2 comments about Dream Makers, Dream Breakers: The World of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

1. As it says on the cover, this is as close as one will get to an autobiography of Thurgood Marshall. The author gives a fascinating insight into Marshall's life and career. Very well worth reading.



2. A captivating truly exhilirating book. Full of all kinds of fascinating details about Marshall's upbringing, his years as a litigator, and his judicial career. Truly captures the essence of a man who was irreverent, down to earth, compassionate, and fully committed to his cause. Demonstrates the numerous ways in which Marshall's achievements have made life better for all American's. More entertaining than a work of fiction. Made me want to read Rowan's other books.

5 comments about Farewell, Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days.

1. Edward Klein needs to find a new family to write recycled books about. After peddling such ghastly books as "The Kennedy Curse" and "Just Jackie," Klein engages in literary graverobbing with the putrid "Farewell Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days."

   His primary focus is the final illness and death of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, of non-lymphoma cancer that seemed easily treatable. By this time, Ms. Onassis had transcended her tabloid-speckled former lives and had a good job, a man she loved, and grandchildren she adored. But when her cancer spread, Onassis tried to die with the illusion of dignity she had maintained in her life.

   Reading "Farewell Jackie" is a bit like watching someone break open a grave to frisk the bones of the dead. Padding the story of Jackie's illness and death are stories of her earlier life -- primarily her second marriage, and various love affairs she had (one of which has been denied by the man involved). Dirt-dishing, anyone?

   Jackie Kennedy Onassis is portrayed as downright saintly in this book; Klein glosses over the hypocrises and flaws in her personality, such as being "religious" yet ignoring tenets of that religion. Even the volatile nature of her relationship with her second husband. Oddly enough, this adoration doesn't extend far enough, especially at the end. Any semblance of dignity is shredded when Klein goes into grotesque detail about Onassis's final mental and physical deterioration.

   What's more, Klein's writing is deplorable. He transcribes private conversations and moments when Onassis was alone -- all obviously faked. Not to mention that Klein is in desperate need of an editor for this book's many errors. On one page, Klein informs us, "Jackie a wreck." Verbs? We don't need no stinkin' verbs.

   Farewell, Jackie. Too bad Klein had to write this book and peddle it as a memorial volume for you. "Farewell Jackie," thankfully, is clearly destined to sink into the mire of obsequious, poorly-written Kennedy books.




2. I think that this book was a well writen portrail of Jackie's final days, with a moderate vocabulary it well conveys the beliefs of the author



3. I enjoy reading books about the Kennedys and Jackie Onassis, but this book, which was supposed to give a chronicle of sorts of the last 10-11 years of Jackie's life, did not do a very good job of that. It was a cut-and-paste biography from previous books and interviews. I didn't learn anything new from this book, and that's the biggest disappointment. It will be a nice addition to my extensive library, but it won't be the first one I pull off the shelf for anyone who wants a good narrative of her life and on who Jackie really was. This is an "okay to read if you're lonely" kind of book.



4. The author was once a friend of Jackie's, until he had the audacity to break one of her cardinal rules...writing an article on her for Vanity Fair in 1989. Like many people, he has cashed in quite nicely on noteriety of the Kennedy's, and Jackie in particular. Hence, Jackie banished Klien from her circle as she did with many people that she felt breached her privacy. You can hardly consider Klien a true insider, he is more like a vulture picking at scraps already chewed over by many, many other gossip columnists, writers, and fans like myself.
   This book is really just a re-hashing of many things that have already been published and little of it is new. I must add that most of the details in this book on her illness and treatment h were widely published in tabloids like "Enquirer" and "Star" when she died 10 years ago. The chapters on Jackie's private moments during the last months of her life-when she is in church, in the doctor's office, with her children, and even on her deathbed are hard to believe, if only because we know Jackie would not have allowed Klien within a block of her presence. Most of his sources for these are a "secret" and I really have to wonder if anyone that Mrs Onassis truly considered a friend would speak with Mr. Klien.
   
   This book, I hate to admit, is a guilty pleasure but one that I regret indulging in, knowing disgusted the subject would have been with it.



5. My husband claims that I've never met a book I didn't like. But two Edward Klein books that I've recently read have to be the exceptions. The Kennedy Curse was bad enough, but Farewell, Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days is a true dog.
   
   Klein gives us the details of the diagnosis of Jackie's fatal illness and follows through to her death. In between, he regales us with short stories about her childhood, her lovers, her husbands, her children, her friends and her job. Jackie was fiercely protective of her privacy, and one thing that she demanded of her friends was complete loyalty. Edward Klein used to be a friend, until he wrote an article about her. After that, she cut him off completely. As a result, we're not really getting his "inside" story, but the story of dozens and dozens of Jackie's "anonymous" friends. I question how many would willingly provide him with intimate details of Jackie's deathbed scene (one that he called "her masterpiece").
   
   Farewell, Jackie isn't much of a book. Weighing in about just a little over 200 pages, the chapters are short, the pages are small, and there are often two or three blank pages between each chapter. I read Farewell in a little over two hours, and I'm not a speed reader. At least with The Kennedy Curse, Klein provided us with some interesting information about the little-known Kennedy-Fitzgerald patriarchs. Unfortunately, Farewell, Jackie has little to redeem it. I think Klein has milked this cash cow (the Kennedy's) to the extent that the cow has run dry. It's time for him to find some new material.

5 comments about The Southern Haunting of Truman Capote.

1. This book is simply a rehash of information which has already been published. I am a big fan of Marie Rudisill's and loved FRUITCAKE and SOOK'S COOKBOOK. I advise she work on her own and not coauthor with Simmons again--her books with him just don't allow her wit and humanity to show through.



2. This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie



3. This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie



4. The reviews of this book vary widely from Capote fans that treasure every shred of information to those that feel the book recycles known information to others critical of the co-author. I am a Capote fan and do treasure information on Truman. The book is short but I found it well written and fascinating. The text also captures the Southern frame of mind so common among those raised in the South (as I was). In addition, the hardcover is an attractive book and will stay on my shelf for years to come. It has a high quality binding; the dust jacket and interior are handsome and well made. Given the price, not only is it a fine volume for Capote fans but it is a good value.



5. I REALLY LIKED THIS LITTLE BOOK BECAUSE THERES NOTHING LIKE READING ABOUT SOUTHERN PEOPLE AND SOUTHERN WAYS. IT WAS JUST A WONDERFUL LAID BACK MOOD. VERY RELAXING TO READ.

5 comments about Love Affair: A Memoir of Jackson Pollock.

1. Ruth Kligman's account of her "love affair" is tacky, self-serving and poorly written. It's a shame that this adultress continues to live off of a "fame" taken at the expense of the suffering of others through the exploitation of a great artist's demise, a "friend's" death, a undeserving wife, etc. etc.



2. A poorly written, self-serving book written by a bit player who is still feeding on Pollock 47 years after his drunken, ignominious death. Pathetic.



3. Although Ruth Klingman is a clumsy writer (ie we silently went into the silent house.), the book was of value based on the time period it explores.
   The story takes place in Jackson Pollock's last year, when his life became totally unravelled. He has alienated his friends and colleagues;started an affair with Klingman; his wife seperated from him and he spent most of his time either drunk or otherwise unable to function. If you can get beyond Ruth Klingman's overblown efforts to make this a romance story (which it is not), It tells of Pollock's unnerving behavior in the final few months before his death.
   There is significant art world gossip about Ruth Klingman during this time. She is said to have asked for a list of the best painters in New York at the time and when she was told the best was Pollock, was said to lay claim on him immediately. Within a year of Pollocks death she had started an affair with #2 on the list (Willem de Kooning) which lasted on again off again until 1962. I think the only reason she didn't also have an affair with Franz Kline (#3 on the list) was because he died before her final break up with de Kooning. Because of these stories, her claims in the book that she loves Pollock forever and that he is the only person she ever loved is hollow. It seems she wants the reader to think she is both a sympathetic character and more important than she really was. It comes off as pretentious. It would have made her both more believable and more sympathetic if she would have told of what she has done with her life since the accident in 1956 and perhaps included an honest assessment of her life in the afterward.
   However,I would recommend this book, not as a sole source for his biography, but to flesh out other biographies on Pollock.



4. Not that Pollock was a great person himself...but dont read this creature's book...she is a vain, superficial,predatory,skank...her ticket to her success lies directly on Pollock's death and death only...had he lived..he would of tired of her or she would of found a more immediate artist to use...and would even be th"c" celebrity she is today...



5. This book should definitely be used as a fine example of relationship pathology. It has nothing to do with the artistic life of a genius, just about a woman's idea of her importance by association. Reading it is actually nauseating on so many levels; and this dysfunctional relationship claimed an innocent victim at the end. Spare yourself this self-referential piece of trash.

5 comments about The Passions of Andrew Jackson.

1. This book will surely enlighten those that want to learn more about Andrew Jackson. It does however glaze over a few of the mans more notorious deeds. There was barely a page devoted to the forced relocation of the Cherrokee and other tribes of indians that lived East of the Missippi. Today this would have been a crime against humanity and it led to the Trail of Tears which is one of the more humiliating parts of American history. Nothing at all was mentioned of the fact that this was done with the Supreme Court saying that such an action was unacceptable. The subject of the closure of the National Banks could have done with some more discussion as well. The book did give the reader a bit of a look into the "What was he thinking?" question that most modern minds are led to ask when thinking of some of the actions of Gen. Jackson.
   It's shortcomings aside, I am glad to have read it as it is a good look into an all too often forgotten time of American history.



2. If you are looking for a biography that takes you inside the head of the man, explains what makes him tick and how he managed his personal life and career, in as few pages as possible, this is it. If you want a thousand pages of historical broken-glass-studded factoids raked over your eyeballs in excruciatingly slow motion, look elsewhere. Personally, I prefer the former style of bio. The 325 pages read as 225. When I had finished I felt like I really knew Jackson, his relationships, and what about him contributed to his achievements. By contrast, I reached the same point after a mere 700 pages of D'Este's Eisenhower bio - which spared me from having to read the last 165 pages!



3. I found this book to be a very interesting if unflattering take on Andrew Jackson. The title is revealing-this book is primarily intersted in what made Jackson tick. This isn't done with new age psychoanalysis but by looking behind the actions Jackson took. Thus there is considerable time spent on Jackson's duels, physical confrontations and his political battles. Because of this there may be an imbalance in the book towards the negative actions Jackson took-such as his duels, disregard for military or political authority and his actions towards even his allies among the native americans. However the book makes it clear that it was these very traits that made him the General and President that he was. For a more positive and comprehensive book on Jackson read Brands book. Beter yet read them both.
   
   
   
   



4. BOY, TALK ABOUT DECONTEXTUALIZED HISTORY!ANDREW JACKSON WAS A RACIST-AS OPPOSED TO WHO IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY ON PLANET EARTH!HE DEFENDED HIS PERSONAL HONOR-YOU MEAN LIKE HAMILTON AND BURR?HE SUBJECTED THE INDIANS TO BRUTAL EXPULSIONS-LIKE THE INDIANS DID TO US(ON OCCASION)AND TO EACH OTHER.HE ONLY BELIEVED IN DEMOCRACY FOR WHITE MEN(WELL,AT LEAST!).HE WAS FARTHER AHEAD ON THAT ISSUE THAN GEORGE WASHINGTON,JOHN ADAMS AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON(NOT TO MENTION KING GEORGE III)!THE THING ABOUT OLD HICKORY WAS THAT HE WAS IMPLACABLE IN DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY AND HIMSELF(GOD FORBID!)AND CLAWED HIS WAY FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SOCIAL ORDER TO THE TOP WITH NARY A BY YOUR LEAVE TO THE SOCIAL ELITE OF THE TIME(GOD BLESS AMERICA!).AND ISN'T THAT REALLY MR. BURSTEIN'S HANG-UP? THE COMMON FOLK MAKING THEIR OWN WAY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF ELITE IVORY TOWER SOCIAL ARBITERS LIKE HIMSELF?!NOT THAT I HAVE AN OPINION.



5. Historical masculinity vs. Contemporary Masculinity
   Is it the triumph of intellectual rationality over ruffian physicality, or a Jacksonian warmongering spirit of vendetta?
   
   By Brian D'Ambrosio
   
   Spring is rife with emotionally ebullience. It's the ideal season to explore the depths and probe the unobstructed boundaries of intrinsic behaviors, all while thawing out from the long, frostily cold vagaries of winter's character consuming frigidity. Is there a better time of the year for calmness, prudence, self-analysis, and perhaps even self-deprecation? Being a history buff I tend to stock up on political biographies during the winter months, and through Andrew Jackson (1767-1845: 7th President of the U.S. 1829-1837), I've once again come face to face with the elemental problem of resolving - or at least broaching - the somewhat amorphous (and perhaps therefore indefinable) subject of true masculinity.
   
   The manliest president of all-time has got to be Andrew Jackson: he had lured away another man's wife and took her as his own; he relished killing and unapologetically engaged in dueling; he invaded Florida without constitutional consent; patriotic to a fault, he had ordered the deaths of insubordinate American militiamen during the War of 1812. Fiery, rebellious, fiercely patriarchal, he, as one contemporary catalogued, "did not like or dislike people; he loved them or hated them." Herein references the problem: Is Andrew Jackson a correct, defensible masculine model? If so, this presupposes the inherently violent, dastardly, nature of masculinity.
   
   Jackson was a man of unwavering principles, "an irascible man easily angered, a man who held back little." Jacksonian principle, according to Andrew Burstein, author of The Passions of Andrew Jackson, was as simple as it was ironclad: to be the object of slander was worse than death, for, in his eyes, mortality preserved "good character," and a "good heritage" descended to one's children; calumny left one alive, but "a living monument to disgrace," and only transferred "infamy" to one's surviving family members. Indeed, any comment that challenged his thinking, judgment, or sensibilities, he deemed to be an affront to his masculinity. A duel was the honorable and "gentlemanly" way to settle such disputes, the ultimate recourse to mend wounded pride.
   
   Was masculinity the duel itself, or was it the courageousness of a participant to show up and fight until the bitter end? Is pure masculinity brisk, mature judgment, sophistication of taste, keenness of thought, and lucidity of reasoning - intellectual discernment rather than ruffian physicality? Or is manliness the use of force to repel or displace those considered suspicious, ill-fated enemies - Spanish, British, and Indian? Is it the brutish implementation of this force? Is it a fistfight, a duel, or the knowledge of exotic wines? Eloquent pen? Or mighty sword? In Jacksonian America, "enemies were a necessary stimulus."
   
   Then perhaps residual Jacksonian masculinity, when applied to modern variables, is the end result, the bottom line stats, the final score of a football game. We won. They lost. Or vice versa. Perhaps modern masculinity is the emotion wrought from the engagement of such a contest, the way it felt to fumble or flub away a seemingly insurmountable lead.
   
   In these times, for a man to be a rightful, sincere man, he needs to delicately and sensibly commingle the very best characteristics of enduring masculinity with the emerging senses of newfound masculinity. The residually masculine part of my character wishes that I could have been a goon in the National Hockey League, dropping the gloves and engaging in fistic discord against opponents of equal prowess - night after night, shift after shift. It's the part of me that loves the beautiful brutality of boxing, doesn't like to be outpaced on hiking trails, cares about the way I look, and casts aspersions on the unfriendly, or, at times, unfamiliar.
   
   This appealing, cultivating, present day masculinity wonders how it feels to be one of those boxers' wives, ruminates about the physical, emotional and natural interconnectedness derived through hiking, and scarcely cusses. It's the part that flosses teeth and steams vegetables. This masculinity appears more concerned with emotional appeals to reason than spite-filled vitriol, and realizes that self-improvement cannot be static.
   
   Toward the end of his life, Jackson, remained as blunt, tempestuous, explicit, and opinionated as he had been when only a young man, failing to outgrow the advocacy of violent masculinity to decide personal quarrels. As Burstein puts it, even at advanced age, "He was not given to reflection, but he maintained sturdy principles of conduct, that, in his mind, never steered him wrong."
   
   Perhaps this is the greatest failure of the defiant nature of Jacksonian language and its rigidly principled masculinity: it failed to see past exaggerated pride and bloated ego, and remained stuck in the frontier impulses and obligations typical of its day. It was incapable of seeing problems. It did not allow for the free exchange of ideas. It did not learn from reading, nor did it aim to improve its self-worth through the acquisition of new knowledge.
   
   Modern masculinity should make a conscience decision to at least attempt to conduct itself in a manner most antithetical to such misbegotten notions of valor and pride. It should draw strength and justification from a specific American tradition that stresses economic mobility, political action, and industrious work habits as the foundation of individual dignity and manliness of character.
   
   Indeed, contemporary masculinity should continue to learn from - as well as struggle to avoid through recognition - the pitfalls of the antiquated and unstable ingredients of Jacksonian moral fury.

5 comments about The Art of Scandal: The Life and Times of Isabella Stewart Gardner.

1. Just returned from a trip to Boston...during a dinner party in Cambridge, the following was overheard:

   Harvard professor: "...my wife was reading a book about I.S. Gardner, but said it was so bad, she couldn't go on..."

   It sounded familiar, and then I recalled this awful book. Sure enough, it was the same.




2. I am an avid reader and I find the subject of Bella Gardner fascinating, and I was incredibly excited to find yet another book about her amazing life! Yet, little did I know that it would take me almost three weeks to slog through this terribly written piece! With little organization and darting from one thought to another, it is barely held together. But, dear reader, the worst is yet to come. Let me give you an example of just one of the "typical" sentences that make up the writing found within, and remember this is just one sentence: "Perhaps her most vivid counsel ever as muse and mentor, into which central venue of Isabella Gardner's life first James and then Crawford and now Sargent have conducted us, that advice reflects the fact that just as it has been argued of Alfred, Lord Tennyson's friendship with Arthur Hallam that although their relationship lasted a mere four years, those "four years probably [were] the equal in psychic importance to the other seventy-nine of Tennyson's life," so with act one of Gardner's and Crawford's affair, which lasted barely two years."
   Now I realize how incredibly terrifying this is, and believe me, I have left punctuation, wording and phrasing exactly as they are found in the book. This is but one of three hundred pages of such dismal phrasing. Get the point...



3. when i set out to write a research paper about Isabella Stewart Gardner, i decided to read her biographies. i opted to read them in chronological order, starting with Morris Carter's published in 1925. i was having a ball learning about such an interesting woman, until i got to the Shand-Tucci biography. this book confused me so much, not only because of it's writing style, but also because of it's content. Mr. Shand-Tucci presents information completely opposite to the info in Morris Carter and Louise Hall Tharp's biographies. these differences were so extreme that i ended up writing my research paper about them. no joke. three thousand words later, and i still feel i could write more on the faults of this book.

   Just a side note, i talked to a friend who works at the Gardner Museum, and they stopped selling this biography in the museum shop because its allegations against Mrs. Gardner are so farfetched. if you want to read a good biography of Isabella Stewart Gardner, i highly recommend "Mrs. Jack" by Louise Hall Tharp.




4. When one has chance to visit Boston, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is a unique cultural institution that should not be missed. One of the nation's most eclectic and idiosyncratic private museums, it represents the personal vision of its namesake, Isabella Steward Gardner, a woman with the means and confidence to assemble an art collection of enormous breadth and exquisite quality. At the same time, her wealth and influence gave her the ability to live life on her terms, despite the steady drumbeat of ugly gossip.
   Although I have a beautifully detailed volume on Isabella Stewart Gardner (1840-1924) and her museum Fenway Court, in my library, it was an "authorized" book, and as such that was left out of the story. However, it is a "warts and all" book that Douglas Shand-Tucci has written despite being in sympathy with his fascinating subject. Gardner married into wealth and she used her husband's cash to collect art - and people. Despite her marriage into the Gardner family, who were influential Boston Brahmins, she carried on scandalous affairs and surrounded herself with gay artists and aesthetes. Many of these relationships were ambiguous at the time for homosexuality had to remain far beneath the surface in the 19th century. John Singer Sargent painted Mrs. Gardner and their relationship was used as the model for Eleanor Palfrey's novel "The Lady and the Painter."
   The expatraite art historian Bernard Berenson advised her on her purchases, which included Vermeer's gem-like "The Concert" and Titan's great "Rape of Europa." She collected some of Sergeant's major works including the massive "El Jaleo" and he painted a famous portrait of her, as did Whistler and the Swedish artist Anders Zorn. She seemed to collect almost everything including Asian art, which she successfully mixed with the European paintings when she built Fenway Court, her Venician palace close by Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, which was constructed at the turn-of-the-century.
   Shand-Tucci's book is carefully researched and despite the fact that Gardner burned her letters, he seems to have sorted out the tangled web of relationships between the patroness and her friends, lovers and in turn, their relations with each other. This is no small accomplishment, as Garnder knew almost everyone who was anyone in America and Europe. In addition to close relationships with Sargent and Berenson, she knew George Santayana, Richard Wagner, Edith Wharton, Charles Elliot Norton, Henri Matisse, Henry Adams, Henry James and William James.
   "The Art of Scandal" recreates as era of elegance, taste and affluence, of the long, languid decades before the hell of "The Great War" when the leading families of Europe and America began to intermix, and the treasures of Europe made their ways to our homes and museums.



5. Unlike most of the reviewers here, I did enjoy Shand Tucci's biography. He has a genuine interest in getting to the "touchy" parts of biography which I find rewarding to have read. The older biographies are very dated hagiographies and really don't prompt an interest in anything but the conventional. This book has interesting things to say about James, Sargent, Bourget, Wharton, Berenson, and others. The style is a little like the gossipy, chatty, whispering voice of a turn of the century Bostonian so it fits well with the idea in the title. This book is certain to lead the future books that come out about Gardner and hopefully people won't continue regarding her as the Byzantine goddess of the Sargent portrait, but a woman of flesh and blood with strengths and weaknesses.

1 comments about A Puritan in Babylon: The Story of Calvin Coolidge.

1. Ok, so Silent Cal was not one of our greatest Presidents. He was a very honest President, who had a very shy personality. White wrote this biography in the thirties, and knew Calvin. Even though White knew Coolidge, criticism is still present in this biography. The most damning was Coolidge not taking action to prevent the build up of credit and speculation in the stock market. All indications are there that he should have limited money at some point, but Coolidge let the market make its own correction. This was one of the reasons why the market went down so fast.
   White does a good job of showing how someone like Coolidge (and Harding) rose to the top of the heap. Throughout this book, Coolidge is shown as an honest politician who lived off his salary. He even stayed in boarding houses when he was Governor and Vice President. He was very shy and limited his talking. He asked people to vote for him and they did. He only lost one election, so this shows people trusted him. He worked the political system for his constituents and his beliefs. Although conservative, he backed some very liberal ideas at the time including the vote for women and opposed anti immigration efforts against the Japanese. When he told people what he was going to do, people could trust he would do it. He even made fun of himself and his personality. His personal characteristics were very admirable.
   White's biography is a bit dry at times, but the subject comes across in very human terms. The book is divided into four sections, so one can read bits and pieces of that history which may interest the reader. The first one hundred pages was slow going, but it gets better after that. For those interested in a President who governed for six years, this is a good read.

2 comments about A White Preacher's Memoir: The Montgomery Bus Boycott.

1. Pastor Robert Graetz left seminary with his young family to take a call to Trinity Lutheran Church in Montgomery, Alabama. As a white pastor during the time of the civil rights activity in Montgomery, he writes of his day to day struggle with racial hatred and how it affected his congregation and his family. This book defines the courage it takes to live out Christian justice and mercy and added a dimension to my knowledge of this era I had not yet experienced before I read it. Although I rated it a 9, if someone did not return my copy, I would buy another. It is a must for my library.



2. One thing I really enjoyed about reading Rev. Graetz's book was that it showed some of the diversity that was a critical part of the Civil Rights movement without making the case that African-Americans could not do it alone.
   
   Anytime a book is written in this type of context - a minority perspective on an issue - there is a danger of overshadowing the majority's struggle. In this case, Rev. Graetz merely tells of his involvement in what he saw as the right thing to do. Never does he make a huge deal about his own sacrifice, but instead talks about the general struggle. In the fine line between unique-diversification and over-the-top self praise, Rev. Graetz clearly falls on the side of the first.
   
   In addition, the book looks at different congregational backgrounds in the black community coming together for the common cause.
   
   There are many stories to be told about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and this is one that should be read.

5 comments about Rogers Hornsby: A Biography.

1. Alexander captures Hornsby and his times perfectly. While not as readable as the author's previous "Ty Cobb", this is due more to Hornsby's general colorlessness than in Alexander's writing. As enigmatic as Hornsby was, Alexander does a great job in telling the life of the man who hit for the highest average in the 20th century.



2. This is the third book I've read by Alexander, which I suppose is evidence that his books are readable.

   In the end they all share the same strengths and weaknesses.

   For a straightforward narrative of the key points of Hornsby's career and life, this is perfectly OK.

   But the book really stays on the surface. For example, there is never any in-depth discussion of techniques of batting or fielding. It's like reading a book on Napoleon without finding anything about the nature of warfare in the period.

   Also, there is very little meangingful discussion of Hornsby's relative baseball greatness. Alexander doesn't need to become a zealous SABRmetrician, but some basic statistics about Hornsby and others (beyond saying what the average batting average for the league was in a given year) seems called for. Alexander doesn't even include a table or appendix with Hornsby's basic statistics.

   I've given this 3 stars, because for the general reader it's OK. If I were rating it as serious history, I'd give it a 1. You come away from this book unaware that there have been lots of serious books written about baseball and its relation to society. Alexander's attempts to provide historical context are embarassing--on the order of, "The same continued hot, dry weather than made the Great Plains a Dust Bowl was present on Opening Day 1936 [my paraphrase, to be honest]".

   In short, there is the same strain of intellectual laziness in this book that I saw in his others.




3. This is an outstanding biography of the hitting machine, Rogers Hornsby, perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter in the history of Major League Baseball (MLB). The story that Charles C. Alexander tells explores the rise and fall of this remarkable baseball player, an individual who could work magic on the diamond but had real difficulty off of it.
   
   Signed out of Texas to the St. Louis Cardinals, he had a "cup-of-coffee" with the team at the end of the 1915 season, hitting a measly .246. Hardly a stellar debut, but after working hard all winter the next year Hornsby made the Cardinals and batted .313 while becoming the everyday second baseman. He went on to compile a career batting average of .358 and established the highest single season batting average when he hit .424 for the Cards in 1924. Indeed, from 1921-1925, Rogers' overall batting average was .402, a truly amazing accomplishment. In 1925 Hornsby became player-manager of the Cardinals and the next year his team captured its first National League pennant by edging Cincinnati in the final week of the season after an August spurt had shot them into pennant contention. The season was made perfect by the Cards' first victory in the World Series, coming at the expense of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and the rest of the New York Yankees.
   
   Always an abrasive force on the Cardinals, the year after his World Series success the owner shipped him off to the New York Giants for Frankie Frisch and Jimmy Ring. It was only the first time in which Hornsby's personality led to adversity for him. But there was room for only one massive ego on the Giants and within a short time manager John J. McGraw shipped him to the Boston Braves. From there he went to the Chicago Cubs, back to the Cardinals, and then to the St. Louis Browns. He finally retired in 1937. Hornsby lived another 26 years after retiring from MLB, always hovering around the fringes of it but never truly a part of it. He eventually died in 1963, bitter about his fate.
   
   Charles C. Alexander is an outstanding historian, the author of several other books on baseball as well as on other subjects. This is a superb addition to his path-breaking series of studies on a range of subjects.



4. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I thought the author did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of Rogers Hornsby's personality, warts and all. By the time I finished it, I felt that I really knew what Hornsby was like.
   
   I also had a small personal connection to Hornsby that served to increase my enjoyment of this book. When I was ten years old in 1960, living in the Chicago suburb of Lincolnwood, my grandfather, who was retired and living with my family, somehow became friends with Rogers Hornsby. What was the one common interest that brought these two guys together? You guessed it - playing the horses! Almost everyday, from the time they met in 1960 until Hornsby died in 1963, he would drive his car to our house, and then ride together with my grandfather in my grandfather's car to Arlington Park Race Track. Knowing of my love for baseball even at the age of ten, my grandfather introduced me to Mr. Hornsby and even had him sign a baseball for me - unfortunately long since lost! I also spoke to him numerous times on the phone when he called our house.
   
   Mr. Alexander makes it vividly clear that, other than his love for baseball, the major constant in Hornsby's live was his addiction to playing the horses. It's now very clear to me why these two old codgers became fast friends - their love of horseracing.



5. Just like his book on Cobb, Alexander's bio on Hornsby is excellent. What I especially like about it is that the author provided considerable info. on Hornsby's personal life during and after his career as a player. I don't feel that Hornsby was "colorless." He had an abrasive, stubborn insensitive personality and his interests were generally confined to baseball and horseracing. Still he managed several major league teams and married three times. I think Alexander really captured the essence of Hornsby. you were actually able to feel Hornsby's one track obsession with baseball and human failings that his contemporaries saw. If Hornsby had been able to contain his horseracing gambling addiction, he would have become a wealthy man after he retired as a player instead of struggling. Yet Hornsby was always able to find someone- in baseball or out to hire him.
   
   The author's writing style makes for an easy read. Alexander's research is excellent. This includes interviews with players who played for him. There's just enough detail about his career to make the chronology of his baseball career complete- without a boring recitation of every game he played. And in contrast to one reviewer, I don't find the author's omission of Hornsby's baseball statistics or discussion of his saber metrics a problem at all. There are many other sources for such information.

2 comments about Patrick Henry.

1. This book was written a long time ago yet is the best reference I've read so far. And the most open minded. It doesn't favor one founding father over another. It states the facts. This is a must for serious students of Patrick Henry.



2. I had not realized how much we owe Patrick Henry for the Bill of Rights. There is just enough in this book to encourage me to read further on the myth and reality of Patrick Henry, the fallout with George Washington, and just exactly what was the problem between James Madison and Patrick Henry. This is all briefly discussed in the book. Of course, the book was about Patrick Henry and could not possibly contain all this information. If you want to know just how important Patrick Henry was, and is, read this book. It will start you on a search separating myth from reality.