5 comments about The Prince of Princes: The Life of Potemkin.

1. Potemkin was a Russian statesman who exercised power in the reign of Catherine the Great. He had a position of importance for about 17 years in the last part of the 17th Century.

   He was associated with the "Southern Strategy". In the early years of the 17th Century Peter the Great had modernized the Russian army, organized society in such a way that it could support a standing army and run a centralized state in a modern way. Peter had defeated the Swedes and thrown them out of Russia. His campaigns in the south were not successful and he was forced to sign a humiliating peace with Persia.

   Potemkin expanded Russia to the South. Detaching the Crimea from the Turkish Empire and making it an independent state was the first step. Later it was annexed as was some of the territories in the Caucasus and Besserabia. Not only did Potemkin add these territories to Russia but he made them what they are today. These areas had been largely pastoral areas dominated by the Turks and sparsely populated. Potemkin filled these areas with peasant farmers and they became some of the richest agricultural areas in Russia. He also designed and built cities such as Odessa and Sebastapool. One thing which was important to Russia's history over the next hundred years was that he developed good relationships with the Cossacks and in fact created the Kuban Cossacks. As a result the Cossacks became one of the pillars of Czarism.

   In the 19th Century Russia was one of the largest and most successful empires. Potemkin is one of its architects and laid the basis for its relentless eastward expansion. He is remarkable in many ways. A good deal of what he achieved was through diplomacy. His skills and interests were greater than that of a normal military leader and involved setting up the infrastructure of a nation state.

   This book is something that could not fail to be interesting because of its subject matter. The writer however tends to focus on the dramatic and scandalous parts of Potemkin's life to make a dramatic story somewhat at the expense of the historical narrative.

   Catherine the Great was married to a Czar who was probably insane. It seems that her son was the product of an affair. Shortly after her husband came to the thrown she became fearful that she would be divorced. She conspired with two brothers called the Orlovs to overthrow her husband and later murder him and to make her the Czar.

   In her forties Catherine had an affair with Potemkin who was a very minor noble in a guards restaurant. He had shown bravery in battle and continually flirted with Catherine and threw himself at her feet. She succumbed and they were lovers for a while and probably were married secretly. His power and office derive from her trust in him. After their affair ended he continued to exercise power in the South of Russia.

   The book tends to push the romance between Potemkin and Catherine to the fore and to discuss the history as something of an afterthought. It seems designed at selling to a larger market than normal academic histories. Despite all this it is an interesting work both from the point of view of discussing Catherine and also documenting the rise of the Russian empire.




2. If all you knew about Potemkin was the fact that he built fake villages for Catherine the Great, then this book will tell you a lot more. In fact, the author goes into the origin of that particular myth, and shows it to be false, and propagated by enemies of Potemkin, and repeated, uncritically, by subsequent historians.

   There is no question that Sebag-Montefiore is biassed in favor of his hero - this is not an objective biography, and doesn't try to be, or claim to be so. Some people might think that the author of a historical biography should be an invisible, impartial figure, but you don't get that with this book. You hear a lot about the author's travels to research his subject, which contrasts with the dry style of more "serious" historians, who never leave the library. Any author of a biography is likely to be biassed, so why not be upfront about it?

   This is a very readable book - there are lots of anecdotes, and a lot of quotes directly from the correspondance between Potemkin and Catherine. The book makes a direct claim that the two were married, in a secret ceremony, and even describes the ceremony, even though the author cheerfully admits the lack of evidence for this.

   The really good thing about this book is that most of it draws on primary sources, many of which have not been available before, and the author brings these, and their authors to life. This means that it is a ground-breaking historical account, and popular history at the same time. Like all good biographies, it teaches you a lot about the historical context, so you will learn a lot about how Catherine was able to defeat the Turks, and significantly expand the size of the Russian empire. Seeing Catherine through the eyes of her lover's biographer is a new slant on a subject who has had a lot written about her.

   I really enjoyed this book. It's popular history that is both historical (in terms of its academic integrity, and its research) and popular (in terms of its interesting subject, and lively writing style).




3. Unlike physics, writing biography or history is often an exercise in opinion. It gains credibility by being informed of the historical record, but affairs are frequently so complex, and knowledge so incomplete, that opinion may prevail by default. Unfortunately, opinion can also prevail in the presence of substantial fact, and this seems to be the case with Sebag Montefiore's "Prince of Princes: The Life of Potemkin." This prodigious work with over a hundred pages of references and notes, many citing sources never before seen, makes a contribution by bringing these to light. On the other hand, it shares with its useless 1938 predecessor, George Soloveytchik's "Potemkin: A Picture of Catherine's Russia", an overwhelming hero worship of its subject. This leads to an intolerant opinion and dismissal of material not supporting the author's love. Thus, unfavorable material on Potemkin is out of hand labeled, and often with some emotion, "untrustworthy," "prejudiced," "venomous," containing "weasel words," etc.

   Sadly, Montefiore's efforts are compromised by incomplete and out-of-context quotations of Prince de Ligne that self-servingly change the meaning to the opposite of its original intent. For example, the author writes on page 382, "Ligne knew 'very well what legerdemain tricks are', but the achievements were real." However, the quotation he cites continues, "...for example, the empress, who cannot rush about on foot as we do, is made to believe that certain towns for which she has given money are finished; whereas they are often towns without streets, streets without houses, houses without roofs, doors, or windows." One hopes that this was a mere oversight, but the reader is helpless to tell and is inevitably left wondering about the reliability of other citations.

   There is also confusion of the Lake Ladoga/Upper Volga cruise of 1785 with the celebrated 1787 inspection trip south. The author has the English Ambassador Fitzherbert composing on the Volga trip some tricky verse when in fact the incident took place two years later on the Dnieper River, and Count de Segur was the impromptu poet.

   There are many sweeping statements presented as undisputed fact such as the French and Indian War "...set off the events that would lead to the Seven Years War..." (p. 35), the Russian army brought the Prussian army to the "very edge of destruction" during the Seven Years War (p. 40), the Black Sea fleet was well- made (p. 370) and then refutes himself in footnote 33 on page 589, etc. Most historians would take issue with every one of these statements and with dozens more as well.

   The author seems to be confused about the issue behind the "Potemkin Villages" story. The Potemkin Village controversy was not over the achievements in the Crimea and lower Ukraine seen during the land portion of Catherine's 1787 journey (though these too were questioned) but over what was seen earlier during the Dnieper River float. It was the "villages" seen from the river that were alleged to be "fake," (though once again questions were raised about achievements elsewhere as well,) and contrary to advertising claims on the book's dust jacket, the work is completely unpersuasive in laying the Potemkin Village matter to rest.

   The book also frequently seems to loose focus with numerous biographical asides of secondary characters, some quit lengthy.

   There are just too many issues with this book from weak editing to questionable facts, injudicious hero worship, outright errors of fact, an almost Russia partisanship and defensiveness, a peculiar view of history, etc., to make it acceptable. Alas, a trustworthy biography of Gregory Potemkin remains yet to be written.




4. Yes, this biography is flawed. And anyone who abjures imperfect work should avoid this book. But if you care to learn how one man and one woman's passion enlightened and modernized the Russian empire, you should read this book and accept it for what it is--an insightful psychobiography rather than history.

   Montefiore documents the frenetic and flawed love between Catherine, Tzarina of the Russian Empire and Potemkin. He shows how their love bound and locked their souls together in a dance played out through letters that left each no less desperate, but somehow more complete. Catherine tutored the younger Potemkin, mentored his fine mind, and then recognized her protege-lover first as her equal and then as unparalleled founder of the empire that she could adeptly run, but never of her own device create.

   Also, Montefiore shows how Potemkin looms as freethinker over the feudal landscape of 18th century Russia. Not through courage or moral principle did he embrace new ideas and pariahs but rather through audaciousness. Potemkin thirsted for new experiences. He craved proximity to ancient truths, and to their exponents--whether they be Rabbis, Mullahs, ArchBishops or defrocked Priests. And his actions transformed that landscape as he built cities, ships, whole provinces seemingly with nothing but the power of his own will.

   I am left with a question for the author. What role did self-preservation, and obsession to protect Catherine play in Potemkin's unbounded efforts to extend the Russian empire southward? Did his actions protect his sovereign from intrique and possible deposition? Was he driven by vision or necessity?




5. Potemkin : Prince of Princes
   by Simon Sebag Montefiore
   This book about Potemkin is as broad, expansive, and fascinating as the man himself. It's beautifully researched, based strongly on the correspondence of Potemkin and Catherine the Great, as well as the archives of Potemkin.
   
   Gregor Potemkin was a minor noble who was on the periphery of the conspiracy that brought Catherine the Great to power in Russia in 1762. Younger than Catherine, Potemkin remained among the people who served her, and was seen as a humorous and turbulent young man with a gift for amusing the Empress.
   
   In 1774, they became lovers, and lovers on an epic scale. The letters between them are humorous, loving, passionate, and filled with the details of running an Empire. Potemkin, brilliant, well-read and gifted was a companion for Catherine in a way that none of her other favorites were. He and Catherine were tender towards one another til his death in the early 1790's, even as they both eventually turned to other lovers. Rumors spread that they were married, and Montefiore explores whether this might be true. His conclusion - it's impossible to prove, but their language of love uses the phrases husband and wife in far more than casual way. And the way that they worked together to run an Empire, wage wars in Crimea, and make Russia a stronger Imperial power was one of partnership, not of master and servant.
   
   Potemkin is a fascinating figure - by turns filled with manic energy and diffident - a sensualist who wanted to reside in a monastery, a mass of contradictions. But the book makes a sense of the man - passionate and intellectual, filled with curiosity for innovation, with a gift for friendship. He led the effort to conquer the Crimea, giving Russia an outlet on the Black Sea, which led to important shifts in power in the coming century. Sometimes hiding behind a mask of indolence, he set out to build towns, improve agricultural, innovate in river transport, and set a new diplomatic agenda with the Ottaman Empire, Austria, France and Prussia.
   
   Montefiore discusses some of the myths of Potemkin, especially the infamous Potemkin villages, and tries to show how the foreign ambassadors around Potemkin had reasons to diminish the progress Potemkin had made in changing the newly acquired lands in the Crimea. Occasionally the author is perhaps too willing to dismiss Potemkin's more outrageous behavior, but is frank and honest about his failings as well as his triumphs.
   
   The book is beautifully written, with an energetic and clear prose style. Often you get only books about the dominant figure of a place and era, such as Catherine the Great in Russia during this time. This book add substantial details to the picture of the Russian Court, Russian politics, and of Catherine herself. A highly recommended book for anyone interested in the period. If you need an entree into the period, let me recommend Henri Troyat's Catherine the Great.
   
   A joy! What a pleasure to read a good book.

2 comments about John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic.

1. Among the American Founding Fathers, it is unlikely that there is a man more influential and yet less well known and studied than Dr. John Witherspoon. Prof. Morrison seeks to help correct this neglect in this brief volume. Dr. John Witherspoon was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who came to America in the late 1760s to become the President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), where he played an active and influential role in American politics, religion and education in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. He was the only minister to sign both the Declaration of Independence and to ratify the Constitution. He was probably Madison's most influential teacher, and, despite his staunch Christian orthodoxy, appears to have enjoyed universally high regard by the other founders, even those such as Franklin and Jefferson who had little use for Biblical Christianity. This book gives an excellent account of a number of interesting aspects of Witherspoon's life and thought.
   
   Chapter 1 gives an overview of the importance of Witherspoon's career in America, including excerpts referring to him from the writings of many of his contemporaries on both sides of the Atlantic. It discusses the significance of his religious alignment, which was orthodox, Reformed, Biblical, Presbyterian Christianity, and how Witherspoon's stature in the colonies influenced the major role that Presbyterians played in the independence movement (King George III called the American Revolution the "Presbyterian rebellion"). The chapter closes by discussing some reasons why Witherspoon has been largely ignored by scholars, such as a scarcity of surviving material, and the fact that most modern scholars will feel very uncomfortable being reminded of a prominent Christian minister who played such an active and influential role in early American politics and who saw no distinction between his religious and his political activities (Witherspoon always insisted on wearing his clerical robes when he attended the Continental Congress).
   
   Chapter 2 examines Witherspoon's religious views, and especially the role that he saw religion playing in the new United States. Witherspoon believed in political freedom of conscience, following the framers of the Westminster Confession, who say that "God alone is lord of the conscience." Nevertheless, he also shared the view common to the founders, that liberty, virtue and faith were equally indispensable in the foundation of a happy society. Witherspoon wrote that "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." Despite his belief in personal religious liberty, Witherspoon could write that "those who are vested with civil authority ought also, with much care, to promote religion and good morals among all under their government" and that "Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction."
   
   Chapter 3 discusses Witherspoon's influence as an educator, and the central place that education had in his day, when its importance for the prosperity and happiness of a nation was viewed as second only to religion. It examines his moral and philosophical teachings, which were drawn largely from Scottish common sense philosophy, and tended strongly toward pragmatism, which became a hallmark not only of early American politics, but also of American life and culture in general.
   
   Chapter 4 considers Witherspoon's role in the American revolution, in terms of both his activities and his theological and philosophical views of liberty and resistance theory. Witherspoon saw little or no distinction between religious and civil tyranny. As a result, his idea of revolution was founded on John Calvin's right of resistance outlined in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, but was also influenced heavily by Locke's generalization of Calvin's idea to civil resistance.
   
   Chapter 5 investigates Witherspoon's activity surrounding the development of the founding documents, including his vocal role at the Continental Congress and his advocacy of a strong and lasting union of the states. It discusses parallels between Witherspoon's writings and The Federalist Papers, his positions on economic questions, and his active role in the formation of the national Presbyterian Church in the United States and the drafting of the Presbyterian Constitution in 1787. In this context, Morrison discusses many of the parallels between the U.S. federal government and Presbyterian government, and he talks about Witherspoon's view of the very limited role that the federal government ought to play (he considered that the scope of the federal government was so limited that a permanent federal city was not a question of pressing importance).
   
   The sixth and final chapter of Morrison's book explores Witherspoon's relation to early American political thinking. It compares his ideas with those of other founders, and it looks at his influence on thinkers such as Madison. In particular, one idea central to Witherspoon's thought that was shared by many of the founders and influential in the framing of the Constitution was the Calvinistic idea of the sinfulness of human nature. The final chapter also considers the influence of various political theorists in early American politics, and discusses the strong pragmatic and empirical spirit that characterized the political views of Witherspoon and the other founders.
   
   If, as Morrison writes, "perhaps more than any other single founder, Witherspoon embodied all of the major intellectual and social elements behind the American founding", it is only to be hoped that we may soon have available a thorough biography of this "forgotten founder" to go along with Morrison's fine volume covering his political and social importance. However, in this oppressive age of political correctness, it is doubtful that a conservative Presbyterian minister will receive too much attention, however influential he may have been. This is an excellent book, and Morrison's rigorous scholarship is consistently obvious in the thorough footnotes (nearly 100 pages of the brief 220 page volume are devoted to appendices, footnotes, bibliography, and index). If you are serious about understanding the early development of the United States, this book will not disappoint you.



2. I come to this book by way of personal invitation, in fact scan down to the review labelled:
   A significant book on a neglected founder, February 4, 2006
   Reviewer: Alex Morden (Tucson, AZ, USA)
   
   it is his copy of the book that i have in hand. and if you haven't read his review, do it now. It is much more interesting and thorough than is mine.
   The book is basically a historical monograph, written to professional historians, to convince them to research Witherspoon. The theme of the book is on the next to the last page: "Perhaps more than any other single founder, Witherspoon embodied all of the major intellectual and social elements behind the American founding. This was partly circumstantial: Witherspoon was literally peerless among his founding brothers when it came to combining religious, education, and politics, and seldom in American history have so many key vocations been joined in one man. Witherspoon therefore offers us a chance that is genuinely incomparable, to trace the outlines of the american mind at the foundating..." Essentially i feel like an outsider reading over someone's shoulder with this book, it is addressed to and engages with professional historians. However it is not so dry nor so uninteresting a book that many of us amateurs can not gain from reading what is a short introduction to both the American Revolutionary War themes and Witherspoon, but beware it is not an exciting historical novel set in the same period. *grin*
   
   If you are looking to see if this book ought to be on your shelf, just read the first chapter, it is a read from front to back type of book. Mostly because he does not repeat himself and you'll miss something if you don't read it in this manner. I found myself getting up from my easy reading chair and googling people and writings by name, it is a well researched and documented book, as befits the audience and the purpose, so read with a pen or highlighter in hand. It is not an extensive introduction to Witherspoon, it is a tease, a hint of what could be done if Witherspoon got more academic attention, it is not the last word, it is the first word.
   
   So What? should i drop everything and study to become a Witherspoon expert? Maybe someone with the right outlook and right experience might very well read this book and do so, but i am not encouraged to do so. This book is enough Witherspoon for me, i pulled perhaps 50 quotes out of the book. Had a few nice thoughts about how theology and in particular, reformed and Presbyterian theology was influential beyond its numbers in both the lead up to the Revolutionary War and it its aftermath and constitution writing period. But this is not my major interest in history just an aside, if it is your interest this may rate an important read.
   
   The one big idea that i will take away is "the great effect of Scottish Philosophy especially in its Common Sense forms and its in particular it's effect on moral philosophy, and the rejection of divine right of kings, and religious liberty for dissenters" see: pg 127, this way the book firms up a few things i've read in Mark Noll and George Marsden and now i have the name Witherspoon to research more throughly if i desire. Plus because of the extensive apparatus of the book, it becomes an entry point into the literature, certainly a reason not only to own the book but to keep it in mind. So i don't feel that i wasted my time on the book, but it did not strike me like it did the person i borrowed it from, as a book worth recommending and pursuing. However i would like to write better reviews and i will take the one referred to above as an excellent example of how to write a book review.

5 comments about Napoleon: A Political Life.

1. Many of us in the U.S., Canada & Mexico, trace our genealogy, culture and religion to Europe. Yet, many Gen-Xers and younger cannot name more than 2 or 3 European capitols. We frustrate the Europeans as much as they frustrate us. To know European history is to understand current trans-Atlantic relations. How can we bridge this gap to our cousins across the pond? Steve Englund's "Napoleon" is a great place to start. No period has had a greater impact on European thought than the 1770's through 1815. Englund brings the reader into the eye of the hurricane.
   
   The author assumes that the reader has completed "Intro to European History 101" at the college level. Englund quickly moves the reader from the banal "Who and What" of history to the intriguing "Why?". Englund's facts and research are impeccable, yet he writes in the humanistic style of a novelist. The book portrays Napoleon not as the brooding figure on horseback, but as the driven immigrant-reformer, speaking accented French, who rises to become Emperor. Napoleon is seen as a tyrannical son of Mars, yet also enlightened governmental innovator. Start your own enlightment with Englund's book.



2. The key to understanding this book is its subtitle: A Political Life. Don't make this your first book on Napoleon. The author is standing on the shoulders of giants, and using the volumes of information that came before him as a starting point in the conversation. He doesn't attempt to provide details on Napoleon's military career, his personal life, The French Revolution, or the state of Europe before or after Napoleon. This is a decent book, as long as you understand it is not intended to be "Napoleon: The Compete Story".



3. I came to this book thinking that it would focus entirely on the political dimension of Napoleon's life. This is not the case. Napoleon: A Political Life might exclude the word 'political' from its title and be just as fitting, for Englund spends a great deal of time on Napoleon's relations with Josephine, his brothers, the exiles, etc.. In fact, in the introduction (at the end of the book), Englund states that he almost subtitled the book "Empire of Circumstance."
   
   The great strength of the book is its writing style. Englund really captures the drama of the Little Corsican's life, and he sweeps the reader up in it. All of the politics of Napoleon's life is, as you would expect, well covered, but so is his personal and military life. Never did I feel overburdened with detail, and never was the text wanting for humour.
   
   There is, however, some merit in the argument posted by some of the other reviewers that the book assumes too much in the way of background knowledge. This is not an introduction to Napoleon for the novice. While I would not go so far as to say that you need have already read another book on Napoleon to enjoy Englund's work, you should certainly have a reasonable idea of the political zeitgeist he worked in, particularly the French revolution and the foreign (especially British) reaction to it. Ideally, you should also have taken a course in French at some point in your life (and not completely forgotten it). Englund has a somewhat irritating habit of dropping les mots francais at random, and often without translation (although most of the more important French phrases are translated, most of the minor ones are not). C'est la vie.
   
   One of my favourite parts of the book was the analysis of Napoleon's legacy: his admirers and detractors, whence he is glorified, and whence he is ignored. Englund is the most balanced Napoleonic author I have yet encountered, seeming to genuinely sympathize with (and synthesize from) those who love and those who hate the l'Empereur.
   
   Perhaps the highest compliment for a book, I plan to reread this one.



4. Simply put, an excellent read in content, wisdom and prose.



5. Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life (available in paperback from Harvard) is a book that should satisfy both the interested lay reader and the professional historian.
   
   It will satisfy the lay person because it tells a fascinating story about one of history's most interesting and influential human beings, and it tells it exceptionally well. In the process, the reader will gain insights into how a topflight scholar advances his or her field of knowledge.
   
   It will please academics because Englund presents a nuanced revision of the current myths about Napoleon, who, after two hundred years, still stirs passions among his admirers and detractors as though he were living today. The author focuses on Napoleon's evolving political thought and strategy and how his contemporaries actually responded to him, not how we wished they had responded to him. A virtue is that Englund avoids smoothing out Napoleon's past choices and actions through hindsight: Englund emphasizes that actual history is messy; it doesn't come in tidy packages.
   
   The greatest of men, the very few like Napoleon, leave behind an altered world. Englund draws on Christian Meier's masterful biography of Caesar. He frequently compares Napoleon to Caesar, but Napoleon left behind many more permanent structures in France and across Europe thna Caesar did Rome: law code, a system to govern the localities from the center, the Legion of Honor, and in Paris, monuments and buildings and sewer system and roads.
   
   People who won't like the book will most likely object to two things.
   
   (1) It's not a history primer. Englund assumes the reader is conversant with eighteenth-century history history though not at the level of the professional historian.
   
   (2) Englund devotes almost as much time to wars and battles as he does to other issues, both domestic and international. But, especially when discussing Napoleon and his times, Clausewitz was right: war is an extension ofpolitics.
   
   Another objection may be that Englund doesn't condemn Napoleon roundly enough. He admires him but sees what disaster his overweening ambition led him to in the
   end.
   
   Highly recommended.

No comments about Oliver Cromwell (Very Interesting People S.).

1 comments about Churchill: An Illustrated History (Readers Digest).

1. One of the better biographies of Churchill. Considerable in depth information and well chosen Chuchill quotes.

5 comments about The Trouble with Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine.

1. For the last part of his life, and since his death in 1809, Founding Father Tom Paine has not gotten his share of respect. His _Common Sense_ of 1776 sold thousands of copies and incited the colonists to a willingness to fight for their liberty. It does not, surprisingly, mention George III by name, but is a broader rejection of rule by royalty. Paine's great problem, however, was that he promoted liberty also from what he thought of as the vengeful and imaginary God of the Bible. He was blasted as an atheist during his lifetime and afterwards, although that label was not true; like many of the most famous Founding Fathers, he was a deist, but infamy came to him since he was outspoken in his rejection of the Judeo-Christian God in his book _The Age of Reason_. Paine did a huge amount for the cause of American liberty, but at his funeral there were only six mourners, and his monument was desecrated thereafter. And then Paine became one of the liveliest of corpses. In _The Trouble with Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine_ (Bloomsbury), Paul Collins has dug into mountains of forgotten lore and examined the lives of one oddball after another who laid claim to Paine's bones, or to his desiccated brain. Collins is a wonderful storyteller, with a charming dry wit to tell us about this macabre journey, but also about his difficulties and triumphs as he hunts the modern locales where parts of the story took place. His account lurches from present to past and back, but Collins eventually clears up the temporal confusions which are part of the fun of the ride.
   
   Paine's corpse was transported by a friend from New York to New Rochelle to be buried in the unconsecrated corner of a farm there, which happened to be near a cottage Paine once owned. Ten years later, the site had lost its marker, but a group of men found it late one night and started digging. They were a crew headed by Englishman William Cobbett, a failed clerk and marine who had become a pamphleteer. He hated Franklin and Jefferson, and especially Paine, but upon reading Paine again years later, became a fan, and wanted his remains: "These bones will effect the reformation of England in church and state," he boasted. Paine's remains, however, failed to be much of an inspiration or a money-getter. They remained in Cobbett's house, and at his death proved an enigma for the estate auctioneer who indignantly said he never dealt in human flesh. Eventually, they were pursued by Moncure Conway, a Virginian who had originally been a defender of slavery, became an itinerant Methodist minister, became inspired by Emerson, and went to Harvard, eventually becoming a Unitarian preacher in England. But Conway eventually realized as he sought whatever was left of Paine that as the remains traded hands, bits and pieces were being kept by previous owners, or taken away as curios by souvenir seekers. The body had become impossibly scattered.
   
   But not entirely scattered. While most of the bits of Paine are gone forever (which has not prevented apocryphal reports of their turning up in all sorts of places), a few secure specimens remain, notably a piece of his brain the size of an India-rubber eraser. It was deposited eventually in a bust of Paine, perched ungainly upon an obelisk, which was put upon the site of Paine's original burial plot near his cottage. Well, not the plot itself, which has been covered over by sidewalk, and no longer near Paine's cottage, which has been moved away, and the monument itself had to be moved because of a road-building project... and on and on until it is hard to understand just what we can make of the past. This is the point of Collins's amusing book. Cultural memory, like individual memories, is faulty: "We forget _all the time_. Every moment gets thrown out like so much garbage." And so have been thrown out all the bits of Paine, and among the scatterers have been a very peculiar cast, with each of which Collins romps while introducing us. There's Orson Fowler the phrenologist and his collection of plaster heads. There is the crusading physician Edward Bliss Foote who irrepressibly insisted on educating Americans about sex, thus earning the first attempted indictment by moralist Anthony Comstock. You will be introduced to the Muggletonians ("They were the world's laziest cult, and assumed that anyone meant to join them would eventually find them somehow.") and to the psychics who enabled Tom Paine to keep writing long after his death. You will be informed of at least some of the rules of that most confusing of games, Mornington Crescent. It is a jubilant jumble, ghoulish and hilarious, but also a thought-provoking meditation on history and memory.



2. This very readable book put me in mind of James Burke's wonderful Connections, but centers around the mortal remains and intellectual legacy of Thomas Paine. I love the usual sort of history, but these "diagonal" journeys, going off in strange directions, really help pull history together and illuminate the oddities that are usually left out. Whether or not we arrive at any definite place, the trip is well worth it. Looking at history as a purposeful march from there to here leaves out so many fascinating might-have-beens. We so often end up looking at earlier times merely as a prelude to ours, not seeing the perspective of earler generations as their chaotic, multi-sided struggle for their own present and future.
   
   This is not for everyone: I find that many of my favorite books are lambasted by reviewers outraged that the author has not given us a clear and definitive answer to the identity of Shakespeare or Perkin Warbeck, the guilt of Lizzie Borden, the fate of the Princes in the Tower, but rather has tossed about ideas and possibilities. Perhaps it is too scary to contemplate that there may never be a final answers. This is not a biography of Paine, it begins with his final, ailing years and death. It is not for those who want a crisp, linear narrative.
   
   Paul Collins jumps between past and present as he tracks his subjects. This is a risky strategy, and I was often surprised to find myself in another era. On the whole, I think it worked very well - it created a vivid impression of the layers of history and the disappearance of the past. In some ways, it is a metaphor for history writing: conjuring what no longer exists.
   
   Collins moves around England and America trying to resolve the mystery of the fate of Paine's body. At the same time, he traces Paine as seen by later generations: the "author" of a posthumous autobiography, whose publisher employed John Brown before he went to Kansas and thence to Harper's Ferry. Along the way, Collins tells us about formerly famous people who are at best footnotes in our time; the invention of the indoor toilet; the function of the rag-and-bone man; a corpse as property; and a great deal about phrenology. This last topic is developed sympathetically at great length, stressing its original purpose as an aid to self-improvement.
   
   The reader who is not familiar with Paine should at least read a good encyclopedia article, but a full biography is probably not necesary.
   
   A mind-bending and thought-provoking book. The book is not really scholarly, that is, discussions of ideologies are informative but not in depth. In lieu of a bibliography or notes, the author has sections discussing the sources for each chapter, often imparting more fascinating tidbits along the way. An index would have been nice.
   
   For those who like the juggling of ideas and possibilities, I recommend Who Wrote Shakespeare? by John F. Michell, The Perfect Prince by Anne Wroe, Forty Whacks by David Kent and Royal Blood by Bertram Fields.



3. The first section of the book is about Paine's final years and his body and what happened to it. Interesting stuff. This is what the blurbs in Entertainment Weekly and elsewhere said.
   
   But then the author seems to get way too into all the connections between so-and-so and seems to really forget that he was writing about Thomas Paine. So so-and-so met Walt Whitman, and they both knew H.D. Thoreau, and Thoreau knew so-and-so...then all of a sudden, fast forward to this religious pacifist and a nutty pseudo-doctor and...
   
   By page 130 I began thumbing through page after page looking for a mention of Paine. There's tons on the popularity of the toilet in the late 1800s, and on phrenology and on women's rights (ok ok, so the Paine tie-in there is that some early feminists used "Common Sense" as a springboard for other progressive ideals, including feminism and abolitionism, etc.).
   
   Honestly, the majority of the book fails, in my mind, to remain interesting in relation to Paine. Extensive research into esoteric pseudo-science and the invention of the water closet may be interesting, but when I pick up a book about the strange afterlife and times of Thomas Paine, I expect there to be a bit more of a connection to Thomas Paine.
   
   No?



4. Moncure Conway might have been the most fascinating character ever created for a historical fiction, for this book is both about him as well as Tom Paine. In fact, the book is almost incidentally about Tom Paine when he was alive. The focus is on Tom Paine, dead.
   The book is well written, often very funny, and would be my textbook of choice if I were teaching high school or college history.
   All-in-all, it's a book that is hard to put down!



5. To those reviewers who were disappointed because "this book was supposed to be about Thomas Paine," I would have to say that you missed the point.
   
   This book is much more than just another bio of Thomas Paine. It's about his ideals, and the author brilliantly uses his bones to tell the story. He does a great job of weaving the story and connecting many of the brilliant minds who continued to fight for the principles espoused by Paine, and they did so long after he had already been villified by most Americans and British.
   
   I loved this book, and I enjoyed reading about many of the people, such as Conway, who we rarely learn about.
   
   If you want to read a biography of Thomas Paine, there are several available. If you want to read a book which makes you appreciate those people who have stood up for the ideals found in The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason, then read this book. But don't forget to read the writings of Paine himself.

5 comments about Tom Paine: A Political Life (Grove Great Lives).

1. I will admit that I was not immediately enamored with this book. The luciferous introduction on Keane's predecessors in Paineite biography was engaging enough, but I found his systematic, nit-picky demolition of each work to be just plain egotistical. In Keane's eyes, each previous biography "failed" or "floundered" for various reasons, thereby opening a window for his own, earth-shattering tome on the subject. Granted, it has become common practice for authors to "justify" their reasons for writing "yet another biography on _______" in the preface of their books, but this sort of self-serving, hypercritical overview left me with a seriously bad taste in my mouth. I seriously worried that the 540 pages that followed would be tinctured with the same sort of pomposity - thankfully that was not the case.
   

   
   The book is a solid biography, and I can very well see Paine enthusiasts flocking to this as one of the best biographies ever written about him. As this is the only biography of him I've read, I'll reserve my judgment on that question, but I will admit that it is an exceptional study of a peculiar man. What the general public knows of Paine is often just his authorship of Common Sense, but of course there was so much more. He penned not one but three of the best-selling books of the 18th century, and, arguably, he initiated modern political thought on the subject of democratic republicanism. Paine was born an Englishman but for most of his life considered himself a "citizen of the world," which prompted a major change in how we view national citizenship - no so much as a gift from the state, as was the 18th century perception, but rather a promise from it to preserve certain rights indigenous to its people. Yet despite his cosmopolitan leanings, Paine managed to ostracize himself from all three countries in which he declared citizenship - England, France and America - thanks to his revolutionary ideals and his fervent insistence on airing his views publicly regardless of their popularity. He would eventually face public execution in both England and France - the story of his brush with death in La Luxembourg prison during the French Reign of Terror is decidedly spine-tingling - but would survive both to end up back in America, ostracized by the generation that remembered him, and nearly forgotten by the generation that followed.
   

   
   Keane doesn't devolve into hero-worship, despite several initially-worrisome hyperbolic descriptions of him as "the greatest American revolutionary." Instead, the author deals with each of Paine's failings in a forthright manner. Paine was certainly a man driven by ego, though certainly an ego unaffected by cares for money, power, or public approbation. To put it simply, he just knew he was right, and he would never back down from any of his arguments, regardless of their popularity. Even his most unpopular anti-Christian sentiments displayed in the Age of Reason could not be moved, despite the efforts of many to make him recant on his deathbed. As for Paine's legendary alcoholism, Keane suggests it was just that - a legend. According to Keane, Paine never drank to excess when in social situations. He only drank himself into stupors later on in life when the pain of gout and bedsores became unbearable. This may or may not have been the case - I lean towards may not - but in the end it is of comparatively little importance when calculating the worth of a man whose ideas have arguably shaped many of our own modern ideas on government and civil rights.
   

   
   All told, the biography earns four stars from me on a scale of five. The rating falls short of the final star more because of style than substance. Keane's prose is certainly readable, and in most cases enjoyable, but it was a bit dry and academic for my tastes in several places. On top of that there was some strange editorial snafus, including several instances of sloppy repetition and an imprecise policy of when and when not to translate from the original French. In one chapter Keane includes an entire paragraph of French extracted from a letter (p. 405), with no accompanying translation, and yet in the next he feels it necessary to include a parenthetical translation of the decidedly uncomplicated Dissertations sur les Premiers Principes de Gouvernement as, surprisingly, or not, "Dissertations on the First Principles of Government" (p. 423).
   

   
   Regardless of my editorial trifles, the book is strong and well recommended to anyone interested in picking up a book on the life and works of Tom Paine. You'll find his life, in many respects, reads like an adventure novel, and his ideas on government and society are surprisingly, shockingly, modern.




2. Crackerjack biography of Old Tom (Paine) in the four stages of his life, from his early years in England til Ben Franklin advises him to reach America, the period of _Common Sense_ and the American Revolt, then the _Rights of Man_ and the French Revolution, and finally his return to America, where the reputation of the _Age of Reason_ caught up with him, and his great early popularity was replaced with the jibes of those in a suddenly religious republic, whose liberties were won by more secular sorts (cf. Gordon Wood's book on the Revolution, such as Paine. It is a sad ending to a magnificent tale for a true champion of freedom, one who brought the democratic idea to a republican experiment in constitutions. The phenomenal nature of the sales of his books, whose profits he renounced in the name of his cause, is an episode almost world-historical in its seminal influence. Paine's trek is also a classic snapshot of the 'classic' liberal in his revolutionary phase, and the subtleties of great tomes politcal philosophy seem prefigured in the sheer horse-sense of this man who saw the gist of it all, and somehow at a glance. Witness his instinctive in the spectral course of the French Revolution from the Girondins to the Terror to the dungeons, which he survived. It may finally be that his reputation has recovered at last its nineteenth century shadows where the truest of patriots was consigned.



3. As I read this book, I couldn't help but think, where is the Tom Paine of our time? The insights that Tom Paine had are needed today more than ever.



4. An interesting biography, heavily- if not well- researched. Partisan, but Keane does manage a bit of perspective. The main problems come with the background. There is both too much - I for one could do without the often inaccurate disquisitions on eighteenth-century England - and too much WRONG. Keane seems to think that Britain and America were at war in 1787, and that Adam Smith visited Paris at that time (p.284-5). Hobbes is both more and less than a 'philosopher of counterrrevolution.'
   Furthermore, it seems a man only had to bump into Paine for Keane to count him a 'close friend'. What was the extent of Paine's friendship with Goldsmith (this is interesting) and with Burke (very important)?
   I get the impression that Keane did all his research for the book and had no grounding in the subject before. But it's an engrossing read for all that.



5. This is the kind of biography that makes reading history worthwhile. The writing style is intelligent and clear, marshalling innumerable facts and interesting anecdotes. It gives us the full scope of Paine's remarkable life - a man who was one of the intellectual midwives at the birth of the era of democratic revolution.
   
   He fought for free political expression as a citizen of three countries in the throes of revolutionary change: born in England where he fought against monarchy, moved to America where he became a writer of inspirational tracts for independence, and finally, made citizen of France during the violence of the Revolution where he argued, at great risk to himself, to spare the life of King Louis XVI. If his positions seem contradictory they actually reflect a philosophy of consistant political moderation.
   
   Secondly, this biography is a story about the struggle to realize ideas against great odds. Everywhere he went he was fortunate to escape death at the hands of his murderous foes. In spite of these threats, Paine fought tirelessly for his ideals.
   
   Thirdly, the author gives contempory meaning to Paine's goals. Paine was against religious literalism because he saw the adherence to strict doctrine as an obstacle to extablishing a civic society in which people could live together harmoniously.
   This position was a cause of much suffering for Paine at the end of his life as his anti-traditional ideas incited deep personal hatred. Without needing to conclude whether he was misguided or not, suffice to say, the difficulty he tried to tackle remains with us today...in the headlines. And I don't think we've come all that far in solving the problem he recognized. That he saw its importance at the inception of modern civic society makes him a visionary of the highest importance worthy of our respect whether we agree with the totality of his ideas or not.

5 comments about Blind Ambition: The White House Years.

1. I've never learned so much about the unseen world of politics as I have in this one book. George Stephanopolous' book pales in comparison to the amount of insight this book reveals. It's something we've known all along about government - just put into straightforward terms that everyone can understand. None of that NewSpeak politics that we hear about in the mainstream press, that limit our range of thought.

   Anyone who gives this book a bad ranking is a government operative, seeking to hide information from the populace.

   *A*




2. This story is quite interesting. When I first read it, during the 1970s, I bought Mr. Dean's version of events hook, line and sinker -- and boy did he suck me in. He postured himself as someone involved way over his head who ended up being, in effect, a victim. I have concluded that some of the presented details are true, and some are not. The presentation, however, is uniformly riveting.

   Read additional Watergate material for a broader view and better picture. The lesson here is that you can't always believe the story which appears, at first glance, to be the most convincing.




3. Nixon will always take the blame for the dishonorable acts of Dean and others. The book is interesting for the authors discussion of how power corrupts. But don't assume that he presents the true facts to us. Certainly G Gordon Liddy says this book is untrueful. Liddy recommends that one read Silent Coupe for the most likely truth.

   Dean occasionally appears on TV as commentator of current events and oftens comes across as a spokeman for the democrate party, that he once ordered others to bug.

   Only for students of the Watergate era.




4. In 1970 John Dean was interviewed as the next counsel to the President; a little over four years later he was in jail. He rose, and fell, by being a willing servant. Dean's office was the center of Nixon's intelligence operation (lawyers have client confidentiality). His story was recreated from documents and taped conversations. Dean was working for the Justice Dept. when he was asked about working at the White House by Bud Krogh. John Mitchell advised him that the WH "was not a healthy place" (p.12). (Was this relatively young lawyer recruited to be a future fall guy?) The expenses for the San Clemente complex had been safely buried in inconspicuous budgets (p.16). Dean joined the WH, and soon learned "to keep my mouth shut" (p.23). Dean learned how interior decorating kept political scores (pp.29-30)! He also learned how to move upwards in influence by traveling downward through power plays, corruption, and outright crimes (p.30). Just as he made it to the top, he actually touched bottom.

   Dean's education began when he read the "Huston Plan", which removed most legal restraints on wiretaps, mail intercepts, and burglaries. J. Edgar hoover vetoed the plan - the risk was greater than the reward (or turf protection?). More mundane matters are listed on pages 39-40. Page 45 tells of his first liability over a burglary. Page 51 tells how Erlichman won his power struggle against Mitchell. The Dita Beard letter is discussed on pages 53-59. J. Edgar Hoover said it was genuine, another action that infuriated the Nixon WH. The next liability was hiding the Town House Operation (pp.59-62). By May 1972 the ITT scandal ended and Kleindienst was confirmed; it looked like the end of the problems. Chapter 3 tells of the Howard Hughes affair. No mention of the Wallace shooting at all; Wallace's removal from the campaign allowed Nixon to win in a landslide. Dean tells the details of political intelligence for Nixon.

   Chapter 4 begins with the burglary at the Watergate. Dean was called for advice, and told to investigate the "plumbers". The most important thing in all this is the friction and conflict among Nixon's men (pp.94-95). When Dean met Liddy they went for a walk outside; was this to avoid bugs (p.96)? If Strachan knew, Haldeman knew, and so did Nixon (p.98). It went up to the top of the chain. Next Strachan came to confess to Dean that he purged Haldeman's files (p.100). Then Sloan called to confess giving "large bundles of cash" to Liddy. Colson disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for Hunt. But Hunt was still on the WH payroll and had an office there (p.103). Page 121 summarizes the problems in defending the Administration, and how Dean hid evidence by turning it over to the FBI (p.122). He then crossed the line into criminal culpability. Dean's personal rapport allowed him access to the warring factions (p.125); but this sucked him into the conspiracy.

   Chapter 5 tells of his new powers: one of the top people, meeting many new women (p.127). The Press ignored the scandal. Dean was "stunned" by Nixon's "bold lies" at a press conference (p.128). Dean was dazed by Nixon's claims (p.129). Later he began to suspect being set up as a fall guy (p.131). Note how a few pawns were sacrificed to save the king (p.133). Page 136 tells about assigning a case to an Nixon appointed judge! Dean's description of Nixon on page 138 suggests a personal problem. Page 143 explains Nixon's concern for civil liberties, and campaign contributions. Page 148 tells of the massive purge planned by Nixon; "he'll regret this" (p.149). Did this plan amount to a power grab? Stans explained his fund raising: wealthy targets owed a fixed percentage of their income (p.158). When Dean looks up "obstruction of justice" he realizes they're all guilty (p.168)! Hunt's missing notebooks were destroyed by Pat Gray (p.171). Then they hear from McCord: "it will be a scorched desert" (p.177). Dean destroyed evidence (p.182). Do you see where this is heading? Dean wrote a very readable book.




5. ... it took me nearly 1 year to finish reading this book ... not because I am bored with Watergate ... the book just had sections that just dragged on and on and on and on ... There are a few bits that were very interesting though like how a young person can & did one day find himself the lawyer of the President of the United States. I, too, would prefer to be Lucky than Good.

5 comments about The Lost Son: A Life in Pursuit of Justice.

1. GIVEN KERIK'S REPORTED MOB TIES, AMORALITY AND CASHING IN ON THE 9/11 TRAGEDY, IT'S NO SURPRISE TO READ THIS CON JOB PIECE OF FICTION. HIS GHOSTWRITER IS PROBABLY A FICTION WRITER BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT IS WELL WRITTEN, THE STORY IS A FRAUD. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SAUDI ARABIA? HE STALKED AND TERRORIZED WOMEN ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST. WHY DIDN'T MR. LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO CLAIMED TO BE SO HIGHLY SKILLED THAT HE COULD TRACK DOWN THE BIGGEST DRUG LORDS IN THE WORLD...TRACK DOWN HIS OWN INFANT DAUGHTER --THE ONE HE ABANDONED? HOW ABOUT THE TRUTH? HE IS A CON MAN, ABANDONED HIS OWN CHILD, IS EGOMANIACAL AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN A THUG. HE WRITES ABOUT SOME TEACHER IN SCHOOL WHO TOLD HIM HE WOULD NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING. GUESS WHAT? HE WAS RIGHT. BERNARD KERIK IS JUST WHAT THAT TEACHER SAID HE'D BE. A BIG ZERO.



2. I would have rated in 5 stars for the quality of the story, but now that I know the majority of it has elements of untruth, it gets one star, and only because I can't rate it any lower. He also left out a lot of things, like at least one marriage. How do you forget THAT?
   
   Based on the things that came out later, he probably should have been IN Riker's Island, not running it. He sounds like someone who gets promoted because nobody likes them and there isn't enough on them to get them fired.



3. I could not put this book down! Bernard Kerik tells his story by telling the story of the heroes he encounters along the way. His life experiences are sometimes normal, other times anything but normal and all make for a fascinating read.



4. On the plus side we do get a look into the workings of the NYPD which I found fascinating. But Kerik is a shameless self promoter. I was almost embarrassed to read some of his self praise. Of course his story is perfect for an American audience -- we love someone who achieves much more then his background would predict. But we would also like our heroes to be a bit humble while they achieve so much. Some of the writing is uneven, especially the storyline of his mother. Since he has so little data on his mother, its difficult for him to generate a very engaging story there. If you like police stories and can find this book on deep discount you'll be pleased with it.



5. This is an engaging, well-written memoir of a man who came from a disadvantaged background, a high school drop out who, with a little help from his friends, pulled himself up by his boot straps, eventually becoming New York City's fortieth Police Commissioner in 2000.
   
   Born to an alcoholic mother who worked as a prostitute and was eventually murdered, Kerik grew up in the mean streets of Newark and Patterson, New Jersey, and eventually dropped out of high school. A devotee of martial arts, he become a third degree black belt and joined the military, a career choice that was to give focus to his life. From then on, it was a natural segue into law enforcement.
   
   The book takes the reader on a trip down memory lane through Kerik's colorful life from his inauspicious birth to the 2001 World Trade Center attack. Kerik details his rise from warden of a Patterson, New Jersey jail to a member of the NYC police Department, then NYC Commissioner of Corrections, and, ultimately, NYC Police Commissioner. Police buffs will especially enjoy Kerik's war stories of his days as a foot soldier of NYPD, from his early days as a rookie cop to his faced paced, adrenalin rush days as a member of the DEA/NYPD Task Force.
   
   Very loyal to friends and family, Kerik is clearly a complex man with a lot of natural ability, a virtual diamond in the rough with an uncanny knack for rising to the top in whatever he does. Despite his lack of formal education, Kerik was always able to think out of the box and adopt new ways of looking at old problems. This, coupled with natural leadership ability, made him a force with which to be reckoned. His friendship with Rudolph Giuliani, in those early days when Rudy was running for Mayor of New York City, eventually helped secure Kerik a prominent berth in city government. Whether it was as the Commissioner of Corrections, where he was able to bring Riker's Island, a local NYC penal colony, up to snuff, or as Commissioner of NYPD, where Kerik did much to quell community dissatisfaction with the police, Kerik did manage to leave his mark.
   
   Still, there are little hints of an Achilles heel and chinks in the personal integrity of this man of supposed steel and honor that are revealed in this book. I was struck by the fact that Kerik, while Police Commissioner, seemingly thought it was alright to use resources of the NYC Police Department to try and unravel the mystery surrounding his mother's death years earlier in Ohio. Even though years later he was eventually made to pay back the money that those investigative efforts cost, I was surprised to see that at the time he was using members of the NYC Police Department as his own private investigators, he did not think that this was an inappropriate use of public resources for a private matter.
   
   Unfortunately, this little chink in his personal integrity would come to bite him on the butt when Giuliani recommended him in 2004 to President Bush for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. A background check would reveal a number of problems, some of them minor, some less so. In 2006, Kerik eventually plead guilty to misdemeanors on state charges related to his ethics in having accepted about $165,000 in renovations to his Riverdale, NY apartment in 1999 to 2000 from a construction company with alleged mob ties. At the time, that construction company was seeking to do business with the City of New York, and Kerik is alleged to have used his connections to lobby on that construction company's behalf. Moreover, that same company also gave Kerik's brother a high paying job. This beleaguered former NYC Police Commissioner has now been indicted by a federal grand jury on sixteen counts of fraud and corruption.
   
   This is simply the story of a man who, through his own hubris, thought he could do no wrong, and in doing so, eventually lost everything.

5 comments about Joseph P. Kennedy: The Mogul, the Mob, the Statesman, and the Making of an American Myth.

1. I thought I knew a lot about the Kennedy family before, but this book opened up a whole new world. It's really fascinating reading, especially if you like to read about the Kennedy family.



2. If you're a follower of the Kennedy saga, there may be little new material here in the biography, JOSEPH P. KENNEDY. But it's interesting and highly readable. It covers everyone from JPK's ancesters in Ireland to Caroline and John Jr.'s generation. Jackie comes off well. But there are a lot of unpleasant things about Rose I'd never heard before. And there are things I knew about but never knew the truth behind -- like the tragedy of Rosemary.

   As I read the book, I thought he made statements that would be considered controversial. But as I read on, and looked at the notes and bibliography, I realized Mr. Schwarz did indeed appear to be well informed. It's oddly written, with some really long sentences and some anecdotes stuck in totally out of any time sequence. If only for the insights into the worlds of politics and Hollywood, it's well worth your time. And it's pretty enjoyable.




3. The book was a great insight into JPK and gives the reader a more solid understanding of his descendants. It also sheds a great deal of light on anti-Irish sentiments and gives an almost psycho-social explanation for JPK's actions based on the discrimination he encountered as a youth. One review stated that there was too much anecdotal information that is not properly accounted for. This may be true. However, i always enjoy a biography that explains the subject matter (i.e.JPK) in the historical context in which they lived in. This was done masterfully by Mr. Schwarz.



4. If you have never read anything in depth about either the Kennedy family or Joseph Kennedy (sins of the father, the founding father) you might go thru this book and discover a revelation or two. If you have, then this book will come across as trite, boring and a bit fraudulent. By the latter, I mean the book promises new revelations, and delivers nothing more than the usual information that any "light" student of the Kennedys and Joe in particular already know. Worse yet, some of the contentions are incorrect and almost none of them are backed up by source materials in the book's note section. For instance, the author suggests that JFK's doctors knew he would not live thru a second term, and further suggest that the assassin's bullet spared us-Citizens that is- from watching our president die in office post 1964. Yet, the author offers absolutely no source information for this contention. Yes, anybody who has read more than two Kennedy books knows that JFK was ill throughout most his life; but that same person would know that most of his life threatening ailments were under control by the time he was elected president. (The fact that these illnesses were kept secret from the general public does not make them fatal within the second term, as the author implies!). There are other points in this book where it is evident that the author just plain does not like Joe Kennedy. That's ok. A little odium dripped on a biographical protagonist as deserving as Joe Kennedy can be forgiven- after all the man did do a great many horrible things in his life time. But when that level of despise effects the quality of ones research and ultimately hobbles ones effort, than a little restraint might have been appropriate. Don't bother with this book.



5. It is obvious from reading this book that the author holds Joe Kennedy Sr. in very low esteem and cares little for the Kennedys in general. Based on the information he presents, one can clearly see why. If only a fraction of it is true; Joe Kennedy could best be described as a ruthless, self-serving, border-line criminal and stock manipulator; an inveterate philanderer, ignoble husband and father, and, all-in-all, a poor excuse for a human being.
   
   It isn't clear, however, as to whether the author held these views when he began researching the book or came to those conclusions after studying his subject. The answer to that question would seem to bear heavily on the efficacy of the subject matter he presents. Did the author, for example, pick and choose his data? If so, although it seems highly unlikely, Joe Kennedy may have had some redeeming qualities which went untold. Perhaps he didn't kick his dog.
   
   It is also somewhat disconcerting that throughout the book the author occasionally throws in gratuitous pejoratives seemingly intended to cast aspersions on Joe, although, in light of the evidence, Joe certainly needs none. And, at other times, he tells us what some of those who knew Joe were thinking and lets us know what they thought of Joe. One is left to wonder how he knows, since he rarely references these sources.
   
   Nevertheless, based upon its numerous notes and references, this is a well researched and well substantiated biography of a man who, although extremely wealthy and politically powerful, spent most of his life in the shadows. In later life, he used his wealth and power to give America the illusion of "Camelot," but during his lifetime he did much more than that. During World War I, for example, he dodged the draft. Then, with the advent of prohibition, he used his father's connections in Canada and England to arrange booze shipments for delivery to underworld characters in the United States, such as Al Capone. He never worked as a "bootlegger" in a romantic sense. He never outraced the Coast Guard to deliver the goods. Instead, Joe just made the money. Later, he went to Hollywood where he made his mark and took Gloria Swanson as his mistress. While there, he managed her affairs (business) and lavished her with expensive gifts - most of which were later found to have been paid for with Gloria's own money. (Geez, what a guy!) Then, if truth be told, Joe established and helped run various stock pools aimed at manipulating the stock market to the benefit of the pool members. (This is said to have been one of the causes of the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting "Great Depression.") Later, Joe helped get Franklin D. Roosevelt elected president and, as a result, managed to get himself appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain shortly before World War II. Unfortunately, Joe didn't understand world affairs, seemed to side with the fascists, and never grasped the fact that he was in England to represent the president of the United States, not to express his own views and make more money. So, when the State Department was finally forced to bypass him in the decision making process, President Roosevelt demanded and accepted his resignation. Following the war, Joe had a frontal lobotomy performed on his daughter, Rosemary, ruining her life; then set about furthering his son's, John F. Kennedy's, political career through one nefarious scheme after another. Joe even managed to preclude JFK's being court marshaled for dereliction of duty for letting his PT boat (PT-109) be rammed, causing two deaths, and instead arranged to have JFK cast as a national hero. The rest, as they say, is history.
   
   Bottom line: Those who are more interested in the Kennedy's than I am, and knew a lot more about the Kennedys than I did, may find this book repetitive of previous works. Those who aren't, and particularly those who fell for the Camelot myth, will certainly find it to be a real eye opener, particularly since old Joe still wields some measure of power having tried very hard to mold his sons in his own image.