5 comments about In Exile from the Land of Snows: The Definitive Account of the Dalai Lama and Tibet Since the Chinese Conquest.

1. Books Like "In Exile from the Lands of Snows and Movies like "Seven Years in Tibet" and "Kundun" destroy the myth of Shangri-La while portraying Tibet as real through participation in the production and giving advice on the historical accuracy of both movies and book giving Tibet complexity. The myth of Shangri-La as laid out by James Hilton in "Lost Horizon", as far as the West is concerned, is as real as any Homeric myth can be. Westerners, mired in the irony of losing a fantasy, do not have to deal with real flesh and blood issues. Deconstructing by examining the power relations lifts the veil of fantasy and offers a more authentic discourse. Read this book with an open mind and be ready to discard old notions of myth, fantasy and construction. A resounding 5 stars!
   
   Miguel Llora



2. If you have had any Shangri-La type illusions about Tibet, this book will soon blow them away. Not that that is a bad thing, but just be warned. This book will open your eyes, make you laugh, weep, clench your fists and probably curse before you're done, but it will not leave you unchanged, either in your opinion of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, and especially of China.

   This is a very balanced account from the Tibetan perspective of the period roughly from the end of WWII until 1990. In addition to an unvarnished account of Tibetan bravery, desire to retain their homeland at all costs and credulity, and unlimited Chinese brutality and treachery, there is a great deal of social insight woven in. This is not a "feel-good" story to garner sympathy for the Tibetans, this is a tell-it-like-is book whose message is so daunting that I'm not sure most of the world, much less the Tibetans themselves are ready to face much of it.

   This is not a book so much about religion, although you cannot write about Tibet without writing about Buddhism, as about world politics thundering down on a small, isolated nation. It is about the bravery and resourcefulness of the Tibetan people and the greatness of their leader. And it is about the utter shameless cupidity and determination of the Chinese to lay hold of this strategic bit of real estate and anihilate its native population. This book should serve as a powerful reminder of what the PRC is capable of and just how much their talk is worth.

   After reading this, I believe (and HHDL must realize) that the chances for any kind of an autonomous, much less independent, Tibetan region are slim to none, but that the facade needs to be kept up for political and morale reasons. None the less it is a bitter truth that the Chinese have done the rest of the world a favor: by driving the Tibetans out of Tibet, they have released a great force for peace and good to the rest of us in the form of Tibetan Buddhism and the presence of HHDL.

   I do highly recommend this book.




3. A must read to truly understand the complex story of Tibet, although it may disuade you from ever going there. This is the story of the destruction of Tibet, told through a narrative of political history and a few well-chosen personal stories. Internal squabbling contributed to the Tibetan's own downfall, but in the end this small underdeveloped nation could not have withstood the Chinese without significant support from the rest of the world, and that support was shamefully lacking in the 50's. The destruction that followed was unbelievable. I've always thought it would be fascinating to go there, but I now realize that the treasures of Tibet are probably now in China or in the hands of private collectors after the Chinese sold them off, and what's left is part of a carefully constructed show for tourists. I agree with the reviewer who says that Tibetan independence seems a long shot at this point, but the world should keep the pressure on until the Tibetans gain some measure of cultural and religious freedom. My only criticism of this book is that it ends in the mid-80's, and the newer edition that came out in the late 90's contains a rather feeble attempt to update the story through a chronology. Interesting though is the interview with the Dalai Lama.



4. If your serious about learning about Tibet and the Chinese take- over read this book.Some of the more explicit chapters made me really angry and kept me questioning "How can humans treat each other this way"?



5. Probably this book has not been read in recent times as much as it was before. The reason is that it practically stops at 1985 with a small attempt of updating to 1997. For an historical essay that relies greatly on updated information on a dramatic world situation such as that of Tibet and that still has written on the cover "the definitive account of the Dalai Lama and Tibet since the Chinese conquest" this is a major drawback. However, John Avedon's 500-page book has really represented a milestone for the awareness of the West on Tibetan reality and the crimes and genocide carried out by the Chinese. In the 1980's it was the most read book on Tibet and practically the only updated, precise, journalistic source of all information. If anyone remembers Bertolucci's "Little Buddha" on the airplane to India the boy's father is reading this book! Having been such a great bestseller it is natural that it has slightly passed out of fashion. But this takes nothing away from its value. If you want a readable, engrossing, historical narration of the last years of Tibet's freedom, to the 1955-59 Chinese invasion and especially of what happened from 1959 to 1985 to the refugees in India and to the prisoners in Chinese jails, up to the apparent "normalization" of the 1980's and the visits of the Tibetan delegations to their native land, this book remains the best document around.
   One of the main narrative themes is how Tibetans and the Dalai Lama managed to maintain their cultural and religious heritage and only regarding to this aspect there is a wave of optimism running through the book.
   
   John Avedon had a personal relationship with the Dalai Lama and was also interested in Buddhist philosophy and Tibetan culture, so the first journalistic part of the book, mostly built up out of life experiences of eminent Tibetans who survived the genocide, is followed by brief essays on Tibetan medicine, the report of a pilgrimage to Buddha's sites in India by the Dalai Lama, and a personal interview with HH on the philosophy of Buddhism, its outlook on death, life and personal experience. This last part is interesting, but it is detached from the principal narration and it seems introduced only to lengthen the book or to cram into it all the Author's knowledge. The notes and the bibliography are excellent even though dated.
   
   A must read for those interested in modern Tibet, but it would be more honest to subtitle the re-editions "Tibet from the Chinese conquest to the 1990's".
   
   I am looking for a book that tells what has been happening in the last 10-15 years. Have any suggestions?

5 comments about The Brothers Bulger: How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century.

1. There is some great info in this book, but at times it was like Chinese water torture. Slow but steady. I was mentally exhausted by the end of this one. I found that I was just trying to get through it rather than enjoying myself until the end. I don't know, but it just didn't grab me.



2. "The Brothers Bulger" tells the story of James "Whitey" Bulger and his brother Billy. From an early age Whitey was headed in the wrong direction in life and he soon became one of the most feared men in Boston and is currently in the top ten on the FBI's most wanted list. For a long time Billy seemed to be on the straight and narrow, at least to the public, as he became involved in politics, eventually becoming president of the Massachusetts State Senate. But "The Brothers Bulger" shows the Billy earned his nickname of "The Corrupt Midget".
   
   I'm not a big fan of Howie Carr's newspaper column in The Boston Herald and almost didn't read "The Brothers Bulger" because of that. I'm glad I did. Newspaper column to the contrary, Carr can actually write and does a good job telling the Bulger's story. I've lived in the Boston area my entire life and while aware of the Bulgers I wasn't aware of the extent of Whitey's crimes or the extent of the corruption. I was also surprised at the number of local politicians and other well known Bostonians who knew what was going on with the Bulgers and looked the other way including Michael Dukakis, Kevin White, Joe Moakley, Bill Weld, and Cardinal Law.
   
   Of the two brothers, Whitey's story, not surprisingly, is the most compelling. He is truly a brutal man, not caring who he killed, be it man or woman. One of his killings was so brutal I cringed while reading it. His dealings with the FBI are mind boggling and not very reassuring. While Billy's story is less compelling, it was still interesting to read how he maneuvered his way through Boston politics and managed to snag himself a nice sized pension from U-Mass Boston. What was especially interesting about all this is the numerous mistakes he made politically and still came out on top for a long time.
   
   As of right now, Whitey Bulger is still at large and wanted by the FBI. If he is ever found (and after reading this book I have to wonder how hard the FBI is looking for him), I hope Howie Carr is able to write a book about Whitey's years on the lam, which I'm sure would be quite interesting.
   
   "The Brothers Bulger" is a compelling read.



3. Howie well knows,but chooses to ignore,the truism that a grand jury can always be persuaded to indict a ham sandwich. But try as they might All the Kings Men be they federal, state or local could not get a rubberstamped indictment of Billy Bulger and this fact gives Howie an ulcer. And all the kings men also includes congressional committees who basked in their public investigation of Sen Bulger and came up with scratch. Poor Howie: all full of righteous thunder and a sack full of yellow journalism.
   Jim Whalen



4. The Publisher's Weekly review and the audio file review are very good descriptions of this narrative. Two brothers in Boston, one a politician and the other a mobster, shaping politics and crime in Boston for decades. Whitey Bulger, who is still an international fugitive, makes an excellent precursor, if not template, for Jack Nicholson's role in the film "The Departed". The author is an award winning newspaper columnist who clearly knows Boston intimately, along with who is connected to whom on both sides of the law, however, it can be a little confusing for the reader to keep up without a table of organization or flow chart. Frequently, Carr states facts or describes events that it is assumed he acquired from court transcripts, police reports and street sources but the reader is often left to take it simply on faith because the hard evidence or source isn't referenced or cited. Still, it's an interesting saga of the backrooms and chicanery in Boston over the past five decades.



5. I love this book it has details of my fathers death and my uncle joe as well finally a real book on the true crime and the sick bastards that took so many life's fathers humans and friends form south Boston and Medford Mass.

4 comments about American Connections: The Founding Fathers. Networked..

1. I have read several of James Burke's earlier works, and I had hoped that his venture into my own field would illuminate a subject in ways that would not have occurred to conventional historians. Unfortunately, this book is nothing of the kind. On first glance, It is organized in a structure giving one chapter to each Signer of the Declaration of Independence (Mr. Burke seems not to have thought of the framers of the Constitution as belonging in his phrase "founding fathers.") However, each Signer lasts barely one paragraph with Mr. Burke connecting him to someone else, and then to someone else, and then to someone else, and then on and on he goes forming a daisy-chain of references, skittering across the surface of history like a spider sliding across a sheet of ice, until he gets to someone in modern times who shares the same name as that of the Signer [or, in the case of Benjamin Franklin, to a reference back to the original Signer]. The book is slipshod, superficial, and all too often fraught with ominous undocumented claims often introduced or accompanied by such phrases as "Some say" or "according to some." I am sorry that I bought this book; it makes the otherwise-useless book by Richard Brookhiser, WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS DO? OUR QUESTIONS, THEIR ANSWERS, read like a marvel of scholarly comprehension.



2. James Burke, well known for pursuing the stranger paths of history, has done just that once more. This time, he follows the signers of the Declaration of Independence, following paths leading away from each one to something within the last fifty years sharing that name. If what you want is a straight history book, try a different author. This is Burke's area of expertise, and he has done a wonderful job. Again.



3. I have read nearly all of James Burke's work, and his Connections started my fascination with History of all kinds; nowadays, that's all I read. I also became a research historian and have co-authored a book; for that, I offer my unending thanks to Mr. Burke. Unfortunately, this book is nothing more than a collection of parlor tricks, one that wears thin after 2 or 3 chapters. There's no history here nor story telling nor insights; only a compendium of extremely poorly documented linkages connecting the signers of the Declaration of Independence to a current person of the same name. Within each chapter is a set of linkages or connections that typically number above 20, not the six degrees of networking that Burke alludes to. With that many degrees of networking, I could even play this game. All this book does is showcase Burke's knowledge of fairly inconsequential people over the past 200+ years and does nothing to stimulate interest in the reader. This is one book I couldn't bear to read or finish. Mr. Burke should be ashamed to have written it; it simply is not up to his previous standards. There is nothing here...nothing at all; how unfortunate.



4. Having greatly enjoyed Mr. Burkes books in the past, I was looking forward to one of his based on my soil. But proving that a name reappears (unrelated) later in history on some nameless board or committee sounds like an exercise best left to the student. The thought that the progeny of significant men in American history would have an effect later was a good idea, but not realized in this book.
   
   Disappointing, but I still look forward to his next novel.

No comments about Alex Jones: The Answer to 1984 is 1776.

5 comments about Born Again (Hendrickson Classic Biographies).

1. It's been 30 years since the events of Watergate started making history. A whole generation has grown up largely unaware, I suspect, of the significance of those events. I've followed Chuck Colson's work and writing almost since the beginning of Prison Fellowship and have developed a tremendous respect for the man. But only recently have I bothered to go back and read this book which tells how it all got started. I should not have waited so long.

   This is the very inspiring and honest story of Colson's early career as chief counsel, confidant and friend to President Richard Nixon. As an insider, he gives his own account of the Watergate scandal and an honest confession of his own wrongdoings. This is also the story about how God can change the life of a man caught up in the corrupting influence of political power and bring great good out of evil. Since he was not directly involved in the Watergate doings, Colson probably could have easily avoided being convicted and sent to prison. But his encounter with Jesus Christ and conversion to Christianity strengthened his conscience and led him to plead guilty to an unrelated crime that he did commit. He went to prison and saw a different side of the "law and order" society that the Nixon Administration sought to promote. Even through the fear and despair of those times, the power of God became even more evident to Chuck Colson while in prison.

   This is an amazing account of how a life submitted to Jesus Christ can reconcile enemies, create strong bonds of friendship, and heal terrible wounds in the hearts of both the rich and powerful and the poor and helpless. It's wonderful to read. If this book has an impact on you, then you will also want to read its sequel, "Life Sentence".




2. Colson's version of what happened during Watergate is a self-serving, sanctimonious whitewash of what he did and what he was responsible for. As the self-syled " Go-to guy" when something needed to be done. As Howard Hunt's boss, it defies belief that he was ignorant of what went on. He managed to get away without any responsibility for what he was surely guilty of and plead guilty to a crime of his choosing, which he hoped not to serve any time for.Surely to be "Born Again" he needs to tell the whole truth rather than this sanitized version.



3. . . . as readers of my reviews have probably figured out. I have been familiar with this book for many years, but only recently have I taken the time to sit down and read it through.
   
   "Born Again" is an honest and forthright admission of sinfulness and forgiveness, tracing Mr. Colson's path through Watergate and prison to the freedom in Christ he now enjoys.
   
   To the best of my recollection, this is the first book to be published by one of the "Watergate figures". Magruder's book came out shortly afterward, and Haldeman wrote two (contradictory) books on the subject. I wonder if the Charles Colson of 2005 would view the events of 1972-1974 as the Charles Colson of 1976 did. I wonder if he would have made some of the same choices now as he did as a brand-new Christian (with a great deal of guilt on his conscience).
   
   Regardless, both as an "insider's account" of the Nixon White House, and as a testimony of how Christ can change a life, "Born Again" is definitely worth a read.



4. "Born Again" is the story of Chuck Colson's life from the Nixon presidency to his release from the Maxwell AFB prison facility with some comments on his early life.
   
   The first 250 or so pages deal with his time serving Nixon and of the circumstances that led to his accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and Lord. The book's last 100 pages or so deal with his relationships with other prisoners in the Maxwell facility.
   
   Indeed, some skeptics question whether Colson had a true conversion and is using the book to promote himself. If so, then why does Colson mention a positive change in relationships with his political enemies after becoming a Christian? Indeed, one of his strongest supporters (Harold Hughes) was a Democratic senator from Iowa (Colson was a Republican). Oh well!
   
   The book flows freely and is intensely interesting. "Born Again" reflects the popularity and enjoyable reading of other Colson books. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat (sorry political junkies, God is neither!), a Colson supporter or hater, a Nixon supporter or hater, you will enjoy Colson's "Born Again".
   
   Colson's prison experience was not wasted. God used this time to burden Colson with the need to minister to prisoners today through the worldwide Prison Fellowship ministry. Yet again, God can take something good out of something bad.
   
   Read and enjoy the book and be challenged to realize that despite your background, God can work great and mighty things through a person who is surrendered to Him!
   
   Highly recommended.



5. Charles Colson resembles the adulterous minister in the Scarlet Letter. Before his parishioners, Arthur Dimmesdale confesses error freely but gives no specifics. Colson too confesses overweening pride, but gives no, or few, specifics. And where he gives specifics, he confesses no error. He denies involvement in Watergate but acknowledges defaming Daniel Ellsberg, an action that he alleges is no crime. In fact, he says he had to convince the judge to allow him to plead guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with the Ellsberg matter even though technically he broke no law. Colson did nothing, saw nothing, said nothing. He is a great sinner in the abstract but not in the concrete.
   
   His conversion seems to be genuine but limited. He went from being the grandest political operative to being the grandest sinner. After he found Christ, rather than going home, falling to his knees, opening his heart, and closing his mouth, he went to White House prayer breakfasts and discussed his conversion on "60 Minutes." He surrendered all but the spotlight.
   
   An interesting autobiography still. The portion in which he writes about his prison experience sounds authentic.

5 comments about I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. This book was not what I expected, but enjoyed regardless. I particularly liked his idea of banning the 'I Have a Dream' speech from public media. The stories about his philandering were a bit shocking to me, but I have never read any biography of King before, so I wasn't prepared. The ocassional tangents might irk some, but understand Dyson has to take some risks and expand on ideas to make the book worth his time. Realize the civil right movement is not over. Dialogue needs to continue in written forms such as this book to make progress.
   - logan square yuppie



2. I picked up this book expecting a fresh approach and analysis of Dr. King apart from the obligatory images we're force-fed each new year. Instead, I was disappointed to find that Michael Eric Dyson made heavy use of speculation with the intent to scandalize more than to inform and enlighten. One such example includes Dyson conveying the idea that Dr. King may have engaged in orgies with many different women along with his right-hand man Ralph Abernathy. He then goes on to infer that there was talk of King and Abernathy engaging in sexual acts with each other! The author had no commentary to either support or dispel this "theory" making Dyson's retelling of the alleged incident totally irresponsible and even libelous. He just dropped the information, true or untrue, in the reader's lap to do with as the reader pleased. To that end, it is my opinion that Dyson's intent in writing this book was in no way honorable or truth-seeking, rather it was a means to convey his baseless ideas to anyone who would listen. I'm reminded of something my grandmother and mother would always say to me, "an empty wagon makes the loudest noise." Michael Eric Dyson makes a lot of noise in this book but totally lacks substance. This was an expensive tabloid.



3. I have always been fascinated with Dr. King as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. I love the work that Dr. Dyson did in writing this book, because he is authentic in talking about Dr. King the man - strengths, weaknesses and all - while exposing the myths about him. Being African-American, I can understand why many within our community woud want to scold Dr. Dyson for exposing Dr. King's dirty laundry. I, however, consider it not only essential, but relevant that we talk about the true humanity of our leaders (espcially one as esteemed as Dr. King) to avoid the danger of us elevating them as idols. It is a great reminder that God uses people (albeit flawed people) for magnificent works in a fallen world. This is a great book that I highly recommed!!



4. I agree with Dr. King's message of harmony and peace. At the same time I can appreciate Dyson's exposure of aspects of King's personal life that most authors do not address (an obvious exception is "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"). In a very real sense it leads to questioning Dr. King's sincerity in asking others to value the character of a person and not the color of their skin. Dr. King was an admirable figure in American history; I wouldn't go as far as the author in saying he might be the most important American ever; that's a bit over the top. I've read a lot on the subject; this book is worth reading.



5. I find it very refreshing when a product of multiculturalism throws a wrench in the system and violently turns against his masters. In this provocative (though unsurprisingly silenced) work of pop scholarship college diversity program poster-child and hip hop "expert" Eric Dyson sets to work on deconstructing the white-washed image of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the American left has successfully promoted without opposition for the past four decades.
   
   But wait a minute, Martin Luther King Jr. was an American patriot, someone who was deeply devoted to the ideals of its Founding Fathers and simply wanted to tinker with a few of the more archaic aspects of American society (Jim Crow) so that everyone could at least have a fair shot at the American Dream. I must admit that up until a few months ago I was captured (more like poisoned) by this ridiculous myth, probably more so than most even. The story of King's life seemed so inspiring, who wouldn't want to believe in it?
   
   Turns out pretty much everything taught about MLK in public schools are at best half truths and all of the most hideous aspects of his life go completely unmentioned. As Dyson tells us, the truly radical aspects of King's ideology - such as his close association with the American Communist Party - are silenced specifically to keep African Americans in check. Undoubtedly, but these facts are suppressed specifically to keep suspicious whites in a state of unthinking, unquestioning silence as much as anyone else. Dyson didn't have to dig very much to uncover this information, even King's closest associates and biggest financial backers were Communists.
   
   Dyson also quotes some of King's most damaging speeches and interviews on economics that leave little doubt about what King's larger social and economic objectives actually were. "Oh, gee willickers!," the multiculturalist will scream, tearing the hair from his head, "You've got it all wrong - King only promoted the positive aspects of Communism." Well that all depends on just what you think the "positive" aspects of Communism really are. Let's see, King patently endorsed the redistribution of wealth, destruction of the military, labor's seizure of private business, abolition of private property...oh but don't worry, no Gulags!
   
   Predictably the trail of putrid scandal doesn't end there. In what has become a recurring theme amongst American leftists King possessed a voracious and positively uncontrollable appetite for cheap prostitutes. The point in mentioning this type of degenerate behavior at all is so Dyson can tie King's participation in the Civil Rights movement to the anti-objectivity counter-revolution that occurred subsequently thereafter. Here as well King was quite an active critic of the military (not JUST Vietnam), did interviews with pornographic magazines, generally did everything in his power to undermine sensible restraints wherever they existed, and ensured that a whole generation was indoctrinated into loving themselves and living for themselves only. Most important in all of these activities by King were the rumblings of what would later become known as "Affirmative Action."
   
   Dyson of course supports this development unconditionally and who could blame him, he is where he is precisely because King and his predecessors (backed by the Federal Government) were able to intimidate employers, agencies, and universities into adopting certain "hiring policies" favorable to African Americans. Noticably missing however in this book is elaboration on King's despicable intellectual dishonesty and theft (60% of his doctoral thesis at Boston University was stolen from another student) of other people's work throughout the entirety of his career.
   
   The story of "Dr." King is not an entirely uncommon one for political figures and needless to say his story is hardly inspiring. Indeed, it's typical even for the most violent political leaders to take a relatively egalitarian approach in the beginning, only to shed this facade once they start gathering steam in favor of uncompromising authoritarianism. Vladimir Lenin was an outspoken critic of the Czar and railed against the regime for its suppression of political speech, exploitation of the working class, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Well, we all know how that turned out. I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. was any different. Just as another reviewer pointed out, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right there with Al Sharpton and Jesse falsely accusing random college students of rape, petitioning to get O.J. Simpson reduced bail, and doing anything he possibly could to exacerbate whatever racial tensions still exist in this country.
   
   Why Dyson thinks this new version of King is great for black folks is anyone's guess, frankly I don't care. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to this hippy nonsense anymore and for that I am thankful.

5 comments about Robert the Bruce: King of Scots.

1. This is one of the most well written books on Scottish history that I have had the pleasure to come across. Its thoroughly gripping whereas other books about this time period have positvely made my eyes glaze over.
   It takes a deeper look at the politics and war of the time and introduces you to Bruce's fascinating followers James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. This book is a must for those interested in history.



2. Scott's "Robert The Bruce" is a truly enjoyable and fascinating book. One is shown the growth of the playboy Lord of Annandale to the courageous, self-sacrificing warrior king who risks everything to lead his people to freedom. A chunk of history I was not too familiar with, Scott fills in the gaps and describes the situations and major characters in an engaging manner. Highly recommended!



3. This is a great biography of Robert the Bruce. Ronald McNair Scott gives a nice full and fleshed out story of Robert the Bruce and his rise to throne of Scotland. Mr. Scott does a great job following Bruce through his Grandfather and Father's initial competition and ultimately his own attempt for the Throne after the deaths of King Alexander and his last remaining heir. Like most noble families in Scotland of the time they had land and family links to England. The Bruce, Balliol, and Comyn families all dynastic ties and claims to the throne but in the end the Bruce family won out. Mr. Scott does uses well known sources for his biography like Barbour, Fordun and Barrow. Of course they glorify all that Bruce does and spends minimal time on his faults. Mr Scott gives us a general bio that is great for the novice to Scottish history and those reading their first book on Robert. There is a lot of personal story here with some supposed quotes to help you feel you are with Bruce when he knights Wallace, accepts the Guardianship, or when he murders his primary rival John Comyn and claims the throne or when he wins his great victory against the English at Bannockburn. But Mr. Scott doesn't stop there. We see him continue to firm up Scotland's independence against Edward I, II and finally III. We get a vivid view of his great Lieutenants, James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. Bruce finally sees peace in "old age" at 55 and dies with a son and grandson to succeed him. But in the end he was a man with all the faults ordinary man and for all he gained he equally paid a price in family, pain and life. After his death the English rise again and his heirs continue the struggle. But that is another story for another book. Robert the Bruce, King of Scots by Ronald M. Scott is the life of the Bruce as history remembers him today.



4. Scott's book is a biographical and chronological account of Robert the Bruce's accomplishments. It is written to be read, as well as studied and is quite well done from that point of view, forming a coherent narrative, or story, if you like, detailing the life of the King of Scots.
   
   An interesting biography.



5. An interesting read, but you had better like history. No glamour here, just fact telling. I was struck by the ongoing hatred for the Scots on the part of Edward I and Edward II. Bruce gets the last laugh.

No comments about The Kingmakers: How the Media Threatens Our Security and Our Democracy.

5 comments about Grant: A Biography.

1. This is one seriously irritating book. There may be relatively few factual errors (at least, compared to Geoffrey Perret's work on Grant, a masterpiece of unintentional humor,) but McFeely's work is riddled with what I can only believe are deliberately insulting mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, tiresomely pretentious writing, and amateur psychoanalyzing of the most obnoxious sort. McFeely is particularly fond of quoting the words of Grant or his wife on some matter or another, and then proclaiming that--no matter how clear their meaning may have been to us poor dumb non-historians--what they were REALLY saying and thinking was something else altogether. If there is anything I can't abide, it's a biographer who persists in reading a subject's mind and putting words into his or her mouth and thoughts into his or her head that were never said and never thought. McFeely not only obviously believes he is much smarter than Grant (hah!) but more percipient than his readership, as well.

   If this book is worthy of a Pulitzer, then I trust my next grocery shopping list will earn me a Nobel Prize for Literature.




2. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.

   Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is quite good and there are very few factual errors to be found, though his chapters on the civil war are relatuvely weak. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.

   McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.

   With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.




3. The book covers the important parts of Grant's life. The book has good research on Grant's youth.



4. Any good biographer has to have, if not sympathy, at least some understanding of his or her subject. Unfortunately, although this book is well researched, you get the uneasy feeling that Mr. McFeely is examining Ulysses Grant like a bug under a microscope. This is the classic example of an academic who lacks understanding of real life and as a result cannot grasp the dynamics of a man of action, as Ulysses Grant certainly was.
   
   Mr. McFeely also unquestioningly adopts the prejudices of prior historians without thinking for himself. As a result, an historian who DID think for himself, Frank Scaturro in President Grant Reconsidered, has rendered Mr. McFeely's book obsolete. Every biography since Mr. Scaturro has reviewed the Grant Administration with a fresh and generally favorable eye. As the last civil rights President before Harry Truman, Grant certainly deserves that revised opinion.
   
   Mr. McFeely's book is no longer worth reading, if it ever was.



5. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I must say that none of the preceding Presidents (even Lincoln) seem to be as difficult to pin down as Grant as to their "definitive" biography. In addition to McFeely's Pulitzer prize winning effort is Geoffrey Perret's offering, which seems to be universally derided as a scholarly farce, Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant is clearly meant for a more popular readership (indeed Smith's commitment to scholarly research is somewhat dubious himself given he was able to produce a 1,000 page biography of FDR in less than 5 years after writing his Grant bio), and finally Brooks Simpson's projected two volume biography which when complete will certainly be the most comprehensive modern effort. McFeely's biography was the Pulitzer prize winner and that ultimately swayed me in favor of it, although I was a bit concerned about some of the poor reviews it received.
   
   I will state from the outset that I think most of the criticism of McFeely's biography I have read in other reviews is either unwarranted or overstressed. This is a straightforward "old school" biography that is directed by the research and not by some new spin that the author believes will help sell the book. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this work and rightfully so. This is a comprehensive and balanced biography of Grant that is a highly enjoyable read on top of that.
   
   I'm not sure what the negative reviewers expectations were before reading this book. Obviously most feel that Grant is somehow misrepresented by McFeely, however I definitely did not reach that conclusion. I believe this is the best comprehensive one volume biography of Grant available based on extensive research and solid writing.

3 comments about Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy..

1. In his film, Sleeper, Woody Allen immortalized Albert Shanker as the madman responsible for blowing up the world. That helped to get Shanker known outside of NY, but clearly it wasn't the real Shanker. In this highly readable and often exhilarating biography of Shanker, Richard Kahlenberg shows that while Shanker, the architect of the modern teacher union movement (and, it turns out, so much more) surely understood power and accumulated it, his only "madness" was to seek to empower the powerless and to hold this nation to the democratic ideals it espoused and he so cherished. Indeed, far from being "mad," Shanker was both intellectually and politically brilliant -- a rare combination -- an idealist with both a shrewd and compassionate understanding of human nature and a pragmatist who nonetheless stood firm on principles, a stance that sometimes incurred the enmity of allies as much as enemies. This was also a man who dealt with the high and mighty, but who in his writing and speaking could take the most complicated ideas and make them accessible to ordinary people without ever dumbing anything down. Had Kahlenberg just written a biography of this complex and far-ranging man, that probably would have been interesting enough. But Kahlenberg goes further and roots Shanker in the major political and cultural struggles over the soul of the Democratic party and the direction of this country. Regardless of one's view of those struggles and their outcomes, Kahlenberg's recounting of them cannot help but make you think of missed opportunities and "what ifs" to this day. Politics, race, education, the meaning and practice of democracy -- a heady and vitally critical brew. And Kahlenberg stirs and blends this pot well through Shanker, his meaty main ingredient.



2. Albert Shanker had always been one of my heroes . . . yet until
   I read TOUGH LIBERAL by Richard D. Kahlenberg, I had not known
   too much about him.
   
   That's no longer the case . . . in fact, this excellent biography even
   increased my appreciation of Shanker who once told an interviewer:
   * "If I didn't have to make a living, I would have done this as a volunteer."
   
   What he did was head the American Federation of Teachers for
   well over 20-25 years . . . by doing so, he helped change the
   perception of teachers by having them recognized as professionals:
   
   * A professional receives a liberal-arts education, then specialized
   training, and then must pass a rigorous exam before beginning
   to practice. She participates in an internship, is guided by mentors,
   and participates in reviewing the performance of colleagues. Once these
   professional responsibilities are met come the reciprocal set of rights:
   greater autonomy and higher compensation. In Shanker's vision,
   policies like a rigorous national test, peer review, and career
   ladders were not just defensive moves against critics
   of public-school teachers, they were prerequisites
   to the professionalization of teaching.
   
   TOUGH LIBERAL summarized Shanker's contributions to
   education in one of the finest concluding paragraphs that I've
   ever read:
   
   * In one lifespan, Albert Shanker helped to create the institution
   of collective bargaining for teachers, giving them greater dignity
   and voice in how they would be treated. He then used that power
   to engage in a series of critical education reforms that proved
   instrumental in improving and preserving the institution of public
   education. Both accomplishments served the larger goal he cherished
   above all others: strengthening American democracy. His failure
   to convince fellow liberals to extend their support of democracy more
   broadly--to racial policy, international affairs, and their views of the labor
   movement--leaves open the question: what might society look like
   if we tried?
   
   If you want to learn about Albert Shanker and the labor movement in
   this country, read this book . . . it will also make a great gift for any
   teacher.



3. Al was my mentor in the 1970's and this is an honest and true representation of the man I knew. There will never be another like him.