5 comments about The Blair Years: The Alastair Campbell Diaries.

1. You don't have to go far into this "diary" to discover it's a highly interesting and possibly questionable account of the times but an account that has been not only excised of any substance but of any objectivity too. Therefore it fails as a diary and becomes a very monochrome and monotone account of.......well what? Campbell was well know in Fleet Street as a partial leaker of government business. That is the way the system works. If you were in favour by printing favourable things about "Nu" Labour then you got his highly coloured stories. Woe betide you if you printed the truth, locked out of the circle of knowledge you were left with crumbs from the table. And so "Nu" Labour set out with Campbell to control the press, sometime sucessful, sometimes with spectacular failure (Honours for money). Whatever Campbells truth is, it is his own and he should be left to it and his own fantacies!



2. mr campbell wrote every thing about sir tony blair in the period from 1994-2003 you will feel you are working & living in 10 downing street or in the labour party -before they became in power in 1997- really good job . iam waiting for mr blair diaraes which i heard that it will be released in 2008 to have the complete view about the most powerful british prime minester since margret tatcher



3. Until Tony Blair himself publishes his account of his time in office, this has to be the next best thing. Although most of the daily entries are short, it conveys the mood. Sunday morning confabs to determine the appropriate response to a breaking story, speechwriting on airplanes, careful feeding of information to journalists, it is all here. I found myself thinking " *that's* how they did it".
   
   There are also many amusing/bizarre anecdotes such as Campbell walking in on Mo Mowlan in the bath.
   
   The Diana parts felt set up to me. We hear about how she wanted to meet Campbell, then they met, she asks for him later, and then of course her crash and death. His affection for her seems somewhat overblown, and it says something of his reputation that I found myself believing his portrayal in "The Queen", coldly feeding the "People's Princess" line to Blair, more than his own diaries. The cartoonish version of Campbell as the arch spin doctor is now a cultural fixture of its own, turning up not only in "The Queen" but in books like "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen". I wonder what Campbell must think about that.
   
   Ambition and rivaly are never far from the surface. When describing Blair's lengths football header session with Kevin Keegan, Campbell is careful to note that it was easier than it seemed, since "of course a professional like Keegan can head the ball towards a target in the same way most of us can throw it, so it wasn't that difficult."
   
   I found it amusing that Campbell goes out of his way not to to use the word "spin". I expect that he became thoroughly sick of hearing that word.
   
   Note that this is "Extracts from" Alastair Campbell's diaries. The really secret stuff is, well, secret.



4. This book was returned due to its poor quality. There was simply no way I could present this book as a gift due to the cut of the pages. Please improve your product standards.



5. Whereas the recently released diaries of President Reagan were an approachable exercise in easy readability that never excluded facts and anecdotes about the personages of the age, this diary is truly for hard-core political aficionados only. I can read almost anything, and even I had trouble getting through The Blair Years. What's wrong here? Well, the typeface was poorly chosen, the writing style was distancing at best, and even the entries themselves were printed too closely together and should have been better designed. In the end everything about this work serves to put a reader off.
   
   For every interesting piece about, say, dinner with Princess Diana (who served Mr. Campbell tea), the Queen's bored reaction to the Millennium celebrations, or juicy details on Bill Clinton's personal opinion of then-President elect Bush, there are scores of entries that cover minutia so densely recorded that I truly think this is a book that will be of greatest value to a graduate student studying foreign affairs, or a future historian who wishes to research the Blair years. The average reader hoping to get a backstage pass to politics as undertaken at 10 Downing Street will probably do better looking elsewhere.
   
   While Campbell is comprehensive, he is not (at least as evidenced here) gifted with those talents that make for an engrossing reading experience.

5 comments about The Autobiography Of Eleanor Roosevelt (Quality Paperbacks Series).

1. Eleanor Roosevelt's autobiography provides very little information about her life. She vaguely refers to many seemingly important events (such as the death of her father, her husband's presidency) with little emotion and no detail whatsoever. If you know a lot about her and the politics of the time already, it may offer an interesting perspective. If you want to know details of ER's incredibly interesting life, read her biography by Blanch Weisen Cook.



2. If you're looking for a "first" Eleanor biography, don't start with this one. Read it eventually, but not at first.
   
   If you have read her collected writings, "No Ordinary Time" or the biography(ies) by Blanche Wiesen Cook this autobiography is a much needed voice. It may not be as engrossing or tantlizing as the others, but it offers a layered look into her history. I struggled with the Wiesen Cook books but ended up enjoying them very much and I would have to say that with out them, this autobiography would not have had such an impact. What she shares in her autobiography is enlightening at times, but what is more significant is the specifics she leaves out or vaguely refers to in the generalist of terms.
   
   The best way to describe this book is comparing it to a long chat with a woman you've respected for a long time. You knew things about her, you heard the rumors, but now you're sitting with her, listening to her tell you how she really felt things happened.



3. While reading this book you get to share in the many personal experiences of Eleanor Roosevelt. She does not focus much on her relationships, rather she focuses on sharing her experiences. The places she has gone to and the people she has talked to are absolutley amazing. She shares her firsthand experiences of the mine workers and her talks with people in communist Russia. It is amazing that just one woman has seen and heard from so many varying perspectives. She really did try to empathize with the people and situations around her and this really comes out in her book. I think many people can learn from reading this book on how to be a better listener and observer and critical thinker of the life happening around you.



4. This book sheds light a long period of American history through the narration of an amazing woman who you will grow to admire as much as I did. Born into an elite aristocratic American family, Eleanor could have remained hemmed in by the insular values with which she was raised. Women were supposed to stay out of politics, Anglo-Saxons were supposed to run the country and only mingle amongst themselves, and the poor deserved their lot.
   
   Eleanor grew up with a lot of the prejudices someone of her class and generation might be expected to have but then she transformed into a woman who fought tirelessly against poverty, racism, sexism, and injustices of all kinds. I think that is her true legacy and what makes her so remarkable. In a society that wanted women to be purely ornamental, Eleanor could have done as so many women of her age and class did, remain prisoners to their narrow views and beliefs.
   
   But Eleanor did more. Because she was not conventionally attractive, she was supposed to hide away from society. Because she was a woman, she wasn't supposed to get involved in political affairs. But she got involved! She told FDR what she thought about everything, urging him to pass anti-lynching legislation, include more women in his cabinet, and earning his profound respect-if not always his complience!
   
   Sometimes she could be a bit naive, (like when, in the fifties, she told a soviet leader how much Americans had done to improve the "life of the negro", but Eleanor's empathy, compassion, humility and personal strength comes through so strongly in these profoundly human writings of hers that I really think anyone would enjoy them. What a wonderful woman!



5. I bought this book during a visit to Eleanor Roosevelt's Val-Kill Cottage in Hyde Park. I had read Doris Kearn's "No Ordinary Time" years prior and it had stoked an deep interest in me for more on the Roosevelts of Hyde Park. This book is an interesting look at a woman whose transformation impacted the nation and the world. Surely, she is the most interesting and influential woman of the 20th Century.
   
   The book covers a great many historical events as well as personal incidents in her life. The early years give us a glimpse into the thinking of an awkward and self-conscious girl. She guides us through her growing involvement in New York politics. The presidential years are interesting. But I found that reading a book ABOUT Eleanor in those years as opposed to reading her self deprecating and understated views was mor enlightening. The most captivating portions ofthis book were the post presidential years, particularly her roleas a UN Delegage and as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. I thought the book was good, although I had to keep reminding myself that an autobiography is one person's personal story of events - not the grand history of events.
   
   I am very glad I read her autobiography and read her own words. She is that much more a compelling woman to me. History buffs should not shy away from this book. Immensely readable, with an occasional slow spot.

No comments about Make It Plain: Standing Up and Speaking Out.

5 comments about Disturbing the Peace.

1. Some have said this is Yates' weakest work, and I suppose it might be, but I think credit has to be given to Yates for even managing to pull this off. This is a tough story to write, a man's journey from sanity to insanity. Yates stays in his usual third person narration all the way, even when the main character goes completely nuts, so his delusions become our delusions.

   It's not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination - we see get a no-holds-barred view into Bellevue and the complete breakdown of the protagonist. There isn't a likeable character in the entire novel, which isn't that different from Yates' other works, but the problem here is that it's very tough to have any sympathy for the main character, John Wilder. In Yates' more successful books, no matter how nasty the characters, we can't help but to feel for their faults. Not so here.

   Disturbing the Peace may not have the amazing pace of The Easter Parade or the driving power of Revolutionary Road, but it's still a pretty good read. It's a tough book to find nowadays, so if you can get your hands on it, pick it up.




2. This novel, by one of my favorite late 20th century writers, is a compellingly realistic story of the downward spiral of an alcoholic. It's power comes from the exacting insights into the mundane existence of the characters trying to survive and thrive in modern society; along a view into the mind of a man making a step-by-step descent into a private hell. As Yates draws you into Wilder's mind, you find yourself,like the main character, unable to see the bottom, until you have made the slow descent into insanity.
   
   I found the book incredibly insightful, with accurate representations of the madness of addiction. The book never descends to the level of moralizing or sermonizing, and that makes it all the more powerful. Yates creates an empathy between reader and character, and that makes the outcome all the more gripping.



3. This is the story of John C. Wilder and his descent into insanity. Wilder is a highly strung hard drinking affluent salesman, a husband and father. He tries to hide his low self-esteem which stems from a mild dyslexia and being somewhat short in stature. He seeks to fill the void in his life through drinking and women.
   
   At one point, all of Wilder's ambitions seem within his grasp. He falls in love with a woman who encourages him to pursue his dream of producing films, and it seems he has a real talent for it. However, the seeds of insanity are sown within him. Time after time, he reaches out for help, to his family, to psychiatry, to AA, looking for understanding and support, but every reed breaks at his grasp. It is a disturbing novel. We are left doubting if anything could have averted his fate.
   
   Yates always gets everything right. The dialogue, speech cadences, observations, structure: his writing is a beautiful thing to observe. He is never simplistic. Yates has a reputation for being a devasting chronicler of American suburbia. He is that, but in this novel he shows that he can deliniate urban angst and despair as well.



4. is it a painfully telling portrait of american domesticity gone awry. it is a book you read from begining to end with as few breaks as possible.



5. There are books that make you think, and there are books that make you feel. Disturbing the Peace is both. It is the story of a man and his descent into insanity. But it is so much more than that. It is the story of ourselves, told quite plainly, and in such a way that, as a reader, it's very easy to slip in and out of the minds of all the characters, because they are us.
   
   Disturbing the Peace made me think, feel, and believe that I was not simply watching this story unfold as it was told to me, but rather, I was a part of the story as it unfolded around me.
   
   The brilliance of Yates is not in the writing. Rather, it's in the non-writing, that is, what he doesn't put on the page. And opening this book - and any of his books - you are invited to join in and watch or partake as the world crumbles.
   
   Why the genius of Yates has never caught on, we'll never know. Perhaps people were afraid to peer into the stories and see such bold and disturbing representations of themselves and their lives.
   
   Highly Recommended.
   
   Five Stars.

4 comments about Sarah Palin The Real Deal.

1. I read this trite bit of pseudo lit in less than thirty minutes and came away feeling as if I had just survived a poor attempt at being brainwashed. G. Robert James has managed to fill a hundred or so pages with un-detailed, un-supported and un-ending streams of partisan cheerleading masked as a biography. This is nothing more than propaganda in hard cover and I, for one, ain't drinking the kool-aid. This "book" (for lack of a better term) provides absolutely no new information and seems to be culled from items picked up from the Alaskan governor's own press department. The writer of this tripe offers no critical insight and presents absolutley no substantial data on Mrs. Palin (just what are the exact names of the colleges she attended? What was her G.P.A.? What people specifically inspired her while growing up? How does she define the separation of church and state? Why does she believe Capitalism is a better form of economic organization than Communism?) If I wanted to injest pablum, I'd read one of those glossies at the supermarket checkout counter!



2. Finally, a book that comes out and gives us the personal story about Sarah Palin and puts her story in the context of this election. At last, I can hear the truth behind the rhetoric that the biased media throws our way on a daily basis. This book is jammed pack with heartfelt stories about the woman behind the political candidacy as well as documented information behind the landslide of partial truths being served up at a rapid pace.
   
   G. Robert James has done a fantastic job at personalizing this amazing, courageous woman. Before reading his book, I was intrigued by Sarah Palin but now I am in awe of her. If you want to finally read the facts and not just the blitz of negativity the left-wing continues to spew, buy this book. You won't regret it! It is short and to the point. You can read it in 30 minutes or less. And what is 30 minutes to learn the truth about a viable candidate in inarguably the most important election this nation has ever faced.



3. Although this small book is not a biography in the normal sense of the word it does give the reader a quick overview of Governor Palin and the impact she is having on the 2008 Presidential election. It highlights her political accomplishments in Alaska and explores her personal and political history. I believe it is an attempt by the author to help the reader to understand the sociological factors that shaped Palin's personality and her political philosophy. I found it to be a quick, interesting and informative read. I highly recommend this book as a way toward acquiring a more balanced insight into this amazing woman.



4. This book reveals how Sarah Palin's life experiences prepared her for the Governor's Mansion and her selection as the GOP VP nominee. A clear and concise presentation of her stand on the issues. A well balanced revelation of the facts.

5 comments about Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror (Vintage).

1. This is a very well written book that grips you from the start and makes you want to keep reading to find out "what happened next" in the manner of successful fiction. The events outlined display a considerable amount of courage on the part of Goldberg, who stayed a few weeks in a Pakistani Madrasa, and repeatedly entered the Gaza strip and was alone among what were, officially, his enemies.
   
   While the author's need to see signs of hope as to the future of the Israeli-Palestinian situation via his friendship with his former Palestinian prisoner "Rafik" is constant throughout the book, many of the questions Goldberg raises throughout his journeys are destined to dead-ends because they are based on a perspective that has been subject to a considerable amount of editing. And, as the nature of any quest goes, if you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the right answers.
   
   Whereas the author's pursuit of these signs of hope, even in hostile territory, is admirable, his premise is not as impassive as the synopsis of the book wants us to believe; It tells us that, as a prison guard, Goldberg "realized that his prisoners were the future leaders of Palestine", hence "this was a unique opportunity to learn from them about themselves", but, when you get to that part of the book, Goldberg tells you that one of his tasks in prison (as a member of the military police) was to confiscate any and all signs of Palestinian national aspirations (flags, rocks in the shape of Israel, national songs). These were the pre-Oslo days, when a "Palestinian state" was unacceptable to Israel. And while Goldberg was genuinely curious about understanding his prisoners, he did not think they'd be "future leaders" of any state, as confiscating any signs of such aspirations testifies. It is very interesting to note how taking such liberties in shuffling around elements of the time-line for the sake of a stronger pitch in the synopsis mirrors what happened with the larger picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
   
   One of the questions the reader is inevitably lead to upon reading Goldberg's accounts of such confiscations in prison is:
   
   What drives one people to try and confiscate all signs of the identity of another people? Or, more accurately:
   
   How can a people base the security of their identity upon the elimination of that of another?
   
   In Goldberg's latest account of the conflict covering the last few years, he presents it more as one that has its origins in religious intolerance and Muslim extremism. It is ironic that Goldberg quotes Israeli writer "Amos Oz" at some point in his narrative, because it was precisely Oz that repeated that this was not a religious conflict, but a real estate one. While the rise of militant fanaticism in the Muslim world is an undeniable fact of considerable threat to many countries, recasting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being caused by religious pathos is, again, a reshuffling of the story for the sake of a stronger pitch.
   
   Anyone who is interested in knowing more about what is going on in that unfortunate part of the world could benefit from the account of "Susan Nathan", a British Jewess who lived in an Arab village in Israel, in her book, "The Other Side of Israel", or "Emma Williams", a British doctor who lived and worked in Jerusalem, in her book "It's easier to reach Heaven than the end of the street, a Jerusalem memoir". Both provide some parts of the picture that were edited out of Goldberg's story, courageous as he may be.
   
   Some questions open doors to other questions that may well be very different from the ones the author intended, but which are the only ones that could bring the reader closer to an understanding of the real story.



2. This is a must for anyone Jew, Muslim gentile (like me) who despairs at the Israeli/Palestinian problem to be confirmed in the view that there are people of good will on both sides where common humanity exists but unfortunately frustrated by those in power who believe that force is the only way forward



3. What a fantastic book.
   
   Jeff Goldberg takes us through his life's journey from an aspiring child zionist to his time as an Israeli military police officer, his return to America for life as a journalist, and his return to Gaza and other cities in Palestine where he tries to reconnect with many of the prisoners he watched over during his time as a "shoter" (policemen) in the prisons
   
   Without telling too much of the outcome, I will say that the many experiences are thrilling, very telling of the situations, and seldom experienced by anyone. It is very rare to find someone trying to find a prisoner he once watched over so that he can open his home to that person. This will open up a whole new set of experiences and ideas for Goldberg.
   
   What drives Goldberg to do this? Maybe it was his desire to end his own personal conflict with the course of middle eastern politics. Maybe it was his apologetic retribution for being a police officer in a palestinian prison. Maybe it was his want to show the Palestinian people that the Israelis are prisoners too, to the hostility that is perpetuated by suicide bombings. Maybe he thought he could end the conflict by reaching out.
   
   After reading the book, all the complexities and truths that exist within this conflict become more clear. The perspective he brings is fascinating and worth being read by anybody who has a care about the situation in Israel/Palestine.



4. most Middle East books are either boring or predictable. Prisoners is neither. It's written with humor and pathos by a reporter/journalist with a long histroy of covering the Jewish/Arab confict. Goldberg has written for Rolling Stone, the New Yorker and now the Atlantic. He's spent a lot of time on the ground in the middle east. This book tells his story in an engaging and informative way. If you want to be entertained and learn more about this 2000 year old conflict, this is a great book to read.



5. It is very disappointing to see yet again a book with such a thin veneer of even-handedness getting many rave reviews (I have to wonder who these reviewers are...). This is yet another of the thousands of one sided, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian books written by so called 'experts' that have so grossly warped the discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict in this country. This book all but dismisses terrible Palestinian suffering while focusing primarily on the Jewish point of view, as if there isn't already enough of a pro-Israel bias in American politics, academia, news coverage, etc.,...
   
   The worst part is that the author is actually pretending to be even-handed by giving a few snippets of human attributes to people he clearly despises. I would suggest readers here balance their perspectives by reading any of the books by the late Edward Said, or Norman Finkelstein.
   
   To Mr. Goldberg, I'm amazed you still don't want to accept the fact that that by treating Palestinians as sub-human, Israel will never get the peace it needs and deserves!

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



2. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



3. In 2000, there was much talk about the "most important person of the 20th Century." My choice was always Gavrilo Princip, the young Bosnian assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, igniting World War I, which caused the Russian Revolution, Communism, and the Treaty of Versailles, which led to Naziism, World War II, atomic bombs, and the Cold War.
   
   Of course, there were other factors which formed the tragedy of the twentieth century, and perhaps some of these historical events would have happened anyway. Almost for certain, the Romanov Monarchy would have fallen or been transformed out of recognition without the help of Gavrilo Princip's bullets.
   
   Although the Ottoman Empire was always referred to as "the sick man of Europe," Robert K. Massie illustrates that Russia was not very well either, despite appearances. An obsolescent autocracy, the Russian Empire was mired in time at the dawn of the twentieth century, the great mass of its people existing much as they had 100 years earlier.
   
   Massie's theory, that the hemophilia of Alexis, the young Tsarevich, had an inordinate influence of Russian and subsequent world history, is well thought-out, though perhaps an oversimplification. Yet, it cannot be discounted. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia then for 300 years, and brought the country, by fits and starts, slowly into the orbit of the modern world. Despite this, there is much truth in the observation that "Lenin inherited a nation playing beside a manure pile and Stalin bequeathed a nation playing with an atomic pile." This is not to defend Stalinism, but only to say how little the Romanovs did overall to modernize their State.
   
   When Nicholas II inherited the throne after his father's untimely death, he was woefully unprepared to rule. Dominated for years by archconservative and anti-modernist members of his family, he did little to educate his people, provide health care, build infrastructure, or lift the heavy cloak of official repression that lay over all but ethnic Russians in his realm, or the cloak of cultural repression that lay over the ethnic Russians.
   
   Yet Massie shows us a man and a family of uncommonly kind nature in Nicholas II and his family. His daughter Olga paid personally for the care of a handicapped subject she spied from her carriage one day. The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, despite a reputation as an uncaring woman, herself nursed sick friends before the war and horribly wounded soldiers during the war. The family built hospitals and schools in and around the various cities wherein lay the royal estates. They acted to ameliorate suffering wherever they saw it, without reservation.
   
   Of course, this was the problem. They acted only on what they saw with their own eyes, never recognizing that these sufferings were endemic throughout the realm. Their myopia was part and parcel of the lives of the citified upper classes, completely divorced from the mass of agrarian peasants in the countryside, magnified by the hermetically sealed nature of being an Imperial Family, aided and abetted by sycophants and the self-serving, who kept the real world at a very long arm's length, in order to maintain their own privileged positions. Living in a bubble within a bubble, they were just not aware of conditions in most of Russia.
   
   Nicholas II ruled over the largest domain on earth. Russia today is still the world's largest nation, even shorn of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, the Ukraine, the Central Asian provinces, and (in 1867) Alaska. Sunset in Vladivostok was dawn in Brest-Litovsk. His hundred million subjects included hundreds of peoples speaking hundreds of languages, linked together by a shockingly small road and rail system. The sensitive Nicholas, had he been really cognizant of the shape of things, could have, by a single order, vastly improved the lives of each and every Russian (of course, as he noted, being an autocrat and giving orders does not ensure that they are carried out properly). His greatest failings, as a ruler, all had to do with his decisions to outwardly maintain his Imperial hautre and his autocracy at all costs in the face of cataclysmic change.
   
   This bubble-within-a-bubble existence however, could not spare them from the fact of the Tsarevich's hemophilia. A genetic disorder inherited through the female line (Alexis' Great-Grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose progeny were ravaged by the disease), it prevents the clotting of the blood. When Alexis was born in 1904, the world was a full lifespan away from the development of a usable clotting factor; most hemophiliacs simply bled out and died. The Tsarevich was protected by a full retinue, but this did not help him, and the boy was often in screaming agony and close to death from what might in another child, be a bad bruise. The Heir, therefore lived in a bubble within a bubble within a bubble.
   
   The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, was a solemn, shy, but deeply emotional and loving woman, nicknamed "Sunny" by her husband. To the world, she presented an aloof exterior, and was extremely unpopular with her subjects. Had they known the sorrows and agonies she suffered through with Alexis, her realm, and history, might have treated her far better. But the Imperial Family decided to keep Alexis' condition a closely guarded secret, fearing the destabilization of the Monarchy and Russia in the face of a physically frail Heir. This may have been the Imperial Family's worst error, as it robbed them of an outpouring of sympathy and support from a passionate populace.
   
   Alexandra turned to religion, and ultimately, to Gregory Rasputin, a filthy, degenerate, sexually perverse and personally dissolute monk of peasant extraction. Although derided by most, and called a charlatan by many, Rasputin was perhaps one of the most charismatic men in history, had a devoted following (largely comprised of Society women he'd seduced), did have the power, somehow, to control Alexis' bleeding episodes, and therefore, had the Empress's full and unwavering support in all things.
   
   The feared and hated Rasputin may have indeed been a seer or had mystical powers of some sort, judging from circumstances. Rasputin was not really political, but as his influence over the Romanovs grew, his power expanded commensurately, and he was able to have Ministers dismissed, Generals reassigned to sinecures, and policies changed according to his own whims (expressed as messages from God) or concerns. Capable Russian leaders, who did not know the basis of Rasputin's power, suspected the worst of Alexandra, and in challenging Rasputin found themselves toppled from power. As World War I dawned, Russia was upside-down, its best men in internal exile, and woefully unprepared for war. Rasputin himself counseled against war, stating that Russia would collapse from within. Nonetheless, the British, German and Russian grandsons of Queen Victoria went to war.In that war, millions died, empires fell, nations were born, ideological political systems triumphed, and the stage was set for a darker and yet bloodier future.
   
   The Tsar and his genteel family were consumed, ending their days against a wall before a Bolshevik firing squad, probably not understanding, until the end, that they had been in the eye of a hurricane that remade the world.



4. I first read Nicholas and Alexandra many years ago as a 14 year old. It was a transformative experience for me, awakening what has been a lifelong passionate interest in royal biography and Russian history. Now that I'm in my early fifties, I recently reread Nicholas and Alexandra for the first time in about twenty years, and it continues to have the same magic.
   
   Robert K. Massie became interested in the last Tsar of Russia because he, like Nicholas, was the father of a hemophiliac boy. Massie spent long hours reading about hemophilia and famous hemophiliacs, and he was fascinated by the way Russian and world twentieth century history turned on a chance genetic defect. Had Tsarevich Alexis not had hemophilia, it is probable that Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra would not have come under the malign influence of Gregory Rasputin, the Siberian faith healer who had a catastrophic effect on the Russian government before and during World War I; leading to the Russian Revolution, the rise of Communism, and the deaths of Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children. Its an interesting thesis that still holds up well, though Massie's focus on the inner tragedy of the Tsar's family tends to make him discount the many other problems from which pre-revolutionary Russia suffered. Massie also has a natural tendency to whitewash Nicholas and Alexandra (parents of hemophiliacs have a special bond with those who share their trauma, after all), by barely mentioning such negative traits as the Tsar's anti-Semitism and the Empress' many neuroses.
   
   The book remains an extraordinary work of art. Massie's descriptions of the Russian landscape and his finely drawn character sketches are wonderfully rich and detailed. He is able to explain the political and social complexities of the era colorfully and wittily, even when dealing with such abstractions as the differences between Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, and Bolsheviks. Most of all, Massie is able to make us weep for the Romanovs: a man who was a bad Tsar but a good husband and father, a woman who destroyed her family while trying to keep her son alive, and five innocent young people who never had a chance to lead happy, productive lives. Every time I read Nicholas and Alexandra I tremble again at the thought of their last awful moments, but I am enriched still more by the chance to read such a magnificent work of art and scholarship.



5. This is an all-encompassing authoritative biography of the last ruling Romanovs, and Massie has compiled a thorough and well-researched insight into the lives of Nicholas and Alexandra. Even forty years after its original publication and long after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a relevant part of Russian history. Massie is very sympathetic in his presentation of the royal family and addresses pertinent questions about the fall of the monarchy. If Alexis, the heir to the throne, had not had hemophilia, would the influence of Rasputin not have been necessary? And if Rasputin were never in the picture, would the monarchy have suffered such a tarnished reputation?
   
   The book painted a very vivid picture of the Royal Family based on hundreds of sources and letters. Nicholas is an incapable Tsar but a warm-hearted, devoted husband and father. Alexandra seems frantic and ill at ease (and often just ill) in her constant concern over the life of her son. And I love that I felt I got to know each of the children, Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexis more individually and personally. This made their demise all the more heartbreaking. This book also gave me a greater understanding of the political climate of the time in Russia and a better comprehension of the revolution and the roles of Lenin, Trotsky, and other important players (although I occasionally found some difficulty keeping the various Russian names straight). Overall, this is a captivating book and the saga is all the more intriguing because it's history. I will definitely be interested to read some of the more recent material that Massie presents in The Romanovs: The Last Chapter.

5 comments about Survival In Auschwitz.

1. We had to read this book for a World History class I took in college. I was taking 5 classes at the time, so you can imagine how much reading I had to do on a daily basis. I read this book in ONE sitting (very unusual for me). I could not put it down! I laughed. I cried. I read it again! I recommend this book to EVERYONE!



2. Mr. Levi's ability to recount his experience with such emotional clarity allowed me to take in a piece of this dark chapter in European history that I might not have been able to otherwise, given the immensity of the horror. I look forward to reading the other two books he wrote on Auschwitz. Highly recommended.



3. Primo Levy, a twenty-four-year-old Italian Jew captured "on 13 December 1943" and imprisoned for ten months, provides a chilling, though often poetic, account of his so called life in a concentration camp, while hitting home the frustration and futility of his situation. The best way to describe his story and style is through his own words: (p 15) as they prepared the night before they were to be deported "Everyone felt this: not one of the guards, neither Italian or German, had the courage to come and see what men do when they know they have to die," of the next morning (p 16) "Dawn came on us like a betrayer; it seemed as through the new sun rose as an ally of our enemies to assist in our destruction," after the "six hundred and fifty `pieces'" were loaded "Here we received the first blows; and it was so new and senseless that we felt no pain, neither in body nor in spirit. Only a profound amazement: how can one hit a man without anger?" He is first taken to a camp of 10,000 called Buna, where prisoners work at producing rubber. After being thrown together naked with the others, showered, shaved, disinfected and relieved of all possessions, (p 26) he writes "Then for the first time we became aware that our language lacks words to express this offence, the demolition of a man." About the time they have been settled in to the camp, they learn that they will soon be sent out for their first day of work. A French-speaking prisoner replies to their questions with (p 29) "...you are not at home, this is not a sanatorium, the only exit is by way of the Chimney." They are scheduled to work all but every other Sunday (during which they must work "on upkeep of the Lager") (p 36) "Such will be our life. Every day, according to the established rhythm...go out and come in; work, sleep and eat; fall ill, get better or die." The reader later learns (p 73) "...the Buna factory, on which the Germans were busy for four years and for which countless of us suffered and died, never produced a pound of synthetic rubber."
   
   He writes about the typical prisoner (p 90) "They crowd my memory with their faceless presences, and if I could enclose all the evil of our time in one image, I would choose this image which is familiar to me: an emaciated man, with head drooped and shoulders curved, on whose face and in whose eyes not a trace of a thought could be seen." Fortunately, Mr. Levy qualifies to work in a chemical laboratory, which results in an improvement in his living conditions. Yet the usual worries remained, especially (p 126) the "selections" (those chosen to be exterminated) "the percentage was seven percent of the whole camp." He writes as 1944 comes to a close, after almost a year in captivity (p 143-144) about his thoughts on life only twelve months before, "...the future stood before me as a great treasure. Today the only thing left of the life of those days is what one needs to suffer hunger and cold: I am not even alive enough to know how to kill myself." Eventually, the camp is evacuated. Mr. Levy lives on to provide a wealth of wonderful writing to the world, then dies in 1987 at the age of sixty-seven, falling three storeys from a building to his death (either accidentally or intentionally). Also good, Time's Arrow by Martin Amis, The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, and Night by Elle Wiesel.



4. Primo Levi was an Italian Jew arrested for anti-Fascist resistance in 1944 and sent to the camps of Auschwitz. His short, vivid portrayal of the horrors of the Nazi camps there, the depravity of human nature and the extremes that the human psyche can endure, makes for a lasting literary contribution. Not sermonizing about theology or lecturing about good and evil, this bare-bones account nonetheless has dramatic questions for those interested in human nature, the holocaust, and evil. Very fleetingly does he comment on religion (the problem of theodicy is never made as clear as in Elie Wiesel's Night), but he certainly has captured some of the horrible drama of the Nazi death camps.



5. Primo Michele Levi (July 31, 1919 - April 11, 1987) was a Jewish-Italian chemist, Holocaust survivor and author of memoirs, short stories, poems, essays and novels.
   
   He is best known for his work on the Holocaust, and in particular his account of the year he spent as a prisoner in Auschwitz, the death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland.
   
   
   Survival in Auschwitz - If This Is a Man has been described as one of the most important works of the twentieth century.

No comments about The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America's Tangled Relationship With Saudi Arabia.

5 comments about Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician.

1. Odds are, you have heard of Cicero. Considered one of Rome's greatest orators, his writings are the main influence on how way we remember the last days of the Roman republic. The story of Cicero's life is the story of end of Republican Rome. All of the major players of the era: Caesar, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Brutus and Octavian (soon to be Augustus) all make an appearance in his life. In his role as one of the world's first brilliant statesman and backroom player, Cicero was friends and enemies with all of them. From Everitt's book, it seems Cicero was, at times, courageous in his rhetoric and at times, he was cowardly. He always tried to see all the angels and jockeyed for a position that put him in the best place politically while betraying as few of his political convictions as possible. In the end, he wound up on the wrong side of Marc Antony and was killed.
   
   The story in getting from provincial boy to one of the most powerful men in Rome is fascinating. I am no expert on Roman history. I have read no other biography of Cicero. But to my tastes, Everitt's biography of Cicero is excellent for the reader with a casual interest in this time period in Rome. Not only does it give us insight into what a complicated person Cicero was (both arrogant and generous; brilliant in the courtroom and terrified of physical injury) but also perhaps more importantly it is an excellent primer on the death of the Roman republic. The story of Rome's decent into dictatorship, the attempt at recovering republicanism, and then the reassertion of dictatorship is the stuff that western history is made of, and Everitt's book is a good place to get a sense of who did what when and what Cicero had to say about it. Recommended.



2. Anthony Everitt does an excellent job with this introduction type book of Cicero. Gives a great account of the man as well as the people in his life. Vivid description and good amount of primary analysis.



3. This is a splendid biography of Cicero. The book is exceptionally well-written, its clarity a product of true mastery of a broad range of historical material. I particularly enjoyed the way that Everitt brings historical figures like Julius Caesar to life. The book retains a clear and sometimes critical view of its subject, keeping it from the realm of hagiography. Cicero emerges as a flawed but ultimately and perhaps accidentally principalled man. The highest compliment I can give Everitt's book is that I am now looking forward to reading Cicero's works.



4. Even though I already knew the eventual fate of the great Cicero, I was still hoping somehow he would be spared his terribly unjust death. Man, this was history come alive! You really find yourself cheering for Cicero and depising his enemies. You feel the frustration and depression that Cicero himself must have felt at the slipping away of the Roman Republic, and you share his sadness when tragedy stikes. Its a shame that even more of his letters and books didn't survive to our time. If you have even a weak interest in Roman history, you will enjoy this book. Highly recommended.



5. This is a fairly good book that offers nothing really new: you get very solid overviews of how the government functioned, what people believed in, and how a major politician (and far better writer) tried to mold things in his own way. Alas, there is nothing whatsoever original in Everitt's interpretation, no provocative thesis based on new evidence (written or archaeological). So what you get, essentially, is the version that Cicero and a few of his contemporaries present of themselves, which is bound to be wrapped up in propaganda. As a classics major, I knew all of this already. There is no doubt that this is a good undergraduate-level panoramic view, but it does not make the man or his era come to life. You hear the details of Caesar's life, Cato's, Crassus', and Pompey's, but not intimately or in any sense living. It is too dryly scholarly for that.
   
   Cicero was a conservative "new man", who wanted to preserve the Republic (and the institution that allowed him to rise from a local Voscan, i.e. non-Roman, aristocrat to the pinnacle of the Roman State). His entire career was shaped by this, though he made many compromises and was Caesar's client for quite a long time. He made one major early career move, squashing a conspiracy (Cataline's) that allowed executions and de-thrownings in certain circumstances, which would ultimately help to undermine the Republic. Then, very late in his career, he opposed Marc Anthony in the name of restoring the Republic and paradoxically supported the future dictator Octavian, only to lose his life in Anthony's revenge when Anthony cut a deal with Octavian. About all of this, Cicero wrote with unequalled elegance in Latin, much of which is quoted to very good effect in translation here. This is a great pleasure to read in Everitt's prose.
   
   So much is known - in this standard interpretation - and Everitt presents it well, indeed comprehensively. However, there are other ways to see this. Perhaps Cicero was not really a good politician, but a rhetorician and naive amateur whose actions were ultimately destructive to his cause, the Republic. His words survive to spin his motives as "good and just". Perhaps he was a fussy man with unrealistic ideas - the Roman state had become too big to govern by the fractious and mediocre men in the Senate, which had been decimated repeatedly for 60-some years - and was ultimately a fool under the thumb of other, shrewder politicians like Octavian. Unfortunately, Everitt does not develop these lines of argument at all or question the conventional line. Instead, he accepts Cicero's portrayal of events almost verbatim, at least in my reading, without the slightest skepticism of the slippery political agenda beneath the eloquence. This is superficial.
   
   I do not regret having read this. However, if you want the era to really live, I would suggest reading McCullogh's series, starting with the First Man of Rome. You will learn as much as any textbook can offer, but with much more flavor and daring.
   
   Recommended as a competent intro, if rather dry.