5 comments about John Major: The Autobiography.

1. As I watched the results from the 1997 General Election from the sidelines of America (remembering that ten years prior I had been in the thick of things, on the floor of a count and being shown on BBC intently staring at the bank teller drafted to count the box in which I had an interest), I was variously amazed, pleased, saddened, and in the end, pleasantly surprised at the good humour of John Major, who said very simply, 'Okay, we lost.'

   I met John Major first when he was a rising parliamentary star recruited to come to the constituency of the backbencher for whom I worked. He came to give a pep talk to the local Conservatives on a local radio programme; this constituency (Basildon) was considered a dead loss, so much so that the PM and various other Cabinet names wouldn't waste their time making a stop--but John Major came, and, we won.

   Major has put together an interesting account of his time in office. Thankfully he concentrates on his political career (not spending hundreds of pages giving us the sort of childhood information that rarely adds value to a political autobiography), starting with his first victory coming to the House of Commons in 1979 (Margaret Thatcher's first victory as leader) and culminating with the 1997 electoral defeat, which he took with relatively good grace and rather few recriminations. And, whereas many political figures spend a large part of their memoirs in a 'If I were still there' mode, Major only devotes a few pages to the follow-up and future (in a five-page chapter entitled Aftermath) preferring not to speculate on irrelevant imponderables, and avoiding the problem of which he was most critical in his predecessor--that being of not wanting to let go.

   It was no secret that one of the things the press and public eagerly sought in this book was Major's opinions on the continued attempts by Thatcher to exert an influence in leadership. His rocky relationship with the former prime minister has many examples through the text, some explicit and some subtle (such as the caption from a photo taken at the 1990 Conservative Party Conference, which reads 'Still on good terms with Margaret following the announcement of our entry into the ERM.').

   In general, this is a well-written book, and John Major's tenure of office is rather more interesting than popular memory or the press would have one believe, perhaps understandable due to following a person of such flash and sparkle as Thatcher--who could compete with that? Major did in many ways, and, as his autobiography shows, he won in many ways, and when he lost, he was a gentleman.




2. John Major's autobiography is a clear and balanced account of his early life and of his time in office leading the United Kingdom. He forcefully defends most of his policies and a few times admits that he got some important things wrong.
   
   The first nine chapters are chronological and recount his childhood, his early life in business and politics, his rise within Thatcher's cabinet, and finally his attaining the Prime Ministership. The remaining nineteen chapters deal with his days in office. Each chapter addresses a topic or issue, beginning with his first international test in leading the UK through the first Gulf War. He deals with domestic issues like Ireland and the poll tax, but spends much time on Europe as European issues hogged the agenda during most of his tenure. He explains his position as a pragmatic Eurosceptic. On one hand, Major has always wanted to remain British and fears the coming of a United States of Europe; on the other hand he sees the foolishness of the UK giving up its influence by refusing to participate.
   
   Pragmatism colours all of Major's decisions and policies. Unfortunately, Major led a party polarized by extreme views on Europe, on Monetary union, and even on the question of Ireland and to many at the time his pragmatism looked weak or lacking in beliefs. It was not. Major convincingly recounts how he was trying to save the Tories from splitting. He saw the Conservative party as a crucial institution, one whose survival in the long term mattered much more than the transient questions of Europe. But Major is an opinonated pragmatist. He believes in the basics of Toryism and then had to watch in frustration as New Labour under Tony Blair appropriated (Major bluntly says "stole") basic Tory social and fiscal policies.
   
   Thus pragmatism had drawbacks. It caused Major to back off a little in order to appease; he accepts responsibility for the Conservative failure and the new Labour landslide.



3. John Major said it himself - if he had been the only candidate in the 1997 election he would have come second. The usual view of his premiership is of an interlude between the eras of Thatcher and Blair. Historians in due course may see it otherwise, but the first thing that needs to be said is that as a historical record these memoirs are first class. For candour, fair-mindedness, lack of ego and clarity in separating fact from inference and opinion I have never read their like from anyone who ever attained such a position.
   
   The candour doesn't stretch to telling us absolutely everything. Like Jimmy Carter John Major was unlucky on top of his own errors, but one great piece of good luck was that his affair (while in a junior post) with a parliamentary colleague Edwina Currie did not come to light until he had left office. It was the funniest story in 20th century British politics and it highlights what was always his problem - he wasn't taken seriously. His face was against him, his voice was against him, and his bank-managerish way of expressing himself at times, such as I have borrowed for my caption to this review via Private Eye, was a gift to the satirists and the chattering classes. Otherwise his style of writing is, in all important and relevant respects, excellent. I cringed on reading `...the huge constituency and its rich variety of interests'; or `...he was always ready with a good-humoured story'. His innocent pride at his own little jokes and bons mots is pretty embarrassing too, but some of his more acid asides such as regarding the overlooked hopefuls whose self-ascribed talents would have needed a long-range telescope to be discerned are actually much better, although he floored me with his remark about the `column inches' devoted by the papers to Hugh Grant after his famous arrest.
   
   There I go. It's all too easy not to take him seriously, and it's all wrong too. This man was a national leader through some pretty momentous times. I can't say that his narration of the gulf war added much to what I already knew, but nobody else was in a position to enlighten us so much about the economic ups and downs of the 80's and 90's, and especially about the issue that more than any other wrecked his government, namely relations between Britain and Europe. Unlike many national leaders, Major understood economics. His rise to the top was mainly via the Treasury, and when next, I wonder, will we ever see an economic narrative like this, told by a man who knows what he's talking about, who was right at the centre of decision-making, who is or appears to be completely willing to tell the whole story, and who is able to put it across with such lucidity? If you think economics is complicated, try understanding the British Conservative party and its behaviour over Europe. Here we find Major the historian at his superlative best. The behaviour of his `euro-sceptic' MP's was a psychologist's field-day, and Major assesses them individually with a dispassionate calmness that is staggeringly impressive considering the hell they put him through. It would all have broken many a lesser man (or woman). I never voted for his government nor would I if I had the chance again, but I can't see how his bitterest critic can fail to be impressed by the way he kept his nerve, and by the way he can stand back from his own performance under that sort of pressure and assess it as if he were marking an exam paper.
   
   As if all this were not enough, he had Northern Ireland to deal with. If it would be fair to say that he was out of his depth with the issue, the same could be said about every other prime minister who has tackled it. Major made a bold and honest attempt to cope, and some of it has stuck, and Blair has been the beneficiary as he has been in a significant number of other ways. Above all, Blair inherited a sound economy after all the travails of the previous 10 years, Major knows that, and he's sore about the lack of recognition of the fact. Major was unlucky to come to office at the time he did - Thatcher and Blair were elected on a wave of disgust at the failures, real or perceived, of the preceding governments, up with whose shortcomings, as the phrase goes, we were fed. Major entered 10 Downing Street at a time when changes were going on that he only partly understands and, characteristically, doesn't claim to understand fully. He came from a poor background, and he is a `compassionate' conservative. Those have actually been around for a long time, witness Disraeli himself. Witness also Macmillan, the premier who said `We are all socialists now'. Macmillan was quite unquestionably compassionate, but he belonged to a tradition, and in an era, when the Conservative party had every reason to believe that power was its birthright. These days it still thinks so, and, worse, acts as if it does. Its problem is that the rest of us think otherwise. Labour's shortcomings are manifold and monstrous, but it doesn't make that mistake and that could be Labour's salvation for quite a long time. If I'm right, Major's thoughtful musings, while valid in point after point, are missing the main one. He was a good manager, but he failed as a leader and as a politician. Blair could see, as FDR could all those years ago, that if you at least act as if you understand what people are asking for they will put up with a great deal. For all his humble origins Major failed to connect, partly through his own fault as he can see very well, but mainly because nobody associated the Conservative party with the values that he himself is most interested in - health, safety, pensions, schools, hospitals and so on. These are traditionally Labour's strong suits, and, largely through his inheritance from Major, Blair has slain the dragon that Labour can't be trusted with the economy. That leaves the Conservatives rowing over Europe on the assumption that what matters to them must therefore matter to the rest of us. Their own chairman and advertising magnate Lord Saatchi has grasped the point perfectly well `Who needs the Tories now?' Blair is running into trouble through pushing his phenomenal luck a little too far and he will be going shortly in any case, but as he faces his fifth Conservative opponent in 8 or 9 years I expect he and his successor will make short work of whoever it is because they have grasped this point. I wonder whether Major has come to see it this way too by now.



4. I wanted to read this book both because of the Speaker Series and because I will be going to London later this year. It has taught me about some of the culture and politics of that great land. Yet, John Major drones on about topics in way too much detail. I usually enjoy the first 10 pages of every chapter at which point he chooses to drag the subject into areas that often don't seem related.



5. I did a report on the history of the Conservative Party from 1990 to 1997. We were asked by our instructor to use at least ten sources, you really only need one and it's this book! It is presented in chronological order and is easy to understand. The rift over Europe helps explain why the Tory Party was so badly beaten in the 1997 General Election. A great source for anybody doing research into this time in British history!

5 comments about Clarence Thomas: A Biography.

1. At first I was worried that I would not be able to get through Thomas' early life to get to his Supreme Court years, by about 75 pages in, I wondered how the Supreme Court years could be as good as the first part of the book was turning out to be. This book is great and, amazingly, a quick read, not to mention well researched and very unbiased. The author takes Thomas to task for his occational self-indulgence, and yet paints a picture of Thomas that leaves me hoping I just read a biography of the next Chief Justice.



2. It is quite simply a masterpiece. Justice Thomas is portrayed as a real human being who has survived the castigation of the far Left... with a dignity that speaks loud and clear above the wailing of the extreme left Liberals who cannot believe a man of color exists who they cannot control. Read how this man of incredible intellect and courage overcomes all odds to become the first black intellectual to occupy the bench. Unlike Thurgood Marshall who knew political correctness before it became the defacto "law of the land", this biography portrays a true independent thinker and voice for judicial freedom that will not be silenced. The depths to which the Left will sink in its outrage when anyone escapes from the plantation is well documented. The viciousness of the Left and NOW during the Hill debacle is nicely contrasted with their mute impotent silence during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. It is well written and well researched, and most importantly unbiased unlike other competing biographies. Somehow this bio was allowed to be published. Do not forgo the opportunity to read and own your own copy.



3. From page 1 to the last you won't be able to put down this book. If you are interested in reading something that will lift your spirits and give you back some faith in individual honesty you need to read this.
   
   It should be a genre of its own. I mean, it's the ages-old odyssey of a person who makes it through all the obstacles of his environment to the top of that society. Not without scars. It's the story of a modern hero, the only kind that subsists today: the ignored one. A person who fought for his ideals, his beliefs, against all odds (economic, social, whatever).
   
   Mr. Thomas is a living monument to faith in a Divine Author against the tendency to idolize social and liberal causes.
   
   This is also a worthy reading for growing Christians.
   
   Shame for those who want to use God for their political persuasions, like those who blame the Pope for not being liberal. They can't admit being atheists, they prefer to destroy His Kingdom from inside.
   
   Thanks Clarence.



4. Okay, there are several books on Thomas out there. This is my first. That said, the author is a gifted writer. This book is as accessible as a novel. Really. Non-lawyers don't have to beware.
   
   Liberals need not beware, either. Is the author sympathetic toward his subject? Well, I suppose so. This book is MOSTLY free of editorializing, though. Mostly, the author just relates what happened in a pretty impartial manner. Most of the editorializing is done when the author is criticizing his subject.
   
   The author recognizes that his subject has a strain of bathos, self-pity and exagerration. He includes several anectodes that portray Thomas as socially awkward, constantly seeking love and approval from EVERYONE, but unexpectedly lashing out at co-workers with cruel and unwarranted comments or intentionally setting subordinates against each other.
   
   All in all, he portrays a hardworking, reasonably smart politician who acended to the Supreme Court through an odd combination of luck, affirmative action, political connections, gladhanding, politicking, genuine administrative ability, and a Puritan work ethic. I don't think anyone will walk away from this being impressed by Thomas as a genius, a trendsetter, or a role model in particular. For those liberals that are predisposed to hating him, however, just by virtue of his politics, this book will likely engender a feeling of understanding and compassion for Thomas. After all, how can you hate someone for being socially awkward. How can you ridicule someone for being competent, hardworking, and able, even if that person isn't a genius? How can you blame a guy for coming from literally nothing and rising so highly even if he's not one of the 9 best legal minds in the country? So he's just "a man." That's okay, right?
   
   The book does make a case against Anita Hill.... I'm not the type to assume I know "what happened" in cases like that. Suffice it to say that the case against Hill is pretty convincing and it rings true.
   
   Despite the length of the book (like 600 pages!), it's a quick and enjoyable read.
   
   My one huge criticism is that you don't get to the court years until like page 450. I'd rather the background constitute a 1/3 of the book than 3/4s. I bought it to read about JUSTICE Thomas, you know?



5. Finding a good biography is hard to begin with. This is even more true if the subject is the human lightning rod of Clarence Thomas, quite possibly the most polarizing figure out there. Indeed, Thomas Sowell once wrote something to the effect that one can tell a white liberal's level of commitment to his beliefs by how much he despises the man. I am therefore happy to say that CLARENCE THOMAS: A BIOGRAPHY is a true joy to read.
   
   A major reason for this book being so good is because the author Andrew Peyton Thomas (no relation to the Justice) is so balanced. Other writers would either disparage Justice Thomas or act as little more than a literary cheerleader for the man based on ideological disposition. While the author A.P. Thomas obviously is an admirer of Justice Thomas, he nonetheless portrays the Justice warts and all. In fact, one of my friends, a white liberal who cannot discuss anything related to race without wallowing in white guilt and who simply cannot grasp the fact that blacks are responsible for their own lives, upon hearing that I was reading this book, asked me, his voice dripping with condescension and even hostility, whether the author goes over Justice Thomas having benefitted from affirmative action only to try to end such policies now. I was able to respond that, yes, indeed the author does cover this. In fact, quite extensively, while placing Justice Thomas' change of direction in the proper context and discussing the man's turmoil that others would focus on him rather than on the issues themselves (if my friend caught the irony, he did not let on).
   
   CLARENCE THOMAS covers the Justices' early life extensively. I was initially hesitant that so many pages were devoted to what I considered to be basically an introduction. I was wrong. Thomas' early life and the influences upon him by his relatives, nuns and others with whom he came into contact is absolutely captivating.
   
   As the book enters Thomas' adult years, the book loses none of its steam. Again, it is not just the facts of Thomas' life that are so captivating (though that is true), but that the author presents a vivid portrait of a man determined to stay true to himself in a context in which others want to use him for their own purposes and in the face of often seemingly insurmountable odds. We also get a focused picture of really just what kind of man Thomas is, as we read about his determination in the face of frustration after frustration. The author is not so much a fan of the Justice as to fail to acknowledge that Clarence Thomas, like many of us, has not always been able to live up to his ideals and that in some circumstances, subtle truths gave way to expediency.
   
   The reader also understands how Thomas was able to rise so high so fast. This is a man, after all, who came to the helm of the EEOC when it was the worst run administrative agency of the federal government only to turn it into the crown jewel by the time he left, all the while laughing, having a good time and without the heads-will-roll attitude others would have brought to the task. And while others voiced the opinion that the cloistered life of a federal judge would not suit Thomas' personality, Thomas proved them wrong as well.
   
   But again, CLARENCE THOMAS is not just a brightly colored paint job. The author also writes powerfully not only of Thomas' rough spots, but of the effect these had on the man and his approach to others. Justice Thomas was, not surprisingly, deeply seared by the attacks upon him during his confirmation hearing and with the insight that others would destroy every scrap of his good name simply for ideological purposes. Given the controversy surrounding the man, this book is probably the best source a reader could ask for to gain a good insight into Clarence Thomas, one of the more interesting figures to grace the American public stage.

No comments about The Centennial Senator: True Stories of Strom Thurmond from the People Who Knew Him Best.

5 comments about Bush Hat, Black Tie: Adventures of a Foreign Service Officer.

1. I bought this book with the hope that it would give me some insight on how to answer the hypothetical questions of the State Department's Foreign Service Oral exam that I have coming up. On the down side, he spent little time discussing his early career, and since I'm going for the Managerial track (his was, I guess, sort of like public diplomacy)it was the gold mine I had hoped for.

   However, he gave great insight into what real life is like at a hardship post, and his mid- and late- career experiences were invaluable. His experiences show just how important interpersonal relationships are in the foreign service, which contrasted my view that it is all book knowledge and sterile, rely-purely-on-yourself stuff.




2. This seems to be basically a collection of mildly intriguing antidotes from Mr. Simpson's diary. It gives some idea of what it was like to be an information officer, and some of the stories are interesting. But the book lacks emotion, wallows in neutrality and is quite dated (ending in 1979). Mr. Simpson also strikes one as being more concerned with his lifestyle than the actual job, which is admirable, but not informative.

   If one is looking to learn what it's really like to be an FSO, particulary in one of the other career tracks within the Foreign Service, there may be better sources out there.
   I am now in search of a book that provides more in-depth analysis of the job being done by the State Dept and FSOs overseas.




3. Entertaining if episodic accout of life as a diplomat. At times parochial and old-fashioned, the book reads like a nostalgic take on life in the good old days of the Western Empire.



4. "Although the passing of time often tends to blur specific memories and dates, the events in this book are factual and, I trust, untainted by political correctness". The person who wrote this in the preface to "Bush Hat, Black Tie: Adventures of a Foreign Service Officer" is the author of the book himself, Howard R. Simpson (1925-1999).
   
   The author is a person I would have like to know, because he led a very interesting life, seemed to possess a good sense of humour, and managed not to take himself too seriously while being extremely professional about his job, being a diplomat. Simpson didn't plan to be a diplomat, "it just happened". Before that, he participated in the Second World War, studied art in Paris, and became a journalist. He could have been many things, but he ended up being a diplomat, although a rather peculiar one.
   
   The beginning of Simpson's career can be traced to 1951, when he joined the Foreign Service as an information specialist. Simpson would be posted to French Indochina, Nigeria, France, South Vietnam, Australia and Algeria. He would also work in the United States, specifically in Washington and as a professor in the U.S. Naval War College. This book includes interesting photographs that show the author in some of those places, and that emphasize the fact that in his career he wore a bush hat at least as frequently as a black tie. My favorite photograph is probably one that shows the author in Hanoi, in 1954, when he was posing as a Polish journalist in order to escape unharmed from the communist occupied city.
   
   In this book, Simpon shares with the reader some of the experiences he had in the somewhat strange life that some diplomats live. He does that in an engaging way, peppering serious observation regarding policy matters with funny anecdotes. A good example of that can be found in the chapter "Fire ant fandango", where he talks about the last stages of decolonization in Nigeria, but also tells us what happens when African fire ants are surprise visitors to a reception.
   
   It is easy to see in every page of this book that Simpson loved his career, even though he wasn't much of a fan of paperwork. In his words, "I believe most Foreign Service veterans would agree that few other professions offer such a variety of interesting, adventurous, and -at times- dangerous assignments. My only advice to those now entering the ranks would be: beware of creeping bureacracy, don't take yourself too seriously, and enjoy your new career".
   
   On the whole, I highly recommend "Bush Hat, Black Tie: Adventures of a Foreign Service Officer". It doesn't matter if you are just a reader looking to be entertained, or a person who is seriously considering joining the Foreign Service. I'm pretty sure that both kinds of reader will find what they are looking for in this book.
   
   Belen Alcat



5. I am in the process of reading this book (just finished the part about California wine in Marseille), and find it very entertaining. However, does anyone else find the frequency in which local prostitutes are mentioned disturbing? I've lived and travelled overseas quite a bit, and although it's the oldest profession in the world, one would think that the cities the author lived in and visited would have a lot more to describe than the talents of local working girls.

2 comments about Eric Williams and the Making of the Modern Caribbean.

1. Eric Williams was a complex and controversial giant who led a small Caribbean nation into independence. Professor Palmer attempts to understand him and his influence on the modern Caribbean by dissecting some of the major issues with which he dealt in the course of constructing his government. The result is a fascinating, well-researched study which should interest students of the Caribbean but also those interested in the problems of governance of small countries generally. He ends his book in 1970, though Williams continued as Prime Minister until his death in 1981; the years of plenty when high oil prices funded an economic boom are not covered, and would also make fascinating reading. However, while there is much more to say about Williams' tenure, what Palmer does cover can be taken on its own merits.
   
   Just one quibble: the author's arithmetic in the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 228 doesn't add up, making his conclusions unintelligible; I trust this is the result of typographical error??



2. The book is well written. It is balanced, and gives an insight into the deep love and commitment Dr. Eric Williams had for the people of the Caribbean, and especially citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. The book discloses in authentic detail, the struggle to reclaim Chaguramas from the United States of America, who had got if from the British in the second world war, ostensibly for defence of North America, South America, and the Caribbean. It is a treasure of history, showing the struggle of a former British colony reaching for its political and economic independence. The book is also well worth reading from a literary point of view.

3 comments about Wallace: The Classic Portrait of Alabama Governor George Wallace.

1. Frady definately has the usual liberal anti-Wallace attitude, but he has a lively writing style and, at times, does give credit to some Wallace's populist accomplishments.



2. Even if you don't agree with the political message or the idiological slant of this character, you will be extremely glad that you read this character depiction. This takes you through each rise and fall along with his influence on many well-known Alabama political figures.



3. Has some wonderful passages, especially on Wallace's youth. Love him or hate him or neither, he had a remarkable life and was truly "a character." Frady's prose is superb!

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.



2. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



3. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



4. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.

3 comments about Eleanor & Franklin (Modern Biography Series).

1. would have been a better title for this book. Slow in some parts. I believe you really have to have an interest in Mrs. Roosevelt to get through it. She was truly FDR's most important advisor. Not becauses he wanted it that way but others in his administration would defer to her. The book talks about many of her back door power plays to the annoyance of the president. These are amusing stories but too infrequent.



2. I almost never read anything that can be even mildly construed as having to do with politics. I picked this up because I was going on a trip and it was long - 930 pages to be exact. I assumed it would be about Eleanor and her relationship with Franklin, not about him, and I was right. I really enjoyed reading about her childhood and young aduldhood. I never realized what an amazing person she was and how much she had to overcome.

   Yes, there were chapters in this book that I read with a somewhat dazed attention as they included far too many details about far too many people whom I had never heard of. But even in those chapters, Eleanor's light kept me reading.

   Highly recommended for its revelation of an extremely important American woman.




3. This is not a biography of Eleanor Roosevelt so much as an examination of her life with Franklin. Some of this story is heartbreaking, and one can only come away from this book blown away with wonder.
   
   The story stops with Franklin's death and its immediate aftermath. Since this moment also brings to Eleanor a bitter reaffirmation of Franklin's infidelity, it is very sad. And yet, who can stay upset for long with FDR, who sacrificed himself in the causes in which both he and Eleanor most fervently believed.
   
   The most interesting sections of the book to me related to the various campaigns and especially the historic third- and fourth-term campaigns. The 1940 election exposes the fragility of the presumably monolithic New Deal Coalition.
   
   Eleanor Roosevelt was a great politician. For many years an anti-suffragette, she evolved into one of the great pillars of the New Deal and one of the great architects of the post-WWII order through her role in the founding of the United Nations (a subject beyond the scope of this book).
   
   This is biography at its best.

No comments about Feargus O'Connor.

5 comments about Pontius Pilate.

1. Either Ms Wroe wants to write a fictional novel based on Pilate or a historical analysis of the character. Reading this book it seems that she can never quite make up her mind. One minute we are reading what Josephus or Philo said about him in antiquity the next we are treated to a sample of the author's writing skills. It is almost like she cannot help herself and succumbs on every page to exercising her writing techniques by exploring imagery and metaphor.
   Before I bought this book I assumed there was little or no detail about Pilate to work with. By the time I was finished with it my assumption remained the same. The only problem was that along the way I had to endure Ms Wroe's disjointed writing, pointless reference to medieval pageantry (the world is flat era), and endless waffle that has no place in a book that Pilate purports to be.
   mmmmmmmmm.......



2. Writing now in the advent of the movie the Da Vinci Code, there will no doubt be a spur of interest in books such as these about the characters surrounding the life and mission of Jesus. Like Thomas of the Gospel of John, believers and non believers alike seek to touch the wound and thereby gain "actual proof" of what the faithful maintain.
   
   Today you can go to any coin show and buy a copper slug, sometimes recognizable in its imagery minted under the prefectorate of Pontius Pilate. Alternatively, if you're really so inclined, you can visit Israel and see the ancient remains of Caesarea Maritima, Pilate's old base camp, where a replica of the Pilatus inscription is on display against the backdrop of the mediterranean. Or, you can go to the Israel musuem and see the artifact itself, protectively encased.
   
   At the library, you can read Josephus or Tacitus or the other minor references to an individual who was -- in his time -- largely irrelevant. Together these references would fail to even fill this page.
   
   So who was Pilate? And what did this "invented man" really do?
   
   It's rare that historical scholarship actually rises to the level of being great literature but amazingly, after putting in four years of thought and contemplation, great literature and great historical scholarship is just what Ann Wroe managed to do.
   
   For those who get the chance there's a book club presentation by Wroe that periodically runs on cable. And it's well worth watching to see this proper British lady as she attempts to explain her book.
   
   Her difficulty, our difficulty is that what we see all too often more the product of our cynicisms or unfounded hopes than what really exists. Is it a cloud in the shape of a bunny or a unicorn?
   
   And what would Pilate say if we could ask him? Did you wash your hands? Did you condemn the savior? Did you make it so that we could gain salvation through Jesus Christ himself?
   
   Would he say? "Me? I did that for you?"



3. Ann Wroe's Pontius Pilate begins with the disclaimer that there isn't very much historical information about the former Prefect of Judea, and then goes on for 400+ pages. In fact, this book could be subtitled - "More than you ever wanted to know about who Pilate might have been." Wroe begins by giving us 3 different scenarios about Pilate's birth, with origins in Italy, or Germany, or Spain. Take your pick. Wroe provides three different stories with little guidance as to which is most likely. She then proceeds to tell us what life was like for the young adult when he lived in Rome. It's not about Pilate, per se, but about life in general for someone like Pilate, although we're not sure if it's the peasant Italian pilot, the swashbucking Spanaird, or the brooding German. Apparently it didn't make too much difference.
   
   Wroe is a very good writer and she's obviously done her homework. So the fanciful sections about what life was like is very interesting and informative, but a reader who was drawn by the title "Pontius Pilate" might feel cheated that Wroe's central character is actually missing.
   
   Here's some examples...
   
   "...we have little more to rely on when we come to his age, or his marriage, or how bright he was. Of his age, we can only be certain that he was not younger than 30 when he went to Judea. That was the minimum age for governors..." (p. 40)
   
   "The presence of Procula [his wife] in Judea, if she was there, has often been taken as an indicator of love. In the early years of the empire, wives did not normally accompany their husbands to the provinces." (p. 44)
   
   "Ti estim alethia? was what he [Pilate] said, according to John; and if indeed he said it, Greek was very probably the language he used. This was the lingua franca of the eastern empire. Even a rough soldier would have a smattering of it, and a governor could not work without it, unless he dared to put himself at the mercy of interpreters....It is easy to imagine him mangling his Greek as English-speaking diplomates still mangle French...The state of Pilate's Greek, possibly fluent, possible awful, adds a peculiar poignancy to his supposed exchanges with Jesus... " (p. 50-51)
   
   Wroe is stronger when she looks at the changes in perceptions of Pilate as she dissects the Medieval and later literary and stage personas. We see him change in appearance and temperament as each age re-invents him for their own purposes. She thoroughly documents each turn in the saga of the Pilate family, from his wife to his kids and dog. There is no history here, except the history of the history, which I guess is better than no history at all, but (as Albert Schweitzer said about Jesus) we shouldn't mistake this for history.
   
   This book will appeal to anyone interested in history, especially as it pertains to Christianity. But it should be approached as a general study of the times, and not as a biography of Pontius Pilate.



4. For those willing to see the truth of Jesus' suffering, buy the Amazon book "Crucified by Pontius Pilate" by C.W. Griffen.



5. Pontius Pilate is known to most as the man responsible for the death of Jesus. Ann Wroe really doesn't harp on this issue one way or another -- but from the scarce few extant artifacts and writings about the man she has extrapolated a superb profile of a biblical figure who many still revile.
   
   My view of Pilate has always been in contrast with that of most others. I have never viewed Pilate as responsible for the murder of Jesus. Along with Caiaphas, the Jewish Priests, the Jewish population of Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, Judas, and the Roman Centurians who actually crucified Jesus, I see them all as "pawns" of God, mortals directed to carry out His plan for mankind. The Bible clearly asserts that God is omnipotent and, secondarily, that it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross (for the sins of mankind). I therefore can come to no other conclusion than this: if God did NOT want Jesus to die, then all these minor conspirators could not have killed him even if they wanted to.
   
   In any case, Wroe's biography does not conflict with my theory, or anyone else's for that matter. She just presents us with a clear picture of the man, Pontius Pilate. She is equally honest with the reader on the limitations of her source information and doesn't try to fool us in any way.
   
   This book is a page-turner and reads like a good novel. Highly recommended.