5 comments about Stalin: A Biography.

1. Contrary to what some other reviewers have stated, I do not believe Service goes out of his way to humanize Stalin. However, Service glosses over huge and momentous events, such as the Great Terror. We have all heard of the monstrous acts committed by Stalin but none of the details are given, other than numbers and names. It seems inconceiveable that a 600 plus page book would be superficial and lacking specificity but it does. One gets the feeling Service felt previous biographers had already provided the dirty details and therefore left them out. He also does not tell Stalin's story in any chronological manner. He jumps around endlessly. I cannot recommend this book.



2. Service has written a well-researched history of Stalin's life here. It is very thorough and complete and yet it is still quite readable. Unfortunately though, Stalin still remains the cipher that he always has been. No new insight into his lust for power emerges from the six hundred plus pages of text.
   
   Perhaps there is no answer; maybe Stalin was just the uber-sociopathic dictator he appears to be and that he survived and flourished in the dog-eat-dog milieu of revolutionary era Russia because he was very lucky and the best at what he did.
   
   Dictators in the modern era have all to some extent (consciously or not) modeled themselves after Stalin. Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein come to mind. It is said that Saddam had a room in his personal library composed of all the major biographies written about Stalin in Arabic translation, and that he read every one.
   
   I recommend this book though as an excellent work of scholarship and a most comprehensive survey of Joseph Stalin's life and times



3. While I sense as a non-expert that this biography has freed us from some of the stereotypes about Stalin which clouded the views of him in the past, probably exactly because Stalin's hold on power was defined by his ability to operate in the shadows before he emerged on center stage, and even then managed to keep a lot of the world guessing about what exactly his role was. Deniability figured big time in his history. The book nevertheless falls short. The style is somewhat plodding, and there is an implicit assumption that we are experts on Soviet history, and geography, and no aids are on offer in that regard. So in being NOT an expert on Soviet history, I find myself after reading this book that I need to read a history of the Soviet Union and probably of Russia, in order to provide me with the context which this book sorely lacks.



4. Robert Service's Stalin biography provides a detailed glimpse into the life of one of history's great tyrants. In the course Service dispels a number of myths especially whether Stalin murdered his second wife. Another reviewer pointed out the assassination of Kirov and Stalin's destruction of Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev deserves greater attention. I agree. These prominent opponents of Stalin are dispatched by Service with only a few sentences. Service additionally makes broad-brush statements about popular views, resistance or opposition to Stalin which he does not support with facts or anecdotes.
   Ultimately, where the book let me down is when the 1930's end and enters the World War 2 and post-world war 2 eras. It seems the author was bored by the subject or just wanted to the book quickly. Service additionally assigns the lion's share of responsibility for the Cold War to Truman and his desire for world-wide United States hegemony.
   These last chapters of the book I feel made Service's "Stalin-A biography" seem incomplete.



5. As I read about the WW II Russian front and Stalin's actions in other books during the past year, I decided that a good biography on Stalin would be a fascinating, interesting, read. After reading that the Washington Post rated Service's book one of the "Best Books of the Year for 2005" and that it was a "Winner in Biography" in the Independent Publishers Book Awards for 2005, I thought this would be the one. Instead, I was disappointed to read a book as uninteresting as the history books that I studied in high school and college; books that turned me against history for the next 30 years. It was well-researched and full of details but so are encyclopedias.
   
   I have read quite a few great biographies on people as diverse as Huey Long and Charles Darwin; but, to me, "Stalin, a Biography" was a waste of time.

5 comments about Thomas Cranmer: A Life.

1. MacCulloch seeks to present Archbishop Cranmer as a radical protestant with little scholarly interest or knowledge of the early church, and also that the "via media" of Anglicanism that resulted from the English Reformation was contrary to Cranmer's radical protestant beliefs and is a "myth." While MacCulloch may have written a biography he failed to examine the source of Cranmer's beliefs and theology. MacCulloch claims that Cranmer's eucharistic theology stems from the Swiss Reformed tradition: one had only to read Basil Hall's essay in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar" edited by Ayris and Selwyn to see that this is demonstrably false. Cranmer was heavily influenced by Lutheranism as well as by the "exposition of the most holy and learned fathers and martyrs" of "the holy catholic church of Christ from the beginning" (Cranmer's words) and as such his theology clearly stands in the same line as that of Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes. This sort of "scholarship" with an obvious ax to grind is perhaps the worst sort. If you want to know Cranmer's views on the Sacraments (as most Anglicans or scholars of the Reformation do) please read him in his own words in "A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" (if you can find a copy in the library) or in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar."



2. MacCulloch's book provides access to the singularly foundational figure of the reformation in England. Most who recognize Cranmer's name at all know him only as the author of the first Prayer Book or the man who attained Henry VIII's annulment from Catherine. MacCullogh gives depth to Cranmer as a flawed yet faithful agent of the Church, one who sought with conviction the reformation of the Church of England but was also willing to slavishly follow his prince in order to achieve that reformation. The final chapter, chronicling Cranmer's fall and ultimate martyrdom, reads with the pace of a good novel. For Episcopalians and others with an affinity for the Anglican tradition, insight into Cranmer's life and thought is crucial, and MacCulloch presents that insight with skill.



3. Many Anglican history books have an axe to grind. But not this masterful biography. The Thomas Cranmer of MacCulloch is very human, but no villian nor an unblemished hero.
   
   We see his theological evolution from a fairly orthodox Catholic to a stauch Protestant who went to the stake in defiance of Bloody Mary and the "Antichrist" Pope.
   
   MacCulloch also takes the reader into the historical sources and their reliability. These, along with his extensive footnotes will be of interest to any serious student of Anglican history.
   
   Yet this longish book is very readable and rarely gets bogged down, again unlike some other Anglican histories.
   
   If you want to learn about Thomas Cranmer or about early Anglicanism, this book is a must read.
   
   
   Mark Marshall is the author of God Knows What It's Like to be a Teenager.



4. I took "Thomas Cranmer" on in order to make sense of a seeming paradox: What I already "knew" of him did not square with the theology I had begun to discover in his Collects and Prayer Book. I was curious!
   
   MacCulloch does a masterful job at presenting this complex, and sometimes contradictory figure of the early English Reformation. Despite the derrogatory review given by "a reader," I found very little bias and no axe-grinding in this work. Actually, I came to the book expecting some bias. Even being thusly prepared and properly skeptical, I found only a very few times that MacCulloch let his own opinions show through. (When he does, it is in parentheses with exclamation points!!) You can almost hear him chuckle at times.
   
   I read the book in 9 or 10 days, and never found it to be a chore; in fact, the most difficult thing was putting it down and going to bed! While the book is scholarly, and masterfully written, it is definitely not tedious or boring.
   
   I came to the end of the book with a deep respect for Cranmer. I have many points of disagreement with him, and yet a certain admiration for his eventual willingness to heroically stand where he believed the Gospel compelled him to stand. Fr. James DeKoven, an early Anglican theological hero in Wisconsin, once said "We live at a time when cowardice in matters of religion has been elevated to the status of virtue." Archbishop Thomas Cranmer proved, in the end, to be anything but a coward.
   
   I have corresponded several times now with Professor MacCulloch, and find him to be humble, dedicated, and helpful. I am now reading his "The Reformation: a history," and I plan to read everything else of his that I can get my hands on!



5. I have'nt finished this book but as you've asked me I respond. The book is heavy going,but probably no one will ever do better owing to the subject i.e Cranmer's deeds are known in all their inconsistancies in the earlier years,but nothing is known of the personal reasonings that gave rise to them.
   Even the glories of his style of writing just seemed to come from nowhere,but the Author does a good job in explaining its inimitableness

5 comments about Love in a Torn Land: Joanna of Kurdistan: The True Story of a Freedom Fighter's Escape from Iraqi Vengeance.

1. I love all of Jean Sasson's books. Like all the others, this is written to keep you interested in the story and wondering what could possibly happen next to this poor young woman, her husband and all Kurds, even though you eventually know about the general outcome. The fact that the story is true, makes it hair raising. The only unfavorable thing I could say about the book, is that in telling the story, Jean Sasson looses herself a bit by going into too many details of places, people, every day occurrances, and the constant back and forth conversations between the protagonists. Sometimes it is best to leave details to your imagination. Other than that, I enjoyed it thoroughly and can't wait for the next!



2. As usual, Jean Sasson opened my eyes to a harsh culture where survival is your minute by minute goal. She has provided women with a voice and others of us a reason to be thankful to be Americans.



3. In Jean Sasson's book, "Love in a Torn Land", you will meet an astonishing heroine of an unbelievable adventure novel as well as hear a tender romance that survives against all odds. This is Jean Sasson at her best!
   
   Before I read this book, I did not even know what a Kurd was, but you will come to admire the spirit of the Kurdish people and their struggle to survive in the current day through war, suppression, genocide and their unfathomable faith in their right to survive. This is a truly harsh environment as the people struggle day by day to survive.
   
   Follow the story of a family's struggles in war torn Iraq as our heroine, Joanna, carries us through stories of oppression of Muslim women, heart breaking tales of torture and loss, warm sharings of people reaching out to comfort when none seems to be had, harrowing narratives of a people's struggle to survive. Against all odds, this brave woman survives and lives to tell the tale of how she was determined to live the life she wanted no matter the cost.
   
   As you cower under your covers, you will read of the bombings of Baghdad and the Northern Iraq mountains where learning "that whatever one might be doing here, half the mind will not be focusing on the task at hand, but instead on the sounds and sights from the skies" is a crucial lesson. Joanna applies this lesson as her ears are tuned for the shrill whistling resonance of shells, or for the noisy roar of an airplane or helicopter engine while she is preparing a meager breakfast that may only consist of rice. Our heroine suffered through narrow escapes in treacherous places only to place herself in an area targeted for race eliminating scourges. She suffers the heartbreak of the loss of loved ones, is often on the brink of starvation, poisoned and blinded by gas - but almost never loses her spirit and will to survive. Just imagine thinking you are in heaven to have a shelter over your head that is crawling with scorpions, `despite the fact that there was no electricity, no running water, and no toilets".
   
   This eye opening book just may have you clamouring for more of Jean Sasson's books as she supports the efforts of women whose voices must be heard.



4. It is hard to believe that this story is non-fiction given the never-ending twists and turns, intense drama and the perfect love story that unfolds. It was hard to put this book down!
   
   This is Jean Sassoon's best book to date. There is far less of the distracting shifting back and forth that I found to be a problem in the construction of her earlier books. Her descriptions are richer, more vivid. I used to live in Kurdistan, and her descriptions are very true to life!
   
   I think this book does more to advance the Kurdish cause than any documentary I have seen! The harsh life under both the Baathists and the Iranian government is fairly portrayed. You will come away impressed with the strength of the Peshmergas and very grateful for your own soft bed and other creature comforts.
   
   I do wish that the author had not been in such a rush to move the characters from Iran to London. I would have loved to have read more about Joanna's trials and tribulations in the Kurdish area of Iran and in Damascus. The adjustment to living in London would also have made for interesting reading.



5. I briefly had an understanding of where Kurdistan was. That the "Kurds" were yet another minority being persecuted in our world. "Love in a Torn Land" has somewhat educated me as to their history and current situation. In a most entertaining manner. I salute both the author and the heroine. Thank you for letting me into the Kurdistan situation. Why can't we not only just not get along but need to bomb and chemically bomb a nation out of existance? The thing is, it is happening right now in Kurdistan and "most" other parts of our earth. I lie here in my comfortable bed wishing I could help. THANK YOU again.
   peter

No comments about La Era de las Turbulencias.

5 comments about Churchill.

1. This was a fine biography on Churchill. At its heart, this book is a comprehensive political summary of one of the world's best politicians. Jenkins does a great job of surrounding the moment with context and analysis. His mastery of British politics is unreal.
   
   With all that said, the book did have a few flaws. First, it was hard to grasp the ins and outs of the British political process which Jenkins discusses at great lengths (this could be my fault as I am an American). Second, there was not enough character development. Jenkins references countless people, but does not take the time to highlight, or bring about, who ultimately has a major role. To this end, I feel there was a certain extent of "name-dropping" in the tome. At times, this made the book harder to navigate through with ease. Finally, I don't know French or Afrikaans, or Latin. So those phrases in foreign languages fell upon deaf ears (or perhaps blind eyes is the more appropriate description).
   
   Overall, a great book. I enjoyed Jenkins mastery of the subject matter, and his writing is fantastic. I have not read other Churchill bios before, but would certainly recommend this to a history buff.



2. Think Robert Kosowsky's review is pretty much on the mark.
   
   Historical events are not presented except in relation to timing and political positioning by Churchill and others. For example, if you don't know about the Dardenelles operation of WW1, this book will not help you. Despite the final line of the book, this is not uncritical of Churchill and at times makes him appear to be motivated by politics as much as anything else (the author was a MP and in the Cabinet so was a political animal too). This does not ring entirely false as it makes it easier to understand his switching of political parties. And this makes it a good counter to Churchill's own books which are at times clearly self-serving.



3. For several years I have wanted to read a biography on Churchill. This past summer I finally broke down and purchased the 900+ page book written by Roy Jenkins.
   
   It has only taken six months to finish it. True, I had a dissertation to write and exams to study for. But regardless the book was slow going.
   
   The author is a politician and a writer - much like Churchill. Consequently, Jenkins focuses the book on the intricacies of Churchill's political and journalistic careers. Fair enough.
   
   Churchill's political life and to a lesser extent his various literary endeavors are key to understanding Britain's greatest prime minister. But the details, though interesting, slowly wear down the resolve of the reader.
   
   For example, the beginning and ending of the book flows well as Churchill's family heritage and retirement are explored; in other words, the parts of Churchill's life which are the least political and literary.
   
   Yet by the time we reach his parliamentary career and the two world wars the book descends into minute detail. Minute details about his toast filled summits with Stalin - interesting. Minute details about his administration of the Admiralty - not so much.
   
   Further, he dedicates a surprisingly small amount of space to some very important events - such as the Battle of Britain.
   
   Yet, to be fair, Jenkins provides an excellent overview of Churchill's life. It is also inevitable that certain areas of interest to the reader will not coincide with that of the author.
   
   Indeed, the biographer's experience in British politics provides rare insights: the great PM's great ambition was getting power, using power and retaining power. So, the way Jenkins skillfully dissects and interprets Churchill's various power struggles makes the book worth reading.
   
   Summary: The book is a great introduction to Churchill, with a special focus on his political and literary careers. Yet the combination of the books length and the author's devotion to great detail could prove fatal to the unmotivated.
   
   I would recommend the book to anyone interested in 20th century history, modern British history and of course Churchill. But I would recommend that the reader take long breaks between each of the six sections.



4. This is too long - all biographers should read and learn from Lytton Strachey.
   
   But Churchill's life was so over the top that its nevertheless an enjoyable read; more so with two provisos:
   
   1. You have to be at least constructively disposed to Winston. Better still if you downright adore him, as Roy plainly does.
   
   2. The most lovingly recounted incidents are those that took place in and around parliamentary life, the life that Roy Jenkins himself knew best. Its very, very well told, but if you didn't happen to be an MP yourself you might find it a little too detailed, in the sense that what others might consider to be the main story seems to be lost sight of, sometimes.



5. I didn't finish this book. Jenkins just throws his note cards at the hapless reader. The editor was awol. Stick with Gilbert. Alternatively, start with Manchester's unfinished bio (to 1940) & then switch to Churchill's memoirs.

5 comments about Mankiller: A Chief and Her People.

1. In "Mankiller: A Chief and Her People," author and former Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller recounts her experiences growing up on reservations, government relocation, and her activism in Indian affairs.
   This book is well written and offers, if nothing else, of a peek into the mid 20th century Native American and reservation experience.
   There is no doubt that those of us with Native American heritage, particularly Cherokees, have ancestors who have been dealt less than a fair hand throughout the history of the United States. But I find it unfortunate when such potentially powerful leaders of social movements seeking to rise above past adversities, place generalized blame on the "white" community at-large for current problems. It is regrettable that Mankiller, who is herself half-white, can wholly reject one part of her heritage while fully embracing the other.
   Mankiller speaks with contempt of the "white lady" do-gooders, who tried to reach out to her as a reservation bound child. This is precisely the type of racial bitterness that keeps many fellow modern Native Americans "victims," feeling helpless and reservation bound.
   Cherokee heritage has a long history of acceptance and assimilation, not necessarily just into white culture either. Other cultures (even Europeans) were long accepted into early tribal clans.
   While we must never forget the reprehensible Trail Of Tears or any other federally sanctioned forced relocation of any tribe or peoples. There comes a time however, when all persecuted cultures must move foreword, as the tribe most certainly has. We must begin to embrace the long acknowledged civility and citizenship of the Cherokee people and stop seeking modern scapegoats for our moments of misery.
   Having said this, I commend Mankiller for achievements in both American and Cherokee societies. To have witnessed the transitions of Native American culture at the height and hub of the American Civil Rights Movement grants Mankiller the prerogative to share her story and her perspectives in this book.
   REVIEW EVERY BOOK YOU READ, AUTHORS DESERVE READER'S OPINIONS!



2. I read this one in four days ~~ it helped that we had some downtime while camping in a small state park. It is a wonderful memoir about a strong woman who, in spite of physical obstacles, managed to lead the second largest Indian Tribe in America. It is not just a memoir about a strong woman, it is also a history of a strong Indian tribe. It is an absolutely wonderful book and one that every serious reader of history should read.
   
   I picked this book up two years ago while traveling in Cherokee, NC, and never found the time to read it till recently, when I knew that we would be outside and camping again. (It seems that I do my best reading when we're traveling ...) I found the subject title fascinating and when I did finally get to the book, I found it even more fascinating and curious. This is a woman in every sense of the word. Wilma Mankiller is a heroine that every woman should look up to ~~ young and old.
   
   Wilma Mankiller grew up in poverty-stricken Oklahoma and while she was still young, her family relocated to California as part of the Native American relocation program that was offered just after WWII. She grew up in California, married young and had two daughters. She became involved with the civil rights movement and at the same time, she has never lost sense of her own heritage. After her marriage fell apart, she moved back home to Oklahoma, went onto working for the Cherokee National Tribe doing various things and eventually became the first Woman Chief. Intermixed with her personal tale are ancient stories from the Cherokee history ~~ of the times before they left their homelands, about the Trail of Tears, and so on. It's history mixed in with personal story-telling and it's a wonderful way to read this book.
   
   Unlike some reviewers, I did not find Mankiller bashing the whites for all their problems ~~ she was very diplomatic in telling the readers about the history ~~ but the history has shown that when the white settlers came to America, they did break treaties and their promises, and there's reason why the Native Americans don't trust them ~~ the government of US and its citizens have not given them reason to. But on the same breath, Mankiller mentions that her tribe has a hard time with change ~~ she doesn't sit there and bemoaned the loss of their ancient lands, she gets out and work on solving the problems that her tribe is facing. She admits that change has occurred and she's very realistic about fixing the problems. I cannot but help admire her for that.
   
   This is an excellent book ~~ it's guaranteed to be a thought-provoker in conversations and discourses ~~ at least it has for my husband and me. It is such an interesting tale about a woman who never learned the words, I can't. She never gave up the fight for her people. This book is just a small testimony to that fight.
   
   8-13-07



3. This book was horrendous. She is an ultra-sensitive cry baby who can't move on with her life. Aside from her life which literally has almost no accomplishments, the history of the Cherokees is just as boring. She rambles on and on about treaties and agreements that were broken by the united states and won't shutup about it the whole book. We get it, america ripped the native americans off. big deal. that's history, might makes right, and many nations in history faired worse off than the indians. countries have attacked each other for land for years, at least we allowed them to continue to exist. then, somehow she compares the trail of tears to the holocaust, which is just ridiculous. theres a difference between a walk that they chose to take by not previously cooperating, and a genocide of 6 millions jews through torture and starvation.
   
   DONT READ THIS BOOK



4. For anyone interested in Native American History this is an excellent book. The book chronicles the life of the former Cherokee Chief Wilma Mankiller during times of political Native American activism and the fight of not only Cherokee people, but Native Americans as a whole during her lifetime. It is candid about the struggles Native Americans faced due to government programs of relocation and the struggle to make it in the white world while maintaining their Indian heritage and culture. In addition to providing a detailed account of Mankiller's life, the book gives a detailed account of the history of the Cherokee Nation and their struggles with removal, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, oppressive legislation, and issues faced on reservations.



5. To me this is an excellent purchase. I can relate to many of the author's passages from the time she resided in California, memories of same have been brought to mind, in a positive sense.

5 comments about A Secret Life: The Polish Officer, His Covert Mission, and the Price He Paid to Save His Country.

1. "Sometimes it's not enough to do what is right, sometimes one must do what is necessary." Ryszard Kuklinski knew what was right, did what was necessary...and paid a terrible price.
   
   Benjamin Weiser's riveting work A SECRET LIFE, on Polish hero Ryszard Kuklinski, is an enlightening look back into the dark intrigue, personal danger, and moral dilemmas surrounding one military officer's private battles to liberate his country from totalitarianism. Most importantly, this work shatters the left-wing's liberal illusion of "peaceful coexistence" with a communist system whose very raison d' etre is the destruction of freedom, democracy and enslavement of the West.
   
   Kuklinski saw internal conflict to evict the alien system imposed upon his country by the USSR--as opposed to connivance or the wishful thinking of ideological transformation through "gradualism," favored by some of his Polish General Staff contemporaries, who, for lack of courage or personal gain, fully cooperated with their harsh Soviet task masters--as the only realistic option for peace in the face of Poland's likely nuclear annihilation, had war ensued with the United States. He dared to act accordingly, becoming an agent of change feeding top-secret Warsaw Pact military information to the CIA; thereby, tipping the balance of power in favor of liberty, while loosening the demoralizing death-grip of communist rule over Eastern Europe, as a de facto one-man Polish Underground.
   
   When considering the totality of personal sacrifice and enormity of danger faced by Kuklinski, in his nearly solitary and single-handed struggle against radical, state-sponsored evil--who carried a suicide pill to end his life if caught and was sentenced to death, in absentia, by the Polish Military Court--moral giants like Kurt Gerstein and Aleksander Solzhenitsyn come to mind. It saddens me that former communist collaborators or sympathizers, like Aleksander Kwasniewski, were celebrated or elevated to significant post-Soviet leadership positions and societal prominence, while the country remains bitterly divided over Kuklinski, who has yet to be nationally vindicated, though history has already done so.
   
   Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzesinski said it best when he honored him with the words traditionally reserved for decorating Polish soldiers: "Pan sie dobrze Polsce zasluzyl: You have served Poland well." Rest in peace Colonel Kuklinski.



2. Weiser's detailed and measured tale of Kuklinski's historical contribution to Cold War espionage is to be read and enjoyed. His story is taut and thrilling and reminds one of a good John Le Carre novel. Beyond the issue of whether Kuklinski is a hero or traitor to the Polish nation [which is fairly raised and detailed by the author], Weiser never loses control of the subject matter, and, of the abundant documentation he uncovered in his unique access to CIA records. He instills Kuklinski with humanity and sense of Polish nationalism. A fine work to be read and enjoyed.



3. Gen. Kuklinski's efforts against a communist system controlled by an outside power seems commendable on the outside, but what everyone here seems to forget is that the same CIA that worked with Kuklinski, supposedly to 'fight communist tyrrany' was the same one involved in overthrowing legitimate governments, repressing independence movements, funding terrorism, assasinating foreign leaders who did not see eye to eye with US government policies and interests as well as many other unpleasant acts that sadly too many people either do not know about or do not care to remember.
   
   What Gen. Kuklinski did or did not do is known only to him and his CIA handlers. But things in this book must be taken with a grain of salt. In the cold war, the CIA was notorious for anti-Soviet false flag operations and disinformation propaganda. I only read half of the book and did not bother finishing it. Some of the events might have been outright fabrications.
   As far as whether Gen. Kuklinski was a traitor or patriot in the end really depends on which side one is on. To Gen. Jaruzelski, Kuklinski is a traitor while to some CIA official Kuklinski is a hero. But let's take it from another angle: Suppose Gen. Kuklinski's espionage efforts resulted in a covert CIA Op which ended up killing a bunch of Polish civilians? How would that be seen?
   What is Gen. Kuklinski's legacy? It is one of selling out one miserable SOB to another miserable SOB, for a price.



4. "A Secret Life" is a gripping read for two key reasons. First and foremost, it is a suspenseful espionage tale with unpredictable twists and turns. To me, it even stands among the best fictional works of that genre by Le Carre and Ludlum.
   
   The second reason is more holistic. The author, New York Times journalist Benjamin Weiser, has gotten at Kuklinski's heart and managed to successfully explore his motives and ethical dilemma for providing intelligence to the CIA. Kuklinski did not make this decision lightly. He felt morally obligated to do so, and his reasons for doing so are clearly spelled out in the book. When you read about these reasons, it's very difficult to disagree with him. (I do not understand the reviewers who call him a traitor.)
   
   I would recommend this book regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-CIA. Some reviewers here claim that Weiser's purpose was to naively lavish the agency with biased praise. In his introduction, however, Weiser references the "justified criticism" that the organization has endured due to its activities over the years, and goes on to say that Kuklinski's story demonstrates that human intelligence operations can succeed brilliantly, and should serve as an example for such future operations.



5. Move over, James Bond! Instead of repeating other reviewers, let's focus mostly on the intelligence-gathering aspects of this thriller.
   
   Imagine that you're Ryszard Kuklinski. The best way to avoid excessive surveillance by Communist counterintelligence is to make your daily routine as predictable as possible. You get a dog so that you can stroll around the neighborhood naturally. You give and receive signals to and from your contacts with chalk marks on the pavement. (These sometimes get washed away). You use your wife's iron to reveal messages in invisible ink, and take up hobby photography as a cover for photography of another kind.
   
   You dislike dead-drops because, for one thing, someone else might stumble upon them. You use the brush pass. As you walk per your usual routines, you turn into one of those impossible-to-predict labyrinthic streets so that you are out of prying eyes for a few precious seconds. During this time, you exchange packages with another agent.
   
   The brush passes go uneventfully--until one night. No sooner is it completed than you are hit by the headlights of a car. You try to duck into a side street but your move is anticipated. Finally, you shake off the pursuer. Were you seen well enough by the driver to be positively identified? You think/hope not. But just in case, you get a haircut. Luckily this time, you are safe.
   
   Even little slip-ups can be killers. At one point, your son finds a secret note that you had carelessly taped too lightly on the underside of a piece of furniture. You cannot account for a roll of film, and your colleagues speak of the discovery of a "spy film". (It later turns up in the pocket of your seldom-used shirt). At another time, you are in another world, and you crash face-first into a pillar while carrying sensitive information. Nice way to be unobtrusive!
   
   Picture yourself (pardon the pun) getting caught red-handed, by an officer entering the room, taking surreptitious photos of classified documents. You act normal, but cannot get over the fear that the officer has seen exactly what you were doing and will report you. Then, when nothing seems to happen, you still fear that you are being carefully monitored so that the Communist counterintelligence can trace your contacts and then trap everyone.
   
   You had better not carry a gun because, if you use it and then seek refuge in the US Embassy, the Communist authorities may have legal grounds to have you turned over to them. You fully realize that, if caught, you will be tortured into divulging information, and then be executed. Besides, the Communists will make a spectacle of you for propaganda purposes. For this reason, you request a suicide pill from the CIA. They at first refuse, fearing that an agent may take it in a moment of panic, or that the discovery of the poison could itself be used for propaganda purposes. But in the end the CIA provides the pill--inside a pen.
   
   In any Soviet-NATO war, Poland would be the route for 95% of the Soviet military advance. Poland would then get hit with 400-600 nuclear bombs in an attempt to stop the Soviet advance without escalating the conflict into a full-blown Soviet-US nuclear holocaust (p. 16). No wonder Kuklinski realized that Poland was doomed! (Some conspiracy-minded Poles suggested that the Polack joke syndrome had been a concerted effort to demean Poland so that the American public wouldn't protest too much the future destruction of Poland).
   
   Kuklinski's achievements were staggering: Tens of thousands of highly-classified Soviet documents passed on to the US (p. 300). And that was just the beginning. After his flight to the US, Kuklinski provided much information during his debriefing. May he be forever honored, and rest in peace!

5 comments about Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers.

1. I PERSONALLY LIKE HILLARY CLINTON BUT THIS BOOK GETS IT'S CREDIBILITY FROM THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PRO AND CON HILLARY REVIEWS.
   DO I THINK SHE COULD MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE IN OUR COUNTRY AND THE PATH ON WHICH IT IS HEADED....ABSOLUTELY.
   THE FACT IS THAT IF BILL CLINTON COULD RUN AGAIN HE WOULD HAVE WON AND I JUST FEEL HIS EXPERIENCE ENHANCES WHAT SHE ALLREADY BRINGS TO THE TABLE.
   GOOD READ!!



2. I was a little bit shocked at the negative ways to look at Hillary Clinton, but there were some balanced articles, especially Dr. Deborah Tannen's, that I thought were informative and eye-opening about the double standards women face. There were a few positives, but not enough for someone who wants a review from the perspective of someone who has actually experienced this campaign, and thinks it has been as revealing about our pervasive sexism and the media's mysogyny, as it has been about political issues and campaign styles.



3. Is there anyone who is neutral about Hillary Clinton? It isn't even as simple as you love her or you hate her, although there are plenty of people who do simply love her or hate her. Many of us want to like her or used to like her or liked her during the brief period between finding out about Bill's Oval Office tryst with an intern and the moment she uttered "vast right-wing conspiracy." Quite a few people would love to see a woman as president but can't bear the thought of that woman being Hillary Clinton. What is it about her? What is it about us?
   
   Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary gathers thirty essays by women who think and write for a living. Most of the pieces here take the subject seriously, notwithstanding a trivial piece by Susan Orlean on whether Clinton is a cat person or a dog person and a mock high school yearbook page by Patricia Marx ("pet peeves: bad punctuation, martial law"). Some essays seem frivolous at first, but turn out to be quite thoughtful, such as Mimi Sheraton's look at Hillary through her taste in food and Lauren Collins on Clinton's apparent lack of hobbies.
   
   Several writers have written about Hillary Clinton before and stand by their controversial opinions such as Robin Givhan on Clinton's cleavage. On the other hand, Judith Warner all but apologizes for her 1992 biography, Hillary Clinton: The Inside Story: Revised and Updated, which at least one reviewer called a hagiography.
   
   There are no right-wing hit jobs in this collection, but Laura Kipnis does a survey of Hillary biographies (many of which fall into the hit job category) and finds they reveal more about the authors than about Clinton. Rebecca Mead examines how women presidents have been portrayed in movies and TV.
   
   Deborah Tannen explores the double standard that women in authority face in the most even-handed piece in the book. Letty Cottin Pogrebin observes that for women leaders, widowhood is a plus. Susan Lehman speculates on how fifteen years as a corporate lawyer formed Clinton's outlooks and habits. Lara Vapnyar gives us the Russian view of women in power (not favorable).
   
   The writers here ponder Clinton's name changes, her changes in appearance, her vote to go to war in Iraq. They consider her marriage, her career as a lawyer, and the compromises she's made as a politician. You may not come to any new conclusions about Clinton, but Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary will give you some original angles on a very provocative subject.



4. Whether you love Hillary or hate her, no doubt you've got a strong opinion about the woman. But the emotions evoked in you by Hillary Clinton probably speak less to Hillary's character than to your underlying attitudes about strong, independent, self-reliant women. So goes the premise of THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: REFLECTIONS BY WOMEN WRITERS. (And, um, pretty much anyone who's been overwhelmed by the misogyny and racism permeating this year's election cycle, natch.)
   
   In THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, thirty prominent female journalistas wax poetic on what Hillary means to them. No aspect of Hillary's life and character is too mundane or sacrosanct: everything from Hillary's infamous pantsuits to her marriage to Bill (or "secret pact," as some paranoid pundits might call it) and her every-changing coif goes under the microscope. As a result, some of the pieces are rather fluffy (Mimi Sheraton's "How Hungry is Hillary?: Reading the Culinary Clues" and Susan Orlean's "Political Animals: Is Hillary a Cat Person or a Dog Person?" spring to mind), but it's all in good fun. In this vein, Patricia Marx's satirical "From the 1965 Eyrie Yearbook" is especially entertaining; it reads like a transcript of an SNL segment. (Hello, Amy Polar!)
   
   Most of the thirty essays, while entertaining, are far from frivolous. While many of the writers tackle seemingly trivial topics (pantsuits, hairstyles and surnames, oh my!), these are usually circuitous routes to grander points; the way in which changes in Hillary's wardrobe correspond to her increasingly moderate (pandering?) political positions, for example, or what Hillary's favorite books reveal about her child- and adulthood. The pieces of Hillary expounded upon by each individual author also say a great deal about that author; in "Hello, My Name Is...," Cristina (no "H"!) Henriquez speaks eloquently about her conflicting identities as an Panamanian woman born and raised in America.
   
   While I expected that most of the thirty essays would touch upon the misogyny that's colored this campaign season, not all of the writers deal explicitly with the anti-woman backlash that Hillary inspires in so many men (and not a few women). However, there are a few great pieces on the subject, including an essay by the always-awesome Katha Pollitt ("Hillary Rotten: Sexist Sticks and Stones") and must-read from Leslie Bennetts ("Beyond Gender: The Revenge of the Postmenopausal Woman"). Though I'm not familiar with all of the contributors, most seem somewhat feminist-minded, with the sole exception of Robin Givhan ("The Road to Cleavagegate: What Do We Want Female Power to Look Like?"). Givhan, you might recall, is the Washington Post reporter who "broke" the Cleavagegate "story." (Scare quotes because it's neither breaking nor a story. "This just in! Hillary Clinton, the female Senator from New York, HAS BREASTS! More on this shocking development at nine!") She spends much of her essay defending her own misogyny, arguing that it's perfectly a-ok to judge Hillary - and, by extension, all women - on her physical appearance. What's next, repenting to the Fashion Gods for wearing scrunchies and headbands after 1991? I don't agree wholeheartedly with every sentiment expressed in THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, but Givhan's was the only essay that truly strikes me as out of place.
   
   The other twenty-nine essays, on the other hand, represent a diverse and enjoyable read. At the end of the book, I found myself wistful for '70s Hillary, in all her radfem blamer glory. 2008 Hillary, not so much.
   
   Full disclosure: I voted for Kucinich in the primaries. I'm not crazy about Hillary or Barack, but I'll most likely vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Unless it comes out that Barack eats puppies or Hillary is a closet Ann Coulter fan. And, for the record, I'm disgusted with the misogyny and racism emanating from either side of the Dem aisle.
   
   P.S. Dear Mimi Sheraton - If your Boca Burgers resemble "miserably limp, grassy-tasting little disks that might be produced by Rubbermaid," then you're doing it wrong. Unless you're rubbing defrosted Boca Burgers on your lawn, ain't no way they come out tasting like grass. As for the so-called "limpness," the only time I've cooked up a limp Boca Burger is by over- or under-cooking it in the microwave. Grilling and pan-frying them, not so much. So stop hating on the Boca Burgers when it's clearly the cook's fault. (Yeah, I'm a vegan. What of it?)



5. I'm betting the editors of the recently released collection of essays called Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary were assuming the presidential political landscape would look a bit different today, at least from a marketing point of view.
   
   If the primary race was over and Hillary had become the Democratic nominee after Super Tuesday, as many expected would happen, they probably sensed that this baby would be a best-seller.
   
   There isn't a lot that's particularly revealing about Clinton in Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary. It's more a volume of essays about how the various authors feel about her and view her in ways (usually) not covered by the main stream media.
   
   I was a little surprised at the critical and sometimes flip tone of some of the authors. Some of the essays ponder who is the real HRC? Is she a dog person or a cat person? Is she better or worse than Lady Macbeth? What did she like to snack on in the White House?
   
   (Can you imagine the outcry if someone had written a similar volume about any of the men candidates?)
   
   While entertaining and well-written, I'd like to look at Hillary in a 31st way.
   
   What would her candidacy have looked like if she hadn't married Bill?
   
   What if she had married someone else, kept her name and was still Hillary Rodham? If we take the Bill Clinton lens off the glasses through which we scrutinize Hillary, what would an objective look at her candidacy be? I have a feeling it would be much more charitable in terms of her experience, her personality and her judgment.
   
   To be sure, there are plenty of more serious essays in the Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, but I was saddened that the publisher was more concerned about having people write about Hillary's hobbies, or lack thereof, than taking a real look at this woman and what has propelled her to this place in life.
   
   No, it wasn't meant to be a biography, but when we write about women candidates in this way, do we continue to diminish them, as well as ourselves?

5 comments about Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. What a tremendous biography, or actually one third of a biography, as this is the first of a projected three volumne work. It is hard to imagine someone having a career like this today, although to be fair to our own times, Teddy Roosevelt was a dynamo by the standards of his own era as well.
   
   The books only covers Roosevelt's life up until he becomes president, but because of Roosevelt's statue, drive and intellect, and Morris' thorough research, expert analysis and superb writing, it is also a very exciting view into America in the second half of the 19th century. A total of 700 pages and at the end I could not wait to start the next volume, Theodore Rex (Modern Library Paperbacks)



2. I could not put it down. A wonderfully written book about an exciting president, with great photos included. I enjoyed it so much, that I started the sequel, Theodore Rex, immediately after finishing. I recommend it highly.



3. This book details what an extraordinary man President Roosevelt was.
   Physically and intellectually, there was never a president like him or perhaps, anyone else. His leadership skills were second to none as well as his integrity. He was one of a kind and the mold was broken with his passing. Beware, reading this book may make you feel somewhat inadequate. But, reading this book will also give you great insight to a great man. A role model in many ways.



4. My Son commented to me that I give a lot of 5 Star reviews. Yes, I do. And why not, every Saturday I pore over the New York Times Book Review. I also subscribe to the London Review of Books. Before I purchase a book I do research it.
   I've read Edmund Morris' narrative of the formative years of Theodore Roosevelt. I've learned the following:
   1. Theodore was born to wealth and privilege in 1858 before the Civil War.
   2. Teedie fought ill health with asthma and through sheer will overcame its disabilities.
   3. He disciplined and willed himself to extraordinary study to graduate from Harvard.
   4. At a young age he saw himself as a Patrician seeking to help humanity as a New York City Police Commissioner and later Governor of the State of New York.
   5. He survived the death of his wife and mother on the same day.
   6. He became the leading American to begin an appreciation for life in the great outdoors. This later led to the development of the National Park System when he became President.
   Edmund Morris brings all this to life with a fiction like narrative. But what makes the book great is that is was a real. He won a Pulitzer Prize for this book. OK Scott, it does rate 5 Stars!!



5. I'll spare the details that others have provided and simply at my 2 cents:
   
   This is, simply, a great biography. I found it an incredibly easy read, despite its astonishing depth (and length). The sheer detail and volume of primary sources is fascinating but nothing can outdo the awesomeness of the book's subject matter. Roosevelt springs from the pages and looms like a giant over the history of the United States. His astonishing memory, his endless reserves of energy, his expertise in such diverse fields, and his rigid morality make him seem more like a legend than a man and the book conveys a sense of u
   
   This is a must read for students of American history or those interested in the great presidents of US history.

5 comments about In Nixon's Web: A Year in the Crosshairs of Watergate.

1. What a great book. L. Patrick Gray is a tragic figure. Stumbles into the FBI Directorship job, gets caught up in all the FBI backstabbing, and on top of it, gets his name thrown in with the criminals of Watergate. Even more tragic is that Mark Felt comes out a hero for being Deep Throat.
   
   Without giving anything away, Nixon's Web will give the interested Watergate reader a very different perspective. It's really easy and good reading. I like the style, it's to the point, very little fluff if any. It's a shame that Gray didn't come out with this sooner, but the announcement of Deep Throat compelled him to break his long silence.
   
   If you've been a Watergate reader, you absolutely cannot go without reading this book.



2. I found the book fascinating. It was a real page-turner for me. Parts are absolutely gripping, especially when L. Patrick Gray is sitting in Nixon's office perplexed at what his boss is trying to tell him. Gray is an honest man and a straight-shooter and Nixon is trying to get him to be a conspirator without coming right out and saying it. Gray's mind just doesn't have a place for the idea that the President of the United States is a criminal.
   
   Although I was only a boy when the Watergate scandal broke, it was a
   formative chapter in my life. One of my early memories is watching my
   father (a Massachusetts McGovern supporter) listen to the 1972 returns
   in dismay. Later I watched the Watergate hearings on TV at school, transfixed by the historic importance of what was happening.
   
   I've since been keenly aware of the far-reaching damage Nixon did to our
   country. I was less cognizant of the damage he and his henchmen
   inflicted on the personal lives of so many. L. Patrick Gray's story brings this starkly to light.
   
   The extent to which the book also puts the press in a bad light is timely. I was one of those, reared on the Woodward and Bernstein myth of reporter as white knight. In the past 15 years I've come to see the press more for what it is, a self-serving business/political entity. I know there are people of good faith in both government and the press, but they don't seem to be the ones running show, bless 'em for keeping at it!
   
   This book starts to rewrite the fictional construct "Deep Throat" that Woodward and Bernstein created in order to sell a book and a movie, and cast themselves as heroes in the process. "All the President's Men" is a good story but it's far from the truth. "In Nixon's Web" is a first hand account backed up with FBI files, Senate Committee testimony, and the famous White House tapes.
   
   Patrick Gray, a highly respected naval submarine commander, accomplished lawyer and former assistant Attorney General, doesn't cast himself here as a hero, just someone trying to do the best he can for his country. He admits to being naive, especially in trusting people who have been given a high level of trust by the entire nation.
   
   Watergate left a lot of U.S. citizens disillusioned with their government. Patrick Gray was one of them. He has every right to be bitter, but this is not a bitter story. It's a tragedy told directly and without embellishment. The events themselves are enough for a terrific tale.



3. Very good historical review that clears up several mysteries. L. Patrick Gray make a good case for clearing up misstatements about his involvement in Watergate and indicates why the one person identified as the Deep Throat source actually had to be more than one person. Resentment about an outsider being appointed as head of the FBI turns out to be the reason for most of the leaks. Gray defended the FBI based on good faith that his associates wee truthful.
   
   The packaging was a problem. The plastic tabs that were to be lifted to get the discs out were not well separated despite the grooves. I actually damaged one disc beyond use by my attempts to get to it.



4. This book is very easy to read and extemely interesting. I felt very bad for Pat Gray because he is still accused of things that he was never found guilty of doing. He tried to change the FBI and the people working closest with him were never on his side. It's a sad story. I was very disappointed in Mark Felt, Bernstein and Woodward. Felt lied to Gray on many occasions, probably because he wanted the top job. Felt was convicted of crimes but Gray never was and Gray received apologies from the senators who accused him of crimes. Gray's son interviews Bernstein and Woodward about their ongoing accusations against his father. Woodward comes across very badly because he can't seem to explain the notes that he took while writing his book, even though they don't match the Watergate tapes. After reading this, I'm convinced that Felt was not "deep throat". No question that "deep throat" was a combination of a lot of different people who liked to leak information without giving their names. Great book!!!



5. In Nixon's Web is a valuable source for Watergate junkies. It also provides new information about the Hoover-era FBI and the actions of old guard Hoover loyalists like Mark Felt. Finally, it fleshes out our picture of L. Patrick Gray who for too long has been portrayed as a cardboard villain in order to highlight the noble heroism of Deep Throat.
   
   The flesh and blood Mark felt comes off badly in Gray's telling. He was an inveterate leaker--not just to Woodward but to the New York Times and Time magazine as well. His leaks were not confined to Watergate but were aimed at discrediting Gray and his attempts to curb the tyrannical abuses of Hoover and his minions. Moreover, when confronted about the leaks, Felt lied and tried to direct suspicion at other, innocent parties.
   
   Ed Gray has also unearthed powerful evidence that Woodward overstated Felt's role and credited Deep Throat with information that came from other sources. The "Deep Throat as composite" theory is far from dead.