He shows how often the best quality in a biographer is not polished prose or research skills, but judgment.

   In his book on the four generations of Adams, however, Brookhiser overreaches. Had he kept his focus on the men, this would have been a fine if undistinguished book. But Brookhiser appears to be trying to say something about families, American dynasties, and the difficulties of sustaining greatness. What he wanted to say, I could never quite figure out. The wonderful aphoristic quality of Brookhiser's prose -- that makes him so good when writing some sharp and brief observation -- fails him when he must sustain an argument.

   An example of this is when Brookhiser writes in his introduction of the contradiction of an egalitarian society having so many political family dynasties, from the Adamses to Bushes. In noting this, he writes "[An American political dynasty] is the tribute democracy pays to aristocracy." This sounds very nice, but it's meaningless. Most of Brookhiser's comments on the significance of American political dynasties and how the Adamses were able to sustain their greatness fall along this line.

   Thankfully, most of this book is on the Adamses, and it is when writing on them that Brookhiser shines. Still, the bad ideas -- even though they don't make up a substantial part of the book -- hang over it. Brookhiser is always interesting when writing about a person, but is not at his best when trying to come up with a conceptual framework to make sense of it all.




2. "America` First Dynasty" by Richard Brookhiser. Sub-titled: "The Adamses, 1713-1918".
   Understandably, this book concentrates on the two presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Their contributions as one-term presidents help to establish democracy in the nascent United States. Brookhiser notes that the two Adamses were the first presidents not from Virginia. Much of what John Adams did became precedents for later presidents.

   It appears to me that the author makes the tacit assumption that the reader has a fairly good knowledge of American history, so he casually introduces lesser know subjects, such as the "Know Nothing Party " (Native American Party) and the anti-Masonic efforts in upstate New York. This, of course, leads you to things that you want to examine further, but, on the other hand, inhibits the free-flow of the book.

   I think that the author is stretching to consider Charles Francis or even Henry Adams as "greats" who were continuing the Adams "dynasty". I did, however, enjoy Brookhiser's "book review" approach to "The Education of Henry Adams" and Henry's book on Mont St. Michel. Perhaps the next book by Brookhiser would be the comparison of the contributions of the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts and the Bushes: all presidents who related by blood.

   I listened to the seven tapes as I commuted around Boston; excellent reading by Dan Cashman. It is appropriate to note the name of the town of Haverhill is pronounced as HAV AAAA rill by the natives.. The reader sounded it out and said Have Er Hill, which is logical but not the way it is said in Massachusetts. Further, the hometown of the Adamses , Quincy, is said as "QuinZZZy".




3. The old style of biography was much like theatre criticism. The more cleverly you could trash the subject, the more you were -- or felt yourself to be -- a winner. When personality peculiarities made subjects as vulnerable to witticism as John Adams' was, we got decades of historical biographers trying to out-acidify the likes of Bernard Shaw. This style had faded significantly by the time David McCullough wrote a biography of John Adams that was unabashedly laudatory...an open fan letter...clear hero worship!

   From Brookhiser's race through four members of the Adams family I learned only two things for sure.
   1. The Adams's irritate him.
   2. The old adage that "the things you criticize most in others are usually your own worst fault" appears to be true.

   The author's rancor calls and raises the rancor he attributes to his subjects. Reading it was an unpleasant experience with little to no redeeming informational or ideational value for anyone but the author's therapist.




4. Throughout much of human history, leaders of nations were the children of leaders of nations. Nearly 230 years ago, a radical notion was advanced in a document that would help to form a new republic: that all men are created equal. Many of those American colonists who declared themselves independent of their king wanted not only to limit the power of the executive but to be sure that they had the ability to choose who that executive would be, rather than to have it pass from father to son. Thus, "only three of the first eight presidents produced potential successors, [and] only three of those sons were considered presidential timber." Two of them were named Adams, and one of them would actually become president.
   
   In America's First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser uses just under 220 pages to paint compelling biographies of four successive generations of a family from 1735 through 1918, an unusually active one that included two presidents of the United States, a public servant of the republic and his state, and a writer. These men lived through tumultuous and eventful times and played roles in them.
   
   The text appears to be well-researched and is quite readable. Quite a lot of history was packed into a very small number of pages; readers with a good understanding of the times and concurrent history will find their understanding of these characters enhanced. Readers who do not know much of the concurrent history might feel rushed.
   
   In groups of three chapters, each of the subjects is considered. Beginning with John Adams, we're introduced to him already in service of his country, at a dinner party in France. We follow him through the highlights of his professional career, and into retirement. We're suddenly focusing on his son John Quincy, as his career starts at an early age with his father, and how he differs from his brothers, who fall prey to the snare of alcohol. John Quincy himself was distinguished, even becoming president, but (much like his father) was hampered by his distaste for political parties and the method of serving in public office.
   
   Charles Francis Adams married well and held various public offices throughout his career, even running as a candidate for Vice-President on the Free-Soil party ticket. Most of his public life was in state and then federal legislature, followed by a diplomatic appointment by Abraham Lincoln. Brookhiser points out that it is in the family of Charles Francis that the family tendency toward alcoholism is broken.
   
   Henry Adams apparently had no taste for public life, preferring instead to become a writer. Much of the biographical sketch focuses on the creation of his best-known work, The Education of Henry Adams. With only his lineage and his wife's suicide to frame the work, we're left wondering what else Henry did. Perhaps this was Brookhiser's intention: to focus on that which each of the subjects left behind for posterity.
   
   Indeed, after the biographical sketches, we're given several more brief chapters that discuss the family habit of keeping a diary and the writing of history. Brookhiser then attempts to frame much of what we have read, discussing such matters as dynasty and legacy. I found the discussion a bit strange because while various Adamses were clearly concerned with the matter of greatness-returning to the question of who are great men-I was under no impression that the Adamses themselves were much concerned with the legacy of the family. I saw only that they were like every other family, wanting what is best for their children, hoping that they will be of good character and do well for themselves.
   
   Putting the discussion in terms of dynasty might not be so strange when viewed through the lens of history. The fact is that John Adams was there from the founding of the country, and his family remained prominent in American life into the twentieth century. Had Henry fathered children, perhaps the chain of prominent Adamses would be unbroken today.
   
   Given this country's interest in the families that produce presidents, it's hardly any surprise that there would be such interest in a family that produced two presidents, especially in light of the fact that the current president is also the son of a president. In all, America's First Dynasty makes for an engaging read, but the extreme brevity of the biographical sketches left me hoping for more.



5. I saw this on sale and thought it would be a nice 'chaser' after David McCullough's long but excellent "John Adams" that I was just finishing up. I was right, but barely. First, on the good side: it's a well written quick review of the four famous and interesting generations of Adamses. It gets high marks for putting a lot into a small package. Also, all four get equal time, which, given the complexities of each, I appreciated.
   
   On the negative side: it did not surprise me that Brookhiser took a less flattering (and more mainstream) view of John Adams than McCullough. But when his disparagment stretched to the following three generations I started to wonder what size burr the author may be sitting on. If you buy Brookhiser's somewhat malignant view of these four, it then begs the question how such an irascible hypocritical set of men could be so successful. Which is neither asked nor answered.
   
   It was worth the $5 I paid, but I wouldn't pay full price.

No comments about Martin Luther King, Jr.: SpiritLed Prophet.

5 comments about In Search of Churchill: A Historian's Journey.

1. Churchill has always been somewhat of an enigma; undoubtedly a brilliant politician who, more than any other figure in contemporary 20th Century History, helped shape the lives of millions. Much has previously been made of disasters associated with his decisions both militarily and politically. Through Mr. Gilbert's brilliant research and analysis, however, many of these are shown to have been fabrications or nothing other than spurious lies. Through these pages you learn that he was the "scapegoat" for the Dardanelles debacle and that he was a far more compassionate and human individual than some would have us believe. His treatment of social issues, including organised labour, was before its time and he was certainly not the "heartless" war-monger so often portrayed in this revisionist era. Surely the greatest historical debate would be to pitch Mr. Gilbert against the most articulate revisionist, Mr David Irving: I have no doubt, having read this excellent book, that Gilbert would secure a knock-out in the first round.



2. If you enjoy biograhpies or Churchill, this is a book for you. Gilbert has come across some fascinating material in his pursuit of the great man. It is also interesting to see how exactly a biography is written. The book starts out focusing more on the author, but works its way into Churchill. Gilbert steps away from merely events in his life and through letters and those who knew him best, gets down to the inner man. The best part is a letter Churchill dictated when he was only a small boy where he predicts a great deal of his future. Gibert goes right to the heart of Churchill.



3. Biographers spend years, and in this case decades, to bring their work, their subject to us. The manner their books came about is generally shared in their acknowledgement, or a section thanking those people and institutions that were instrumental in helping create the work. Sir Martin Gilbert is one of the great Historians of our time, and his main work as a historian is certainly a man that is truly unique, a historic original, a man who's peers can be counted on one hand.

   "In Search Of Churchill" allows the reader to get about as close as he can to the writing of a biography without actually being one of Sir Martin's assistants. His work documenting Churchill is about to cross into its fifth decade. Sir Martin began as an assistant to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill's Son Randolph in 1962. In 1968 he took the task on alone, and has carried it forth, and continues to do so to this day.

   Alone of course is the wrong word, while he certainly has written thousands of pages of what many consider the greatest biographical work ever done, hundreds of others living, and others through the papers they left behind, have helped Mr. Gilbert on this lifetime task. Churchill has not been the only subject of this great biographer which is yet another testimony to this historian.

   Churchill is a constant, he is quoted almost daily, his speeches are legendary, as are his quips, which were at times poked in fun, and at others ended the careers of their target. Mr. Gilbert works toward answering questions that may not have a definitive answer, but if there is an individual to put forth valid opinion, none are more qualified than he. Why is Churchill a figure of history that has not been relegated to the past's vague memory, why does he routinely appear on magazine covers in this Country and others on a yearly basis? What was it about this man that has spawned an International Churchill Society who counts thousands on Continents around the world as paying members? Why are their new books on this man written on a regular basis, and how many authors have their books in print a century after they were written. Great Author's works line the shelves, but writing was an avocation for this man in addition to his other talents.

   Mr. Gilbert brings you along to "meet" people who worked with Mr. Churchill. As his life spanned from the 1870's to the 1960's those who knew him are legion. He was Prime Minister twice, held nearly every major Government position, won the Nobel prize, painted, and held the fort for the Western Democracies until help finally came. If such a man had not lived so large and so long he would almost be more believable as legend and or myth rather than the Statesman, warrior, orator, and one of England's greatest citizens that he continues to be, in some cases in memory only. He did have a head start, as his Mother was American, and perhaps that makes us in the USA feel we can claim him as partly ours.

   The embassy in Washington D.C. has a statue of Churchill, in mid-stride he has one foot on American soil and one on the territory of the English Embassy. In life his influence, his determination, and sense of destiny spanned the Globe. Even in death he spans the 2 Countries he loved the most.

   His like will never be seen again.




4. The life of Winston Churchill was so eventful and the available documents relating to his life so voluminous, that penning a complete and unabridged biography of Churchill is truly a lifetime task. So it has been for British historian Martin Gilbert, charged with the task of being Churchill?s official biographer. In this book, Gilbert recounts the events by which he came to become the most extensive living resource of Churchill knowledge and artifacts.

   Gilbert came to his task in a roundabout way. Fresh out of Oxford in the early sixties, the young historian concedes he knew comparatively little about Churchill as the great man was not a highly regarded figure among the Oxford academy at that time. Churchill?s son Randolph had been hired by a publishing house to write the multi volume official biography of his father. Gilbert was hired as one of several research assistants. Expecting to stay with Randolph only a short time, Gilbert ended up working with him for more than half a decade. In the first part of the book, Gilbert describes the experience of working with the mercurial and difficult Randolph in putting together the first volumes covering Churchill?s early life. On Randolph?s death in 1968, Gilbert was asked by the publisher to take over the project. Gilbert agreed to do so and a lifetime task was set before him. In ensuing chapters, Gilbert describes his frustrations and pleasures at the enormous amount of written materials by or about Churchill. Perhaps no other historical figure has such an extensive archive. As recounted by Gilbert, his explorations of Churchill?s letters and papers taught him much, not only about Churchill?s impact on British and world history but about Churchill?s character. Yet as Gilbert states, no historical figure can be brought to life merely on the basis of written documents. Fortunately for Gilbert, at the time he did much of his research, in the sixties, many of the people in Churchill?s life were still alive to be interviewed. This includes many of his secretaries, a number of military and political figures with whom he worked and his wife and children. From decades of research, Gilbert emerged with a compelling portrait of a truly great character. A man, not without his faults but still a great liberal, a great democrat, a great leader and a great family man. The book is filled with anecdotes and quotes from Churchill. As one example, Gilbert discovered a letter of response from Labour Prime Minister Ramsey McDonald praising Churchill for his kindness and friendship. Gilbert never found the original letter Churchill wrote to McDonald but wonders what it could have said to elicit such a response from a man Churchill had referred to in open Parliament as ?the boneless wonder?.

   Anyone who admirers Winston Churchill and Martin Gilbert must read this book. It is an absolute necessity to any Churchill library. Anyone who would like to learn a little about one of the 20th centuries truly great figures should read it as well.




5. I've been studying about Winston Churchill for more than 30 years. So much that has been written is repetitive or agenda driven, and sometimes I feel there isn't anything more to be said. Then I found this book by Martin Gilbert with insights into himself, Randolph Churchill and the many prominent people that knew Churchill intimately and as participants in his personal history. Churchill's influence on 20th century British history cannot be denied although many writers have tried to trivialize it or to demonize Sir Winston as a war monger.
   
   Gilbert makes clear that none of that is true, and for me one of the most telling quotes from his book describes the true nature of Mr. Churchill. "My search made clear that despite the image of Churchill as a man eager to resort to force, his main theme in each decade had been to try to settle international disputes by negotiation." (Chapter 6) Gilbert is able to back up this statement with original documentations and personal testimonies that lesser reseachers would have neither the talent nor the inclination to gather and formulate into a life's portrait of a great man.
   
   Frankly, this book has renewed my interest in all things Churchill, and I have purchased and am reading a recently issued book, "Troublesome Young Men," by Lynne Olson. Troublesome Young Men This book sets the stage for Churchill's rise to being a war tme Prime Minister and shows that he was not alone (albeit rather isolated) in understanding the nature of appeasement and the folly of negotiating with tyrants from a position of weakness. More importantly the book reinforces the fact that even when faced with enormous political pressures from those in power and a public that neither understands or just doesn't believe, that freedom is a concept that must be defended at all costs. We would do well to remember this lesson today post 9/11. Where (or better, who) are today's "Troublesome Young Men?"
   
   Anyone with an interest in Winston Churchill and the history of the mid-20th century, will gain a much better understanding of that history by reading how Martin Gilbert came to be Churchill's biography.

2 comments about Living for Change: An Autobiography.

1. For anyone who has ever wanted to work for social change, this life story by a wise and vital woman is a guidebook. As the book's cover tells us, "Grace Lee Boggs is a first-generation Chinese American who has been a speaker, writer, and movement activist in the African- American community for fifty-five years." After earning her Ph.D. in philosophy at Bryn Mawr in June of 1940, Grace wanted to become an activist. She moved to Chicago in the fall of 1940 and began working with the South Side Tenants Organization--a group that had been set up by the Workers Party.
   

   When distinguished "labor leader A. Phillip Randolph issued a call for blacks all over the country to march on Washington to demand jobs in the defense plants," more and more people began attending the Workers Party discussions in Chicago's Washington Park. Grace had been invited to participate in those discussions. She said, "The more I went out in the community and met people, the more inadequate I was beginning to feel." When Randolph's leadership of the March on Washington movement was successful and President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, Grace realized "the power that the black community has within itself to change this country when it begins to move. As a result, I decided that what I wanted to do with the rest of my life was to become a movement activist in the black community." To Grace, "Joining the Workers Party seemed a good way to start," and that's what she did, in order to get the political education she felt she needed.
   

   In the 1950s, Grace moved to Detroit where she worked on the Socialist Workers Party newsletter and met Jimmy Boggs, "A rank-and-file black Chrysler-Jefferson worker and community activist." Grace liked living in Detroit because it "felt like a 'Movement' city where radical history had been made and could be made again." She also liked working with Jimmy. Having worked closely with C. L. R. James, the intellectually powerful Socialist philosopher, Grace felt that her life had been "exciting but also extremely intellectual." She reasoned that she "needed to return to the concrete." Grace and Jimmy married in 1953 and began a life together that was rooted in the concrete reality of a major 20th-century industrialized city that had been abandoned by the large corporations that built it and by much of its white population.
   

   As Ossie Davis says in his foreword to Grace's book, "Through these pages walk causes, gatherings, confrontations, movements, and the men and women who made them: workers and students and committees of the People...." Studs Terkel has called Grace's book "More than a deeply moving memoir...." He said, "...this is a book of revelation."
   

   It is just that, for with passion and reason, Grace invites us to join her and Jimmy. She shows how they made "Detroit Summer" and "Gardening Angels" part of a new urban economic system, and she shows us how to interact multiculturally and multi-generationally. She doesn't merely talk about it--she does it and reports on its results. Grace Boggs educates us in her book and helps us see the possibilities of what we can do in our own cities.
   




2. I was impressed to find this book at my public library. It is an important remembrance of some of the movements that were occurring during the 1940's through the 1990's. Lots of acronyms! Some of the history of the splits in the Party got tedious.

   It was interesting to read about some of the options people had besides the Panthers, to hear the view of taking responsibilty, not only blaming the man for the situation. And to reaffirm the idea that a great shift in society needs to occur before we can have true equality.

   NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

1 comments about Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite (Crises in World Politics).

1. Will be of interest to all those interested in international dispute settlement and the current role of diplomacy. While ultimately unconvincing, it is thought provoking.
   
   Parts of this book are quite interesting, especially when the author describes his personal career in the British Foreign Service and work on Iraq at the United Nations.
   
   To me, the solutions to the structural diplomatic ills perceived by Mr. Ross, and offered up by him in this volume, are both unrealistic and wrong-headed. For example, just "divest ourselves of diplomats."
   
   George Soros is a big fan of Mr. Ross and his utopian ideas on ridding the world of amoral, uninformed, selfish, shortsighted, state-centric methods of working on global problems. This should be a clue to potential readers of this book.

5 comments about The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963.

1. I read The Kennedy Women a few years ago and found it to be one of the most impressive biographical works that I had ever encountered. I was most impressed with Leamer's ability to fully chart the lives of so many diverdse characters.

   I eagerly awaited the Kennedy Men. If I had not read his previous work, this probably would have seemed better. I felt that the Kennedy Women had a broader scope dealing with a longer (and earlier!) time frame and more individuals. This started, really with Joe Kennedy and didn't focus on too many others. A very minor complaint, is that the Kennedy women had a comrehensive time line in the beginning. It would have been useful to include one here as well.

   Otherwise, this is an extaordinarily well rearched volume. What I enjoyed most was the conversational approach taken by Leamer. It is a pleasure to read. I wish that the final chapter "Requiem for a President" was slightly more detailed, but this was a chance to learn not about invididuals, but about complex family relationships and bonds.

   I am glad that I read it and look forward to volume 2!




2. I've read 64 biographys and it's one of the worse.
   There are a few photos.
   some informations are odd, because the author invents them.
   buy not this book, but buy better book like a common good, the thirteen days, the kennedys and the fitzgerald, robert kennedy and his time...



3. In the years since John F Kennedy was elected President two kinds of "Kennedy Myths" have developed. The positive one portrays John, Robert and Ted Kennedy as liberal "saints" committed to a progressive revolution in America. The negative one shows the Kennedys to be rapacious libertines who throw off all social conventions in their personal and political lives. Leamer's book transcends these over-simplistic views and covers the lives of patriarch Joseph P Kennedy and his four sons, bringing out the complexity of this unique group of people.

   Those who hold a negative view of the Kennedys will find much material to confirm their beliefs. In truth, Joe Kennedy seems to be a man with almost no redeeming virtues, a virulent anti-Semite and pro-Nazi, greedy and miserly, manipulative man. The second generation of Kennedys learned not to ask where the family's money came from. Yet Joe Kennedy went on to implement needed reforms in the Security and Exchange commission to which he was appointed, supported the progressive FDR and became the most powerful Catholic in the US.

   Similarly, JFK went on to be an incredibly reckless philanderer who possibly compromised the very security of the US with liasons with women involved with organized crime and possibly even East German intelligence, but at the same time, he inspired young people to volunteer for the Peace Corps and set American on course to landing on the Moon. RFK goes to work for family friend Senator Joe McCarthy and works with the Mafia in order to destablize Castro's regime in Cuba, but then also works vigorously against the same Mafia and institutionalized racial discrimination (and somehow escapes the taint of his association with McCarthy).

   Leamer show that JFK and RFK were definitely not "soft liberals". JFK was the best friend the "military-industrial complex" ever had, pouring unprecedented amounts of money into defense and space projects. They supported a very tough anti-Communist policy in Cuba and Vietnam which almost led to nuclear war and did lead to the quagmire in Southeast Asia. One important point about the book is that Leamer does not demonize various "bad guys" from the positive Kennedy Myth, such as General Curtis Lemay and other military men from the Cuban Missile Crisis, FBI Director J Edgar Hoover who was friendly for many years with Joe Kennedy and showed great forebearance with the many indiscretions of his sons and had good reason to be concerned with JFK's behavior and finally Lyndon Johnson who loyally served the Kennedy Administration and yet was treated with contempt by RFK and many of JFK's advisors (although not by JFK himself).

   Finally, the author has come to the same conclusion that other investigators have arrived at regarding JFK's assassination, namely, that it is very likely that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald was motivated, either with or without the knowledge of agents of Fidel Castro, to kill Kennedy in revenge for the Kennedys' attempt to kill him.

   It is not easy to cover the lives of five different men in a singel book, and much had to be left out, but as an introduction to this remarkable tribe of American aristocracy, this book is indispensable.




4. I give this book a borderline 3 - 4 stars. It isn't bad - it explored all of the Kennedy men adequately but none very extensively. Leamer does do a great job of explaining the relationships among the Kennedy men, especially the complicated relationship that Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. had with all of his children.

   The author offers up stunning and excruciating details about Joe Kennedy Jr's. death, as well as Kathleen's death. These instances were painful to read, but very insightful about the patriarch's emotions.

   I feel Leamer did concentrate a bit too much on JFK's sexual trysts, but that is a topic that no book on the Kennedys will neglect, so it's not really a complaint.

   It would have been nice had the book ended in 1968 and not 1963. Another 100 pages would have given the reader much more great reading on RFK following the president's death and also his run for the presidency in 1968.

   All in all, this is a good book for diehard Kennedy aficionados.




5. Didn't like it. Basically refers to President Kennedy and his time in office. Too boring.

5 comments about Jack Kennedy: The Education of a Statesman.

1. What a clever idea Barbara Leaming has for a re-examination of John F. Kennedy's life. She explores the impact of his relationship with movers-and-shakers in England, concentrating on David Ormsby-Gore, one of Kennedy's sister Kathleen's Smart Set in pre-World War II London.
   As a long-term Kennedy biography reader, it's fascinating to revisit experiences in his life from a new richly-textured perspective. The meatiest part of the book is easily Kennedy's introduction to Ormsby-Gore and friends, when Kennedy's father is appointed Ambassador to Great Britain. Reporting becomes thin in the last year of Kennedy's presidency.
   Chapters dealing on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would have been greatly improved by stitching in some primary sourcework on Nikita Kruschev, perhaps from his son's biographies of him. Another help might have been incorporating Schlesinger's or Bundy's perspectives on the British influence on Kennedy on these issues. More voices, more analysis might have mitigated the ping-pong like effect in these chapters --- Kennedy said, Ormsby-Gore said, Macmillan said.
   Also, perhaps because Leaming's indebtedness to British peerage for valuable first-person accounts of what JFK was like at the time, reader is shorted in several respects. Scant mention or analysis of Kathleen Kennedy's infatuation with another British peer, married with a child, after her first husband dies. There's some insinuation that Fitzwilliam, the second peer, was randy, representing another type of British upperclassman. But, there's nothing to indicate why the sister would embrace the darker side of British Aristocracy nor what impact this had on Kennedy himself. Ditto scant info at the end about Ormsby-Gore and wife, post Kennedy, other than mention that they're killed in separate auto accidents. That said, an engrossing read. A must for Kennedy biography fans.



2. A child when Kennedy was assassinated, I grew up with a mix of fact and mystique in what I knew of President Kennedy. Barbara Leaming's book introduces me to a Kennedy not unrecognizable from the Kennedy I was aware of growing up, without whitewashing his actions.
   
   I really enjoy the way she brings across Jack Kennedy in the various points of his life. It does seem to dwell a little overlong on his sister Kick's story, but it's a really satisfying read and she really brings historical moments of the time to life and shows them in relation to Kennedy's life.



3. The is a marvelous blow by blow description of how WWII statred
   
   Also a wondreful blow by blow of the Cuban Missle crisis
   
   The research was fantastic



4. everything about this transaction was first class.



5. You'll find Barbara Leaming's marvelous book very difficult to put down. Somehow she has uncovered entirely new source material which sheds light on Kennedy's early years in Great Britain when his father Joe was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Introduced by his sister Kick to a circle of bright young aristocrats, the connections made in these early years would last a lifetime and shape his world view in a dangerous time for the US and for the world. What struck me particularly in the book was how much of what Kennedy learns is still enormously relevant in today's world. This book should be required reading for our leaders in Washington and especially our Presidential candidates for 2008! I cannot wait to see what subject Ms. Leaming takes on next.