5 comments about Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America.

1. If the story told here could be verified, then it would validate the methods behind our war on terror...yes, even the invasion of Iraq. While Mr. Bodansky, apparently a well-knowned counter-terrorism "expert", writes with thematic clarity, he fails in a major regard to verification. Although the book has a list of sources in the back, they are not cross-referenced to any of the material in the book. This leaves the reader with several choices. 1. Accept his premise entirely, 2. Accept parts of his premise (which parts are fact, which parts are fiction?), or 3. reject his premise entirely. What a conundrum. I can reject item 3 because I would have had to have been living on the moon for the last 20 years to escape the wealth of information negating that premise. I cannot accept premise 1 either due to the lack of a well thought out set of footnotes and references that could be checked for veracity. That leaves item 2 as the only choice available...hmmm...what to believe and what not to believe. Like I said, a conundrum.
   In the age of everyone writes a book and the "drive-by" work of literature, I hope that these authors will soon learn that some of us would like a detailed reference list so we can verify what is truth and what is only truth in their own reality.



2. Here is a book written before 9-11 which documents a connection between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden including their cooperative pursuit of WMD. But Iraq comes across as almost a reluctant participant in the Islamist movement, becoming involved out of desperation, believing that a U.S. invasion was certain. The movement is sponsored primarily by Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. The reader may then wonder why the U.S. invaded Iraq rather than these countries.
   
   There should be no surprise that insurgent terrorists are present after the recent Iraq War. Bin Laden had made a pact with Saddam Hussein. Terrorism had been expected following an earlier attack on Iraq. Also, any Western intrusion into an Arab country sparks increased Islamist terrorism.
   
   U.S. ineptness is revealed in the book. Perhaps most glaring is the Abu-Umar al-Ameriki Incident wherein The Clinton administration reportedly made a secret deal with the Islamists to sacrifice U.S. support for Egypt in exchanged for reduced Islamist pressure in Bosnia - Herzegovina. Egypt's President Mubarak found out about the deal and joined the Islamists to save his own skin. The U.S. was oblivious to this realignment which came just as the U.S. sought support against Iraq.
   
   Islamist motives for terrorism are clearly indicated in the book: constant meddling by the West in the Arab and Muslim world, including exploitation of oil, support of puppet governments, desecration of religious sites, and mistreatment of Muslims, most notably by the founding of Israel at the expense of the native Palestinian population. The current Islamist movement can be traced to the Afghanistan war against Russia wherein Islamists from all over the Middle East were brought together in a military brotherhood. "Afghan" veterans became the leaders in the terrorist war against the West, primarily the U.S.
   
   Perhaps the most alarming revelation in the book is the Islamist capability in WMD. It was stated that if conventional weapons fail to accomplish the Islamist objectives, WMD may be deployed.
   
   BOOK QUALITY
   The book is more about the Islamist movement in general than a story of bin Laden. It comes across as very credible with it's choking detail and it's well-informed author, the director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. But the book is a very difficult read with many names and organizations and an elusive time line. The story could have been told more concisely and with a much better overview.
   
   Page breakdown: table of contents - 1, table of abbreviations and organizations - 1, text (including introductory material) - 434, glossary - 4, sources - 5, and index - 22. One map, provided inside the front cover, is of the broader Middle East, but it lacks detail. There should have been other maps, organizational charts, and a timeline to keep track of events.



3. Anyone looking for an authoritative book on Bin Laden would do better to consult either of Peter Bergen's works, or Rohan Gunaratna. While many of the details in Bodansky's book are plausible, and even correspond with those of other authors, no footnotes are given throughout, and many details (such as Al Qaeda's possession of nuclear weapons) are highly suspect if not patently false. Bodansky portray's Bin Laden as largely a state-sponsored terrorist, and I think he fails utterly to show the grass roots genesis of Islamist resistance. In fact, most of the book isn't even on Bin Laden, save one chapter, and deals with background events of Islamist terrorism. Most damaging is Bodansky's failure to be transparent about his sources and convincing about his facts. A critical reader should suspect an agenda or ideological lens in this work that is absent from Bergen and Gunaratna.



4. Bodansky's books are to my opinion the BEST books written on middle east politics,at times you have to wonder where all the information comes from.Obviously he has contact with inside sources in the middle east,who know what is going on and he is not afraid to say what needs to be said about state sponsored terrorism and how it is cynically used without care or consideration for those whom it disastrously harms.At times you have to laugh at Bodansky's blunt style in assesing mideast politician and dictators motives and methods of operation.While you may have to disagree with some of Bodansky and his information sources you can't deny that even if he might be wrong at times,he's not far off at all.As a matter of fact like Dennis Hopper said of Kurtz in Apocolypse Now,"he may be crazy,but he may be right"!!I would finally say that someone has figured the mideast situation out enough to make sense of it,if that could ever be.Terrorism is a poor country's quick entry into world politics,an attempt by these countries to seem powerful. They do this by making large nations seem impotent to stop random,sporadic, and spectacular violence.I use Bodansky's books all the time when I see a news story on CNN and I have to know what Bodansky has to say about it.Read him cover to cover or use the back index for select topics either way "You Win"!!You're as close to an expert as you can come,now if you can just remember what you read and if you can find someone who'll listen to you,like Cassandra.As I read this book i became aware that Bin-Laden is just the tip of the iceberg on the troubled politics of the middle east.Bodansky obviously uses the Bin-laden sideshow as a forum to present even more alarming facts about state sponsored terrorism along with the rise of the mideast-suicide deathcults complete with their networks and multi-layers of deniability and financial sources.By the way in a book on hinduism i had previously read that the deathcult ideology so appealing to the arab youth of today initially came from India where it was practiced for hundreds of years.But then a person could only do so much damage with a knife.So it appeared the death cult is another scissors and paste job(gruesome too),added onto the Islamic religion.Since the suicide cult is so old it probably will never go away,and thrives on a population that views itself as surplus and super bitter.The christian desert fathers expressed their contempt for world affairs by withdrawal and self denial and austerity in their behavior but with a creative impulse like translating works of art into vernacular,but this suicide/homocide Islamic movement is something beyond comprehension. You can easily see how corrupt mid-east governments use the Arab mafia for an important link as a smoke screen of denial.Also the book leaves little doubt that Bin Laden's movement is supported largely in alot of third world countries out of pure jealous rage.The reaction of Palestinian glee at 911 is shared by a surprising majority (although not as forward about it) in these third world countries.They see Al-queda as their political voice in world affairs,it's no wonder that this organization is such a Hydra,growing a new head for everyone sliced off. He offers solutions as well,but as the title suggests,it won't be cheaply bought and do people have the stomach for it anyway.Will the medicine be as a cliche goes,"kill both the pain and the patient"?Bodansky's other book is also a 5 star and the author is never "politically correct" in the interpretations equally blistering toward American and European-
   soviet politicians as well.



5. This book is quite full of information on a man who will go down in history as one of the most evil men in the 21st Century... not just for what he did but for what he attempted to do.
   
   Falling outside the mainstream media this book actually tells quite a bit about Bin Laden's personal history, how he wound up in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets and what he did in order to fund and organize this fight, his first "jihad." One of the important facts that I took away from this book is that Bin Laden was never a U.S. "client," although he did accept some indirect assistance from the U.S. Bin Laden was anti-American from the start and while we helped the Mujideen (which later became the Northern Alliance) Bin Laden put his organization behind the Taliban. Once the Taliban controlled much of Afghanistan Bin laden's al-Qaida moved on to launching all sorts of terror attacks throughout the world, culminating in 911. His intent was no less than a global Jihad which would end with an Islamic planet.
   
   The writing in the book may be quite dry and at times it is difficult to keep track of all the names being thrown about but overall an excellent book.

5 comments about Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr.

1. As a Florida native, I feel Green well captured Harry Moore's Florida. Before His Time is educational, enteraining, and most importantly disturbing. We need to know in detail not only what Moore did but what ws done to Moore - and why. Green tells us. Despite the many horrors depicted in the book - and there are many - the book is ultimately life affirming: it is good to know that there were (are?) some Harry T. Moore's who have walked among us. Bravo, Ben Green.



2. Having moved to Brevard County in 1991, just when the Harry T. Moore murder case was back in the news, and the fact that I pass the Moore Justice Center every day, I was anxious to learn about Harry T. Moore and happily picked up a copy of this book.

   Harry T. Moore and his wife Harriette were murdered on Christmas Day, 1951 when a bomb exploded beneath their bedroom at their home in Mims, Florida. At the time of his murder, Harry Moore was the Florida coordinator for the NAACP and a founder of the Progressive Voter's League. As the title of book implies, Harry Moore was before his time, including his murder. Remember this happen before Rosa Parks, before Medgar Evers, before Dr. Martin Luther King and before Brown vs. Board of Education. The murderer of the Moores has never been found.

   Green traces the life of Harry Moore from childhood to teaching to his efforts in helping to lead the Civil Rights movement in Florida. Along the way Harry Moore instructed his students how to use the ballot, before African-Americans could vote and Harry Moore's efforts in the investigations of violence (re: lynching) and murders of African Americans in Florida.

   The most famous case that Harry Moore investigated was the Groveland Incident. The case involved the conviction of three African-Americans in the rape of a 17-year-old woman and the subsequent killing of two of the suspects by the Sheriff of Lake County Florida, Willis McCall, in an escape attempt. All the while, Harry Moore was fighting with the NAACP national organization to retained his position in the organization.

   Green's biography of Harry Moore is sparse, though a lot of it could be contributed to lack of documents related to Harry Moore's life. I felt the book would have been more complete with more details on Harry Moore's internal fight with the NAACP national office and why Harry Moore's place in the Civil Rights movement has been lost.

   At the end of the book, Green spends too much time tracing down former Klan members who claimed they knew who murdered Harry Moore. However, all these statements were dead ends. Ben Green's book is a good starting point to learn about a true Civil Rights pioneer.




3. The author followed the FBI, the police, the Klan and Sherriff Willis McCall as if everything they said and did was ordered from the almighty and couldn't possibly be wrong. He bought the party line and didn't make any waves. He didn't do any in-depth investigating. This was an overview of a life of a man who should be honored by all the world as an icon for justice, for all men. It was a great let down that the author didn't follow the reporting that had been done previously and refrain from writing in such a mean spirited manner. At least maybe some more people will know what this brave man did and stood for. He should be likened to Nathan Hale who said "I'm sorry I have but one life to give for my country." The book didn't say it but let all citizens unite and Remember " Respectfully yours, HARRY T. MOORE." Could anything be more eloquent or brave thatn that signature?



4. I cannot overstate my admiration for Ben Green's Before His Time. As I read I felt I was traveling the roads with Harry Moore, fighting the fight with him (I should be so brave). I am fairly well read (PhD, English Lit) and have enjoyed many books, but very few have moved me as much Green's has. You need to know Harry T. Moore. Ben Green has given you the chance. Take it.



5. Beautifully written; a story that needed to be told. It was at times painful to read because of how horrible people were treated due to the color of their skin.

5 comments about The Ungovernable City.

1. John V. Lindsay was a peculiar choice for mayor of New York Cituy. A WASP with absolutely no talent for administrative detail and a xstrong sense of noblesse oblige, his politics was the politics of platitudes and bromides.

   I was 12 when Lindsay was first elected in 1965 (he never received 50 percent of the votes in either of his two campaigns). On his first day on the job New Years Day 1966 he was faced with an illegal strike of transit workers. After first standing firm against them, he caved in to most of their demands (a pattern he was to display with all the municipal unions) conceding benefits to them that would help bankrupt the city a decade later.

   During Lindsay's tenure we were "treated" to lectures about white racism and the plight of the poor by a man who if you were a white ethnic from the outer boroughs who worked hard and paid your taxes and obeyed the law, he had no use for you. Lindsay never was able to connect with the outer boroughs middle classes and they sensed his distance from them and as a result New York City during Lindsay's 8 years lost almost 1,000,000 residents. The streets became more and more dangerous, the subways were full of graffiti and full of fear and menace. Municipal serivices fell apart and ..."the sunny city of Breakfast at Tiffany's gave way to the sullen despair of Midnight Cowboy." To which I could ad the terror and identification that so many people felt watching the movie Death wish in 1974.

   The turning point for many people was the disastrous school strike brought on by the Ocean Hill-Brownsville decentralization controversy in the Fall of 1968. Militatns using anti white and anti Semitic language tried to fire white teachers for no other reason then they were white. Before that was the horrible Columbia University student takeover. That was quickly followed by the failure to remove the snow from the borough of Queens in 1969. It was obvious that Lindsay did not have any managerial skills and although a lot of the problems would have been there even if Lindsay were not the mayor, Cannato shows that Lindsay's philosophy and management style helped exacerbate the situation.

   Lindsay is often given credit for keeping the city "cool" during the 1960's urban riots throughout the USA. However Cannato points out that that is misleading. Although New York CIty did not suffer the fate of Newark, Washington D.C. and Detroit, we did have several "quiet" riots during Lindsay's mayoralty such as East Harlem, East New York and sporadic rioting after the death of Martin Luther King. Lindsay referred to tehm as "local disturbances" and a sympathetic press went along with him. Lindsay also paid off many community militants by putting them on the city payroll. Lindsay's relationship with the police department rank and fiel was already starained by the controversy of the Civilian Complaint Review Board which he supported but was opposed by the police and defeated in a referendum. He seemed not to notice that the problem wasn't brutal cops in minority neighborhoods, but not enough law enforcement in those neighborhoods. Cannato also points out the interesting fact that Lindsay the champion of urban schools and integration never set foot in a public school as a student, nor did his wife and 4 children.

   Ironically Lindsay losing the Republican nomination in 1969 helped get him reeelected that year on the Liberal Party line. As in 1965, he won against two more conservative (Democrat and Republican) candidates who split up the anti Lindsay vote. By this time Lindsay had become so left wing after joining the Democratic party in 1971 that when he ran for the Democratic nomination for President in an abysmal campaign in 1972, it was to the left of George McGovern!

   By the time his term ended in 1973 Lindsay was a beaten and exhausted man and had no energy or politcal capital left to try to run for a third term. Shortly after he left City Hall, New York City went bankrupt -a result of Lindsay's ruinous fiscal policies. He resurfaced briefly in 1980 in an attempt to gain the Democratic nomination for Senator but came in a poor 3rd. After that he dropped off the radar screen until his death in December 2000.

   This book is a good read for New Yorkers who need to be reminded how far this city has come from the years of Lindsay, Abe Beame (the hapless Controller who succeeded Lindsay as Mayor and who was taken by surprise when the city almost went bankrupt), to the inept David Dinkins. The mayoralties of Ed Koch and the great Rudy Giuliani stand as a sharp contrast to the failed liberalism of John V. Lindsay.




2. Like many other reviewers, I found this to be an engaging review of some of New York's most recent history, and was pleased to have the opportunity to reflect on that tumultuous era. However, as a Native New Yorker who lived through Mayor Lindsay's administration, I was troubled by the inaccuracies of which I personally was aware, and therefore was led to question the scholarship generally. Otherwise, I share the same problem with many other reviewers: The fact that the book could have been better if the author had left his disdain for liberal policies on the floor with other discarded parts of the first draft.

   I guess the theory that Lindsay's administration was a flop would have been appreciably harder to substantiate if there had been an accurate description of the racial turmoil New York avoided due to his leadership. I vividly recall what happened in the late sixties in Newark, and Detroit, Watts and a half dozen other cities. It matters not at all what the author says (particularly when it is a repetition of the mantra that because only two were killed and twenty arrested, Lindsay was wrong to deny that this constituted a "riot").

   I don't know what another reviewer means when he speaks of a New Yorks's time as a "quiet riot" That seems rather onymoronic to me. The fact remains that New York avoided the turmoil that infected too many other cities because of Lindsay himself. Thousands correctly believed that Lindsay cared enough to actually interact with people who had been ignored (save at election time) in the past gave them a sense that there may well have been an alternative to destroying the City. I guess that the facts obscured the author's political agenda.

   While it is certainly "Inside Baseball", I must point out that the author (in discussing Lindsay's relationship with teachers) describes the allegedly deteriorating relationship between teachers and kids at Springfield Gardens High School. Cannato quotes a teacher saying that prior to the strikes in 1968, life was better at that school. However, as a proud student of S.G.H.S. from those very same days, I know that the school didn't have its first graduating class until that year. Since it was not open in the years before (the good old days, I guess), I must question the validity of this comparison. Makes me wonder how legitimate some of the other justifications and his other "facts" are...

   I grew tired of the unnecessary characterizations of some of the other individuals who were quoted. Noted sociology professor (of N.Y.'s Queens College) Andrew Hacker could have been quoted (like others) without having his political beliefs being labeled as he was. The truth will show itself, without varnish of this hyperbole.

   Practically ignoring the fact that Lindsay inherited staggering deficits from his predecessor but responded with a string of balanced budgets reflects (at least to me) that Cannato is more interested in asserting his theory of the inadequacy of the Lindsay years than the facts. Without balance, there is simply no legitimate analysis.

   Given the author's admitted bias, it is inexcusable to be so critical with NO suggestion whatsoever of what policies Mayor Lindsay should have put in place rather than those he did. What would Cannato have done with students at Columbia University, surrounded by the neighborhood hostile to its expansion on one side, and young activist students on the other? Ditto the New York municipal unions, like the Police, Transit Workers, Teachers and the Sanitation Department. Does Cannato suggest that the appropriate response would have been to bring in the National Guard to run the trains or teach the children? Or, should he have immediately capitulated to the Sanitation Workers, rather than seek the Court's intervention? It is so easy to be critical now, thirty years and some appreciable prosperity later. But even with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we are not afforded the author's wisdom. Be nice to hear what he would have done differently, as opposed to just telling us what he thought was wrong.

   The bottom line? The challenges faced by Mayor Lindsay in The Big Apple were later seen by big city and small-town mayors all across the country. It sure made it easier for some others to respond after they had the chance to see what New York had done first, and respond either by imitation or contrast. Cannato has shown that those who can do, and that some of those who cannot merely criticize.




3. An excellent book, but Cannato is too quick to criticize Lindsay without pointing out the constraints that New York and other cities are tied with. Cannato asserts that Lindsay's failings came from his personality and liberalism, but I believe they came as much from the structure of NYC's governance and from the turbulence of the 1960s than the mayor himself.

   New York City is burdened with more local responsibility for programs for the poor than any other county/city. Everywhere else in the country, Medicaid is entirely federal and state, not so in New York. No where else in the country does a city have to pay 50% of non-federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (and w/ the successor too). Most states have neutral school funding, or funding that tries to help poorer districts, not so in New York, where the formula actually aggravates existing disparities. In common with other cities, New York City is home to concentrated poverty, unlike other cities, New York is made to deal with those problems alone.

   NYC's mayor is also a weak one. He has/had to share power with the Board of Estimate, borough presidents, and independent school boards. Due to there not being a machine, to win elections you must pay off public sector unions. Lindsay had not been backed by the unions, but the years of appeasement of previous mayors had made the unions the most militant in the country, there was little Lindsay could do to temper them. Chicago has its problems, but public sector strikes are not one of them. New York also is an experiment in socialism in one city. It was during Lindsay's administration that New Yorkers realized the impossibility of that dream.

   With more resources, and in a calmer time, Lindsay might have been a success. In another environment Lindsay might be remembered the same way Robert Kennedy is remembered, and not as a dupe.




4. Mr. Cannato's biography of John Lindsay provides an interesting and informative account of Lindsay's mayoralty. At the same time, he provides a great narrative of the major events that were gripping New York City at that time, and how they factored in Lindsay's governance of the city.
   
   In a major way, Mr. Cannato portrays Lindsay as a tragic figure, a man who sincerely wanted to clean up the city, but proved himself to not be up to the job. Three examples from the book illustrate this nicely. For instance, he came into office on a warpath against what he called the city's "power-brokers" (unions, police, etc.), but ended up being strung up by these groups (who, in the case of the unions, ate him alive at the bargaining table). Moreover, Lindsay thoroughly alienated the city's middle class voters through a number of poorly thought out actions/policies (i.e., the Ocean Hill-Brownsville experiment, the 1969 blizzard response, and the proposed Forest Hills housing project, to name a few). As a result, Lindsay was increasingly dependent on the support of the far-left and of disaffected minorities, forcing him to radicalize his message. Finally, Lindsay burned all of his bridges with the Republican Party, became a Democrat, and then immediatetly sought that party's Presidential nomination. This proved to be a complete disaster, as the Democrats owed him absolutely nothing.
   
   I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in urban history and/or 1960s-70s American politics. It makes a great contrast to American Pharoah, which is a biography of long-time Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.



5. 
   I bought this book over 5 years ago and it sat collecting dust on the shelf. It looked too long and too arcane to spend any serious time with 'The Ungovernable City'. Then last weekend I picked it up and could not put it down thru 600+ pages.
   
   Cannato perfectly captures the time and the enormous societal changes that swamped mere mortals like John Lindsay. The fact that Lindsay was mayor at a time like this is almost poetic tragedy: the sensible man of upper income gentility suddenly faced with the disenfranchised demanding a piece of the pie.
   
   Also great are the descriptions of how politics was changing in America....old coalitions were fracturing and in the rush by government to address rising minority demands the white, ethnic working classes were becoming 'forgotten men'. One can see the seeds of the 80s Reagan Revolution being planted in John Lindsay's 60s NYC. This is the most fascinating part of the book. Cannato does a fantastic job of describing the dynamics that led people to switch sides: Lindsay eventually becoming a Democrat and millions of working class becoming Republican.
   
   This book is would be an excellent reader for a course on the 60s social studies.

5 comments about Murdered by Capitalism: A Memoir of 150 Years of Life and Death on the American Left (Nation Books).

1. Digs into the soul of resistance in a way no cut and paste history of the American Left can. Though excessive at times, the narrative occasionally snaps and crackles like a firestream of defiance, taking one voice then another, but always returning to its source: the echo of struggles past and those to come. Also along the way are the laughs, with adventures-misadventures ranging far and wide, unable to resist any siren call from the Left. Too bad, Ross couldn't raise the shade of Earl Browder to explain the progressive potential of the Party of Roosevelt in an era of Clinton-Kerry. I don't know how many of the vintage facts he has right, but the poetics of affirmation are there in abundance and speak loud and clear to all who will listen. Worth the trip.



2. The great contribution of this popularly written history of American radicalism is the joyful abandonment John Ross brings to slamming the annoying pacifism and political correctness of today's anemic Left movement. Yes folks, fighting imperialism and blowing it to bits can be fun! It's supposed to be fun. This bold idea is the premise of Murdered by Capitalism. Ross captures the spirit of the working class heroes who slugged it out, toe to toe, with the capitalist villains of American history. (Not the "corporate" villains PLEASE!) In addition to enjoying lives of adventure and freedom, people like Lucy Parsons, Eugene Debs and Big Bill Haywood kicked butt and made breakthroughs that bettered the lives of all working people for decades to come. This is partisan writing. Pacifism and political correctness are middle-class ideologies that have infected the Left. The working class must break out of these limits if it is to ever mount a fight for human liberation, for freedom, and for political power. Ross wants to blow these middle-class prejudices away. And his book succeeds in doing so. The book presents the entire history of the American left since the Eight Hour Day movement of the 1880s. That's a lot of history-and a lot of contending ideologies-to cover well. Ross tries to represent the disputes fairly, and this book can serve as an introduction to the disputations that roil the adherents of anarchism, syndicalism and Leninism down to the present day. But Ross's own untamed anarcho-communist ideology comes through, in all its poetic fury, on every page. This book never descends into mere analysis of the contending trends. Explaining our past mistakes and finding the way forward is, of course, absolutely necessary if we are going to win. But a winning movement needs more than analysis. It needs to unlock all the latent creativity and combativeness of the American working class. John Ross's book is a long needed wake-up call to the Left. It is a life-affirming manifesto for working class rebellion and for revolution. "MBC" is, at the same time, a hilarious indictment of the politically-correct liberalism that is dragging our movement down.



3. An outstandingly outrageous autobiography intertwined with truthfully tragic American history as seen from the left.
   
   I give this book a shining five stars and rate it a recommended read.
   
   KABOOM!



4. The most frustrating charachteristic of this book is its likeability. It reads like tour-guide patter on a comfortable bus trip through the landscape of the American far left over the last century and change. Superficial, but damned entertaining. There's no attempt to explore the distinctions between the violent and non-violent, or to justify in a meaningful way the rejection of the electoral process. It seems to lump non-violent champions of social justice with those who responded to monstrous injustice by resorting to terror tactics and killing. Ultimately, Ross fails to clarify his own sympathy or lack thereof for leftist terrorists. Is he saying that the Haymarket bomber was justified because he was aiming at cops? Does he really bestow victim status on the Weathermen who blew themselves up, on a par with the kids shot at Kent State? Ross seems determined not to judge. His dedication to historical accuracy is also suspect, and he seems to lack resistance to leftist legends and conspiracy theories (McKinley blew up the USS Maine; LBJ killed JFK, etc.). Nevertheless, it reads well, and if you don't crave moral clarity you can give it another star.



5. ...who had written the brilliant novel *Unintended Consequences*, and whose political morality is diametrically opposed to that of "...the American Left."
   
   Amazon.com had better correct this mistaken impression ASAP.

5 comments about The Devil That Danced on the Water: A Daughter's Quest.

1. As a gripping introduction to Sierra Leone's convoluted post-Independence politics, this book is unmatched.

   Through the story of her own life, as the daughter of an influential and key political figure in newly independent Sierra Leone, we are led through the details of how Sierra Leone made its gradual descent from one of the most promising countries in West Africa, the place that used to be called "the Athens of Africa", to what is today considered euphemistically a "collapsed state". While one has heard of Foday Sankoh and the RUF, and one has an idea that diamonds are involved, Aminatta Forna takes us back to the very beginning of the process of decay. From the imprisonment of the victors in the 1967 elections, to the eventual rise to power of the rightful victor of that election, Siaka Stephens, and his consolidation of Sierra Leone into a one-party state completely under his own control.

   The book is divided into two parts. In part one, we read about Aminatta's first ten years, as she moved between Scotland, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, according to the political situation in Sierra Leone, and the state of her parents' marriage. Consumed by politics, and not fully accepted by Forna's very traditional Sierra Leonean family, Mohamed Forna and his Scottish wife Maureen quickly grew apart. By the time Aminatta was eight, she had lived in six different homes, in three different countries. Part one ends when Mohamed Forna is taken away by state security, imprisoned, and his children never see him again.

   Part two begins some 25 years later, in the year 2000, when Aminatta has started to research the death of her father. As a child she was told he died of stomach ulcers, which she always knew was not the truth. She returns from England to war-torn Sierra Leone where she seeks out everyone involved in her father's arrest, trial, and execution. She interviews scores of people, reads the complete trial transcript, and uses her own memories of the day he was taken away to try to piece together what really happened. What she finds is a blatant perversion of justice. Bribed and tortured witnesses, manufactured evidence, a jury of government stooges, and a judge obviously in the pockets of the state, together find her father guilty of treason and condemn him to death.

   The narrator, Aminatta Forna herself, who writes in the first person, is not completely trustworthy, however. Particularly in the beginning of the book, she makes so many polemical statements about the nature of states' corruption, in the midst of which she states as fact a contested interpretation of history-who really killed Patrice Lumumba-that one is thenceforth wary of her claims.

   Coming to the book with very little knowledge of Sierra Leonean history, and again recognizing her bias towards her father's goodness, his achievements, after a while, become somewhat incredulous. We are repeatedly told how brilliant Mohamed Forna was. At medical school in Scotland he was top of his class. The clinic he opened in a rural Sierra Leonean town was the model of Sierra Leonean healthcare. He won his parliamentary seat by the largest margin ever, he had the most support of all the politicians, as finance minister his budget was the most sensible that Sierra Leone had ever seen, and Sierra Leone enjoyed a fiscal surplus for the first time while he was minister. Sometimes it seems a bit too good to be true. Then she lets us know that he does have a weakness. Mohamed Forna's only shortcoming, according to his daughter's account, was with women. He carried on an extra-marital affair openly in front of his children, as he betrayed their stepmother who had spent the previous four years of her own life looking after his own children in England, while he was in prison. Yet the incidental treatment that Aminatta Forna gives this aspect of her father's life leaves the reader not fully understanding why Forna has included this in her account, as she does not use it to help us to understand her father and his choices.

   However, I must confess that I couldn't put the book down once I had started reading it. Even amongst my quibbles about style and some of the content, I was compelled to keep turning the pages until I had finished, in a virtual non-stop two day reading marathon. Indeed these drawbacks that I cite, by the end of the book, are either forgotten or forgiven, as the account is so detailed and well researched, and too, moving.

   The point is that once democracy, and democratic institutions and processes get corrupted, it tends to be a slippery slope, with a very unpleasant end, that exacts its tolls not only on countries, but on the lives and relationships of individuals. Aminatta Forna's book is a pithy and personal account of exactly how this happens.




2. It is a difficult topic to write about, that relationship between father and daughter. In this case, the narrative is compelling and intensely personal, so much so that it is difficult to get a sense of who Mohammed Forna actually was. Sierra Leone, contrary to its image in the media, was a complex society, and the whole relationship of the Creoles and the 'upline' people is at the very centre of the post colonial struggle. Ms. Forna treats very very lightly with that.
   
   On the whole, even though she documents her hurts and slights growing up as a child of colour in the United Kingdom, for me, a child of Ghana and to a lesser extent, Sierra Leone in the same time frame as Ms. Forna, there is a sense that she had little or no idea of what was going on, apart from the hero worship of her father, which is , of course , understandable.
   
   Through her prose, though, I am able to relive those times in Sierra Leone - who can forget Mile 91, Kissy Road, Connaught Hospital, Lumley Beach! The diamond smuggling which is at the very heart of the tragedy. It is easy to forget that no one in Sierra Leone, especially not the rural poor, is capable of making a bullet, let alone a gun. So who profits? And for what? That is at the very centre of the tragedy. The Tiny Rolands, with their footprints all over Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Botswana - they are the ones who do.



3. Finding/discovering a vanished father. Untangling a terrible and terrifying, deeply saddening history of a place, personal and poltical, on which colonialism, broken promises, fear, racism, and inter-tribal rivalries and conflicts have all trod. What happens when ideals, hope, and education run up against such a history. The close-up, precise remains of a child's memory, feelings, and confusions overlaid with an adult daughter's detailed investigative and journalistic skills. All of these are part of this compulsively readable book, which tells the story of a family, a country (Sierra Leone), and a world torn apart and painstakingly, to whatever extent possible, reconstructed --- at least in the author's own hard-won understanding. I am a white American who happened on this book by accident. I love and respect memoirs where the author is transparent of heart and mind, especially in the context of a larger societal, political, or situational challenge. This book met these criteria with stunning precision. I could not put Aminatta Forna's courageous book down, and have been recommending it to everyone I know.



4. This book is fabulous. It is fabulous because it is accurate, interesting, and well-written. I am just a little older than the author and grew-up in Sierra Leone during much of the period described. I recall the Siaka Stevens years as a teen, I vaguely recall the execution of her father. Interestingly, I read another book about the first year that I was there and in that book, there was a reference to that hanging. I am a nonfiction junkie and read mostly books on mathematics--my field, but Aminatta has a keen way of describing Sierra Leone and the interactions of the politics. I read this book very quickly, in a few days during the work week. I have also read her other novel. I must say that this memoir is the best, in my opinion. Compared to the memoir A Long Way Gone about the Sierra Leonian boy soldier, this book by Aminatta is at a much higher level. It holds a longer period of time over which the plot is developed leading up to that war. It is her search to understand and in that respect the reader is searching right along with her. Read it!



5. Since I learnt of this book from literary reviews I had hastened to find time to zero-in on it. I have not been disappointed. Aminatta writes with such penetrating brilliance that only a born-gifted can produce. The pathos of her father's demise hung heavily on her and with time this must have unleashed a superb creativity embracing analysis and synthesis. She took the lid off the 'golden bowl' of her parents' matrimonial woes, just as she took a swipe at the creoles and mendes for their various shortcomings, leaving the temnes unscathed. Some gross inaccuracies found their way into an otherwise well researched piece, such as there being several hospitals in Freetown at a certain time that catered only to Colonial Masters and their Creole civil servants. Wrong. Hill Station Hospital was for the Colonial Masters. Others contented themselves with Connaught and the Annex, both people from the provinces and Freetown dwellers. She may have been misinformed, probably by a Creole-Phobe.Otherwise her reconteur of the incidents surrounding the 1967 election fiasco,everyday life in Freetown and the Provinces,the time she spent in Britain and Nigeria all adds to slot her into the category of ' an exuberant mind with effusive outpourings', taking into consideration she was only about 6 years old at that time. As a Sierra Leonean who,during his teenage years, traversed the areas described in her book and observed much of the events both from near and afar, I can only say "Well done, Aminatta".I applaud her work, I could not put it down until I reached the end, and I make bold to say this is compulsory reading for any and all with Sierra Leone in mind. Finally,I totally enjoyed her descriptions of things in and around the domestic environ and she won me over with one sentence..."I hated the smell of wet chicken feather and scalded skin ". I hated it too.
   Ked E. James, M.D.
   Petal,Mississippi,, USA.

5 comments about The Roosevelt Presence: The Life and Legacy of FDR.

1. If you are seeking a hatchet job on the greatest President of the 20th century, this is your cup of tea. Maney attempts to paint FDR with a black brush, but makes so many factual mistakes in his narrative, that his attempt is weak and ultimately pathetic. His gross lack of understanding about the causes of the Depression and the impending European crisis are almost laughable.

   FDR made mistakes in judgment (attempting to pack the Supreme Court), but he was the quintessential and perfect leader for this country in the midst of its greatest crisis of the past 100 years. Imagine Tom Dewey or Wilkie leading this nation against the Axis powers. Contemplate that one... if you dare!

   There are many outstanding examinations of Franklin Roosevelt and this is certainly not one of them. It's a polemic and poorly written attempt to diminish FDR's influence and greatness. It fails on all levels. The only people who would embrace this treatment would be the die-hard Roosevelt haters.




2. All ya'll been about misreviewing this book, but it was tight, yo! My man Maney gets scientific in his approach of talking about a cat nobody can touch, and he has the cojones to take a stand, and tell that s--t real. And none of you ever been to the Depression, so don't be even trying to talk about how he was wrong about it. Give Maney props, he gives an even-handed book telling of the many things, good and bad, or Franklin Roosevelt, our former president.



3. Despite its lack of heft, Patrick Maney has produced a wonderfully balanced and nuanced portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, Maney's book may be the finest jumping off point for those looking to get acquainted with FDR in full bloom, and not just with the nostalgic, sometimes mawkish, remembrances of politicians.

   When it comes to FDR, far too many readers, including a number of other reviewers here, only want to hear about positive aspects: the New Deal, winning World War II, etc. As a professional historian, Maney is not in the business of producing such hagiographies. As such, what we have here is the cool judgment and dispassionate analysis of a writer who is constructing a narrative of the historical record; not someone who is cheerleading for a particular political persuasion. Those who want a softer and friendlier treatment of Roosevelt should look elsewhere.

   In addition to Roosevelt's many triumphs, Maney provides great detail about some of FDR's more negative aspects, such the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or his near pathological secrecy that kept him from grooming a successor. Maney also lays bare Roosevelt's personal peccadilloes, such as his long-term affair with Lucy Mercer.

   In the end, Maney has done a fine job of presenting Roosevelt, and he should be commended.




4. Other reviewers have accurately noted that Maney both praises and criticizes Roosevelt. I based my purchase on this expectation of a balanced portrait. What they didn't note is that both the criticism and the praise are done from an extreme left perspective.

   Unlike most books written about FDR from the left, Maney does address some of the low points in Roosevelt's presidency. However, when doing so he at times goes into bizarre explanations/justifications which left me scratching my head. For example:

   1) Roosevelt's plunging the recovering economy back into depression in 1937 by deliberately shrinking the money supply and reducing government spending. Explanation: He only meant to slow down the growth of the economy, he couldn't have expected this to slow down the economy.
   2) Roosevelt's decision to imprison Japanese Americans in WWII against the advice of J. Edgar Hoover (no softie on security!). Explanation: It wasn't his fault, he was given bad advice by the people he appointed.
   3) Roosevelt's postwar plan to create a soviet style economic model in the US where the government could dictate which job any person had ("labor draft"), and guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, and recreation to all in return. Explanation: The fact that he didn't advocate the abolition of corporations and the total redistribution of all wealth shows that Roosevelt was becoming a moderate.

   I wouldn't have believed these examples (and others), had I not read the book! The other thing that surprised me were some of the horrifying things Roosevelt did which clearly didn't bother the author at all. For example, neither Roosevelt's attempt to "purge" the Democratic party of those he deemed not ideologically pure, nor his breaking the back of the supreme court in the infamous "court packing" case troubled the author.

   With all this said, the worst part of the book by far was the concluding chapter "Reputation and Legacies". This last rambling chapter bemoans the fact that President Carter could not have predicted from FDR's experience that restricting the national oil supply would create a recession. He drones on for several pages on this theme of how FDR let the world down by not having the foresight to give advice to future Democratic presidents. The final paragraph concludes with "There is much to admire about Roosevelt... yet as the experience of his successors helped confirm, his greatness was much too deeply rooted in the circumstances of his own times... Among presidents, alas, [FDR] was not a man for all seasons." While I'm not opposed to criticizing Roosevelt, this is as unfair as it is disappointing. How can we blame FDR for addressing the key issues during his presidency? At the same time, important topics like the legacy of Social Security, FDR's decision to give Stalin N. Korea, the complicity of members from the Roosevelt administration in bringing Mao to power in China (to name a few) are left undiscussed.




5. In The Roosevelt Presence, Maney does his best to justify and explain away issues relative to the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration, and various methods the Roosevelt administration created or implemented to solve various crises, chief among them economic difficulties in the `30s and war issues in the `40s. Maney clearly exposes his liberal, left-leaning stance by being critical of Roosevelt in certain areas but being supportive in other areas. As a historian, Maney should have presented the facts and let the reader decide. If Maney wanted to voice his opinion or other relevant personal position information, he should have included that in an introduction or in the endnotes. The fact that the University of California press published this book also speaks to the left-leaning position.

5 comments about The Mayor of MacDougal Street: A Memoir.

1. The Mayor of MacDougal Street is right there with Bob Dylan's Chronicles if you are looking to research the music world. It is a veritable encyclopedia of musicians and songs. Dave's book one ups Dylan's book on references because there are more peripheral nods to the musician's scene; political personalities, club owners, agents, bar tenders, authors, and drug dealers to mention a few. It seems like no one was left out. Blossom Dearie, Pink Anderson, Jimmy Noone, Francois Villon, and Joan Baez's sister-- the names are endless. Throughout his passionate memoir Van Ronk recounts stories and anecdotes with skill, wit, and laugh-out-loud humor.
   He did his part for socialism and saw the inception of a union for folk singers. It is a major achievement that he was never arrested on the tail end of McCarthyism; it was the late fifties and other than a brief stint as a merchant seaman he was a musician with a beard!
   There is insightful commentary on charts and chords only a musician would understand and raconteurs about Lenin and Trotsky only a political science student would grasp but it's all laid out chronologically as Van Ronk matures into the Folk flood of the early sixties that happened in New York, Boston, and San Francisco.
   In some places the analysis of his past are postpositive and you get the feeling he missed or fell short of his place in the sun spots of musical time. He tells about a lot of musicians being bitter or jealous of Dylan's initial success who harbored the attitude "why him" but offers the explanation that none of these musicians who complained ever wrote "A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall."
   If Van Ronk was frustrated or unfulfilled because of circumstances or a defect of character he comes clean in the final chapters.
   The Mayor of MacDougal Street is an honest narrative and after reading it I got up off the floor, sat down in a chair, and started reading it again.
   It propelled me to check out his recordings. Here is a guy who works with an acoustic guitar and his voice-- only. It's refreshing to hear artists as themselves without all the engineering tricks and corporate advertising smoke and mirrors that musical acts have to use today in order to stay in the business.
   Where else can you find a version of "Swing'n On A Star" with an acoustic guitar doing 5ths around the horn?
   I bought two copies of this book and put them on the shelf next to `On the Road' and `Really the Blues.'



2. The Mayor of MacDougal Street is a lovely book, full of wit and full of heart. It is probably partly due to my having lived and worked during the folk and blues revival of the sixties and seventies, and having known some of the people in Cambridge and the Village that van Ronk writes so tenderly about, that I enjoyed the book as much as I did. The reader who is unacquainted with that scene and that time might find it less compelling. My fondness for this great musician and voluptuary has been heightened by this memoir and its companion CD of the same title.



3. Keep a dictionary handy when you read this book. It's going to make you grin with pleasure, because Dave Van Ronk was no slouch with words. Just as with his music, Van Ronk was deeply devoted to his craft in his writing. He certainly managed to get his big arms around the world he breathed.
   
   This book is bracingly honest, unfailingly adroit, and on top of that, it's funny as all get out. Move over, Bill Bryson. As a raconteur, Van Ronk takes a backseat to no one.
   
   And, what stories he had to tell... He turned down an offer by Albert Grossman to join with Peter Yarrow and Mary Travers to form a trio. "Peter, Dave and Mary would never have worked", Van Ronk grouses. As a folk-bluesman, Van Ronk never made it big, but like the old blues people he pays tribute to, he knew who he was and that's all that counted.
   
   He understood what made the music tick, the times he lived in, and what separated the big successes from the pack. He provides great analysis of Phil Ochs and Bob Dylan.
   
   Anyone who has ever picked up a guitar and tried to learn finger-picking should wax wistful about a fellow like Van Ronk, who rubbed shoulders with and took lessons from the Reverend Gary Davis, and engaged in a snowball fight and arm-wrestled with the ever-spry Mississippi John Hurt.
   
   An amazing book by an amazing man, this is.



4. This is just a great read - - we knew Van Ronk was a great singer and performer, but who knew he could write so well, too! This is the real deal - - the whole story from the beginning, and enlightens everything you thought you knew about the singer, Greenwich Village in the 50s, his rise to acclaim, Greenwich Village in the 60s, and so much more. It's essential reading for anyone who's interested in the great folk scare, NYC in the 50s-60s and beyond, Dylan fans and folk fans in general. Really well done. A great bit of history, and funny too!



5. This book is very interesting due to its subject- the witty yet unschooled, tremendously talented, left-leaning, Mayor of MacDougal Street, Dave Van Ronk. Elijah Wald did an excellent job with this, though this read is not as compelling as Elijah's biography of Josh White, which is one of the best Blues-related books I've ever read, along with "Escaping The Delta", another of Elijah's works, which centers on the birth of the Blues, the "Race Records" industry, and the legend of Robert Johnson. There are many interesting and colorful stories in this book, some of them dealing with cross-country trips and free hamburgers and smuggling illegal substances into the United States. This book also allows us to see that there were players on the Greenwich Village scene before Bob Dylan, and in many cases, these men and women were a lot more talented than young Bob, at least in terms of proficiency on the guitar. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Dave Van Ronk, the Country Blues revival, the popular "Folk" music of the 1960s, and the aforementioned decade in general.

5 comments about The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.

1. Michael Kurtz is to be commended for delivering a fantastic overview of the JFK assassination case at this late juncture (2006). Of most value are Kurtz's personal interviews with sundry medical personnel and even three former Secret Service agents: Roy Kellerman (deceased 1984; I spoke/ corresponded with his widow June), William Greer (deceased 1985; I spoke to his son Richard), and Robert Bouck (deceased 2004; I spoke to Bouck 9/27/92). I am on 3 pages of this book. Get it!!!



2. The chapter on the intelligence community does not go into the CIA but Castro. This is a trick lawyers use. Everyone did it but my client. The CIA is out there looking for the real killers along with O.J.



3. Professor Kurtz complied a book of essays in which he compared and contrasted conspiracy theories and the official mythology. What was missing was the scholarship that one would expect from a professor of his standing.
   
   I was expecting an analytical critique of conspiracy theories' and the offical mythology's critical themes. It was not there. The assassination debate was the equivalent dialogue between bar patrons. Both sides remained basically unchallenged because neither could cite the documntary basis for their positions, the documentary basis being the foundation for academic scholarship. What a pity that I was duped into buying a book based on the author's credentials that were not in evidence.



4. A unbiased book that offers both sides of the JFK debate and the supporting evidence for each, sounds great right? And things are rolling along pretty smoothly until Kurtz can't resist wedging in his nonsensical viewpoint in a chapter hilariously "consensus", which is filled with misleading statements("There's no proof whatsoever the rifle was fired that day". No such test exists), ridiculous standards of proof("Nobody photographed the bullet on the governor's stretcher"), supposed scientific findings with no no citations, and outright omissions of fact(Kennedy's head snapping forward). Kurtz'z allegations are seemingly devoid of the recognition that basic extension of logic entailing them leads invariably to oblivion. Hilariously, although Kurtz is disturbed by the lack of proof of CE 399 actually being found on Governor Connally's stretcher, he seems untroubled by his own assertion that it is "unknown" what happened to the bullets that were "undoubtedly" fired at President Kennedy from the front.
   
   Do not swallow the disingenuous "detached and unbiased" hook. This book is simply another in a large stack of conspiracy nonsense.



5. The idea behind 2006's "JFK: The Assassination Debates" seems valuable and overdue: A comparison of viewpoints regarding the murder of President Kennedy, between those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and those who don't. A shame it winds up being a repetitive, simplistic explanation of the author's point of view, with some worthwhile points lost amid the clutter.
   
   Author Michael L. Kurtz explains his view at the beginning that there was a conspiracy, but that his own view has shifted. He isn't trying to make up anyone's mind, he says, but offer "a solid basis of information upon which...they can make up their own minds."
   
   There are two chapters that seem to take this approach, one presenting the established lone-gunman view and the other being a sort of generic conspiracy viewpoint, about which Kurtz notes there are many tangents. Kurtz doesn't push his particular view here, and does a fair job establishing both positions.
   
   The rest of his book is less successful. Abandoning the "two-sides" approach which would seem to be the basis for the book's title, he offers his reasoning for disputing the official story.
   
   At times, he does a good job, too, especially when noting the conflicting stories regarding the condition of the President's head when his body reached Parkland Hospital. It's true he doesn't prove anything, but he raises questions regarding why the shattered skull seen on the Zapruder film didn't turn out so shattered when it lay on an operating table some minutes later.
   
   Kurtz makes his best points with the Zapruder film, finding fault in this respect with both lone-gunman supporters and the harder-core conspiracy believers. Why does Kennedy's head fly backward if he was shot from behind, while footage of other such headshots shows the victim falling in the direction from which the bullet was shot? If the Zapruder film was actually tampered with, as some conspiracists now claim, why wouldn't it have been done in a way to make a shot from the rear seem more probable?
   
   As a person who believes Oswald acted alone, I found Kurtz's viewpoint occasionally challenging and worthwhile. But he kept returning to make the same points chapter after chapter, sometimes within the same chapter. He doesn't mention key points like Kennedy's back brace, and diminishes others like the fact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in the first minutes after the shooting were less interested in establishing a clear evidentiary path than in saving the life of a president.
   
   He never adequately explains Oswald in the larger context of things. He's willing to allow Oswald probably shot Officer J.D. Tippit less than an hour after the president was hit, and may have shot at Kennedy as well, just that he wasn't alone or responsible for the killing hit. But who was he, and why is he at the center of every theory, often conflicting, that Kurtz expounds upon? Was he really a traitor, helping the Soviets shoot down a U-2 spy plane? Was he played as a patsy by right-wing conspirists, as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison claimed?
   
   Kurtz calls Garrison's investigation flawed but wants to chew over the notion that he was following a worthy trail, of midnight meetings and a mysterious office at 544 Camp Street, an address he frequently repeats as "the infamous 544 Camp Street address" or "the notorious 544 Camp Street" in case you don't get the point that something pretty bad went down there. Kurtz offers a lot of eyewitness testimony in this regard, including his own, but what he presents boils down to Garrison's original case. If Garrison was a bad investigator, doesn't this all constitute fruit from the poisoned tree?
   
   Reviewing a book for what it isn't is bad sport, but it feels like "The JFK Assassination Debates", by not living up to its title as a sort of side-by-side comparison of viewpoints regarding key elements of the assassination, misses the mark as a noteworthy contribution to a crowded field.

3 comments about Ivan the Terrible.

1. Robert Payne's "Ivan The Terrible" is sensational. The book, in addition to being a great historical research project, is also a lively read. Though it nears 500 pages, this book manages to navigate Ivan the Terrible's life in detail, without continual sidetracking or nitpicking. The pace of the book moves well and is free of dead sections that seem to be aimed at specialists instead of the lay reader.

   The danger in writing a biography on someone like Ivan the Terrible is to psychoanalyze and read too much into the turbulent times and events. While Payne offers some explanations for the erratic and awful behavior of the Grand Prince of Muscovy, he certainly doesn't try to explain away, apologize or revise the life of Ivan.

   There is also a tendency in biography to get mired down in political intrigues and military minutae of the times. While there is certainly plenty of intrigue and military history, the book never wanders far from the subject matter which is Ivan, a man possessed by history, demons and angels.

   This book may not satisfy the specialist, who might yearn for more detail and more footnotes, but it is certainly a good, solid starting point for someone wanting to know more about Ivan the Terrible.

   Payne has done a great service for Russian history buffs.




2. To concur with the previous review: this is an engaging read. I enjoyed it and learned from it.
   
   A concern: There were a number of places where I knew something about Russian religious practice that the authors got wrong in their book. This is disturbing to me because my one area of expertise was inaccurately referenced. When this happens, I wonder how many areas out there that I don't know about are fouled up. A look at academic reviews assures me that they're aware of some of these, but that they're not rampant in the text.
   
   One academic review claimed that the authors took the word of chronicles and other primary sources on Ivan's life without thinking them through. This is not true throughout the text, although I wish they'd taken Kurbskii's comments with the big grain of salt they require.



3. Biographies are strange business. The author has to assemble lots of potentially disparate, even contradictory facts into something that feels like a coherent narrative; one with a logical progression of events and characters whose thoughts and motivations make some kind of sense. When the subject is 500 years old and an absolute monarch, the sources that remain are likely to have suffered so many revisions that their relation to fact must be especially hard to ascertain.
   
   So, assembling a story about Ivan IV was a big job and the authors deserve a great deal of credit for crafting a story out of the pieces available. And, if only because of the events contained in that story, it makes for really interesting reading.
   
   But, part of a biographer's responsibility is to point out the limitations of the available information and to try to give the reader some sense of how actions taken out of the context of their own time and place may feel very different than they might have for contemporaries.
   
   That's not to suggest that the wholesale slaughter of his own subjects doesn't earn Ivan a deservedly nasty reputation. But the authors don't even try to make any sense of it, except to describe him as a madman and a paranoid.
   
   That's where the book fails as a good biography. But it really slips into strange territory when the authors describe some historical figures as "saints," without any apparent metaphorical overtones. What's even weirder are their descriptions of divine interventions or miracle-working icons with the same uninflected tones they use to describe a banquet menu.
   
   The book often reads like a hagiography, not just in its reference to divine machinations, but even in the authors' choice of words and form. You can't help but come away from the work feeling that their real intent was to denounce the tyrants of Russian history - be they Ivan or Stalin - and to champion the fair and truly Christian rulers whom history should remember with more affection. I was surprised, but relieved, that there was no postscript pleading for the return of Russia to the monarchy.
   
   In a nutshell: the story's a good one because the subject and his time are inherently interesting. I'd like to read someone else's take on it sometime.

5 comments about Sam Houston.

1. The question begs asking -- "Who is James L. Haley?" -- because this author has come forward without a lofty academic post and shown the cheek to produce what is probably the finest modern biography of Houston yet written.

   With several dozen good biographies of Houston already in print, James L. Haley went the extra mile and built a terrific book based mostly on primary sources, many if not most of them apparently first mined by him. He appears to do research the old-fashioned way -- in archives, accosting private collectors, and pursuing the odd distant family source as well. At a time when the lions of academia are being dragged through the mud of plagiarism and scandal, blithely recasting and repackaging the hard work of others, Haley's work-ethic -- which is purely Puritan -- is pure refreshment to find.

   His book has more heart and soul than either Marshall De Bruhl's or J. H. Williams's works. And just as importantly, Haley -- lack of academic-world gravitas notwithstanding -- writes with the strongest sense of voice. He gets carried away a bit when he's feeling his oats, but the result on balance is sterling biography. As the eminent Texas historian Elliott West says on the back cover, all future scholarship on Houston and Texas will have to reckon with this striking, substantial book.




2. This is one of the most awesome books I have ever read! I didn't want to put it down! This is a wonderful biography for a history buff or just a person curious in learning about the life of one of this nation's greatest leaders! Great buy!



3. Sam Houston is a figure who aroused great passions beginning in his own day and continuing to the present. Jim Haley's well written biography, supported by fifteen years of research in original archives not available (or used) by past researchers, joins the ranks of major works on this interesting figure. The book should join the library of anyone interested in the Texas Revolution and its heroes. With impressive scholarship, the book is well written and enjoyable to read. A major achievement, worth the wait.



4. James Haley's "Sam Houston" is a study into a man's soul. Using new resources he has humanized the man and the legend. Mr. Haley has done the best possible job of getting into the head of Sam Houston and explaining his life long habits without falling into the easy trap of revisionism. As a matter of fact in my mind he is a champion of the facts, using common sense logic when faced with the incompleteness of facts that is often found in history. He often has to navigate through the propaganda of the day and connect the dots with the straight edge of reality. This is well demonstrated by the facts presented about the biggest Sam Houston mystery of all, why his marriage with Miss Eliza Allen failed. You will have to read the book to find the answers.
   Easy to read for the casual reader, well noted for the serous researcher. James Haley's "Sam Houston" is a great read.



5. Sam Houston was larger than life! Prof. H.W. Brands has stated that you could never write a novel based on Sam Houston's life because nobody would believe it: He was right! What a great figure! Admirable with all his flaws, a true hero. Mr. Haley's book is written well, though not perfect, I recommend it to anyone looking for a great story and a great and well lived life.