5 comments about Born on the Fourth of July.

1. Ron Kovic is one of society's worst nightmares: the unquestioning youth who believed every war movie, signed up for the Marines on his 18th birthday, fully committed to combat and sacrifice...only to turn his shattered back on those same indoctrinated values, speaking out against them with rage and bitterness as he saw himself, post-injury, shoved into a corner like an embarassing mutant.
   
   Kovic's memoir is inelegant, repetitive, self-centered; it is, simply put, not well-written. (The stream-of-consciousness recreation of Marine boot camp on Parris Island is especially clumsy.) Still I would recommend it to any young person, as I would recommend a trip to an open blast furnace, so that the same young person could see life as it sometimes horribly is, to know what war actually does to those who fight on the front. Kovic does not pretend to be writing great literature, but he is presenting the raw case of his life.
   
   The original memoir is also a good antidote (I believe) to its lurid movie adaptation by Oliver Stone. For reasons I do not understand, the movie completely omits the pivotal moment, at a rally just after the Kent State shootings, when Kovic decided to stop simply feeling sorry for himself, and to use his status as a badly crippled Vietnam vet to protest the War. This is the core of the man's story, and still deserves to be read.



2. While Ronnie Kovic was fighting in Vietnam I was in college playing football and baseball on scholarship. All expenses paid. People told me that I was extraordinary while Ronnie was suffering in a squalid Veterans hospital. And while he was being spit on at the Republican National convention I was learning to believe that I deserved an exceptional life and that I was better than guys like him who had somehow believed the lies our government told about how the communists were going to take over the world unless young men stopped them the way our fathers and uncles had stopped the Nazis and the lunatic Japanese.
   I was too cool to believe any of that, and guys like Ronnie were unenlightened. I felt sorry for them.
   I have become an old man now and these days I am trying for all I am worth to be a good father to my son who is Ronnie's age. When he began telling me that he was thinking about joining the Marines, I began reading to him from Ron's book. Reading to him at night while he lay in his bed as I had when he was a small boy. I wanted him to know that if he went to war in Iraq and was wounded horribly there, his government and his country would not care about him. I wanted him to know that the same people who were in power in America and who sent Ron off to war, were in power once again. The same pathetic collection of clowns and liars eager to have wars so long as they and their children don't have to fight them. Cowards, really. I told my son that he would be fighting for a commander in cheif and a vice president and a secretary of state who are cowards. I told my son that the same conservative republicans who spit on Ron Kovic after he gave his body for America were in power once again and that he could expect them to spit upon him when he came home from war if he opposed them. Ron Kovic's magnificent book persuaded my son not to fight for his country in Iraq. I am forever in the author's debt.



3. Ron Kovic gives an interesting perspective into the ideas and sentiments of the 1960s. Kovic's traumatic experiences and harsh lessons help to illustrate both sides of the decade: that of the "patriot," and that of the protestor. The 1960s were a changing time in American history, and fueling these fires were the fears of Communism, war, and ultimately the shifting identity of the "enemy" as the power of the change. These factors are present in Kovic's account of civilian life both before and after his time in Vietnam.
   
   The Cold War had significant effects on Americans throughout the 1960s, and it permeated through most aspects of society. This paranoia is a byproduct of the 1950s, and Kovic's childhood illustrates how deeply the roots of this fear reached. The arms race and the space race both filled the head of young Kovic as he and his friend "made contingency plans for the cold war and built fallout shelters out of milk cartons" (Kovic 56). The atmosphere even struck emotional chords when he discusses the Soviet's launch of the Sputnik satellite and Kovic weeps in his room because, "we were losing the space race, and America wasn't first anymore" (Kovic 59). The Communist shadow enveloped the nation, and as a child Kovic felt that "the communists were all over the place back then" and he even became convinced that one of his teachers was a Communist agent (Kovic 60). This is further reflected in his finding a hero in the lead role of "I Led Three Lives," a television show about an American double agent infiltrating the Communist lines (Kovic 59). These influences ultimately lead to Kovic's decision to enter military service, believing that he may become like John Wayne to fight for the American way.
   
   This changed for many who returned from the war, however. Kovic and thousands like him who returned home severely wounded and disfigured found themselves tucked away from the public eye, and feeling ignored when in plain sight. Kovic spent months in a low-quality veteran's hospital laying in his own urine and excrement as a result of malicious neglect. When the public saw him he felt as though he represented an indecent reminder of the brutality of their cause (perhaps because John Wayne never came home in a wheel chair), but all the while he saw himself as its defining product. He was even told by one television show producer that the presence of his condition on their show would not be "tasteful," adding "people have seen it on the six o'clock news and their tired of it" (Kovic 148). Kovic felt used as though "he had never been anything but a thing to them, a thing to put a uniform on and train to kill, a young thing to run through the meat-grinder" (Kovic 166). America ignored his sacrifices, and he soon became determined to enter the protesting circuit, forcing people look at him so that they can "be reminded of what they'd done when they'd sent [his] generation off to war" (Kovic 150).
   
   Slowly the face of the enemy began to change. The brotherhood he once found in the Marines he now found with hippies, the same people he had vowed would "pay" for protesting the war back in Vietnam (Kovic 134). For Kovic and protestors like him, President Nixon and the government had become prime targets of their dissatisfaction. He told Roger Mudd in one spontaneous interview that, "I gave America my all and the leaders of this government threw me and others away to rot in their V.A. hospitals" (Kovic 180). He felt that the war was "the biggest lie and hypocrisy of all" and that all the money spent on the war "should be spent on healing and helping the wounded" (Kovic 178).
   
   In the crippled embodiment of Kovic and other protesters many Americans found another enemy. Kovic met with great opposition and was even violently beaten for speaking out against the war. On many occasions he was even called a "commie" and a "traitor" (Kovic 150, 155, 184), signifying that in their eyes he had become as demonic as those they had praised him for fighting. America was dividing against itself, as it would become time for the veterans, hippies, politicians, and war supporters to take turns wearing the horns. The cannons of American hatred turned from the "evil" Communists around to the domestic enemy within. The 1960s were a decade of replaced anger and hostility, and in many ways a breakdown of American confidence and a redefining of what it meant to be a patriot, and what it meant to be a traitor. Kovic's experiences allowed him to fill both shoes simultaneously. His lesson is one all Americans should be required to read and learn.



4. The story is poignant of this good American youth who went enlisted in the marines to fight in Vietnam in order to coma back as an Hero. Who did not have such glorious dreams ?
   
   Alas, he was seriously injured, and returned in a wheelchair deeply traumatized. Injury was double, physical and psychological, as a former Vietnam vet and thus rejected by society.
   
   Every holiday, patriotic, July 4, this dual wound bleeds more because this man is born on the Fourth of July (hence the title). How such a man can escape his tornament is well described in this very good book.



5. Ron Kovic was an icon of the Vietnam Veterans anti-war movement in the early 1970s, as well as a powerful voice for downtrodden veterans. In his memoir "Born on the Fourth of July," he movingly recounts his journey from an ultra-patriotic youth growing up in an upstate New York suburb to an embittered disabled veteran, who wound up championing the anti-war and veteran causes. His narrative begins in combat in Vietnam where he is wounded and paralyzed, then goes to his childhood experiences; it's not really in chronological order like the movie is.
   
   The most heartbreaking part of the book is his stay in the VA, where the conditions for wounded veterans are hardly what we would expect them to be. The recent Walter Reed scandal shows an inability on the part of our government to learn from its mistakes in this area. In addition, though Jane Fonda said that this book was the inspiration for the movie "Coming Home," Ron Kovic gets no Sally Hyde character to be his angel of love. Due to his injury, he can never again function sexually, and the only love he can get is the kind he has to pay for. Kovic is clearly anguished about this, and his situation reflected the reality for most paralyzed veterans.
   
   Ultimately, Kovic was able to find a purpose in his life, and his book had wide influence. He became outspoken against the Vietnam War and for better treatment of veterans. He became a much-sought speaker, and his memoir was eventually turned into a movie starring Tom Cruise. Bruce Springsteen wrote "Shut Out the Light" after reading "Born on the Fourth of July," and his "Born in the USA" may have been partly inspired by Kovic. Kovic continues to speak out against the war, and his memoir remains a classic.
   
   Moreover, "Born on the Fourth of July" remains relevant today. All of the Iraqi veterans coming home with PTSD and having trouble functioning in everyday life, or have had marriages broken due to the stress related to constantly being recalled for another tour of duty, or had injuries similar to Kovic's, show that the issues in the book are very much alive today. Finally, I would recommend this book to history fans who want to see the ways in which society was changing 40 years ago, and how Vietnam impacted ordinary people.

5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963.

1. Well packed and arrived in a timely fashion. Everything as expected. A pleasure to do business with.



2. I very much enjoyed this biography of JFK. It is very well written and exactly what you want in a biography. It has a very detailed account of his entire life, from birth, through school and his travels, and on to his time as President.
   
   My only criticism is that for those of you who were not alive at the time of JFK (like me), you can get lost in many of the pages surrounding his Presidency. The author's accounts are so detailed, that I often found myself turning back in the book to refresh my memory about the many names and places that are referenced.
   
   Other than that, I highly recommend this book. The accounts of his young life (the privilege, the travels, the women) are fantastically interesting. The accounts of his many illnesses were also well done, and news to me.
   
   If you are like me and a big fan of biographies that start from the beginning and tell the whole story chronologically without leaving out a single detail, then this book is for you.



3. Thought that the book was an adequate one volume account of the life of JFK. The author talked alot about JFK's medical problems, more than I would have liked. He could have written a chapter about the medical problems JFK had with his stomach and back and about how the Kennedy's covered up those ailments during the run for the presidency and during the presidency.
   
   But overall I thought that it was a very good book and would recommend to anyone who is reading their first Biography of Kennedy.



4. Robert Dallek is a gifted historian. He is also a complete historian, because he writes extremely well. I wonder if he has ever won the Parkman Prize, because his apparent meticulous research is consumed by the reader with such ease. Of course, because it is Dr. Dallek, I have but one complaint. In the young, Kennedy years, prior to the presidency, the biography feels intimate -- as if we were talking to someone who was right in the house growing up with him -- almost if we were like Lem Billings. But when we get to the presidency there is a bit of opinionating that oftimes goes from historian to editorializing. For example, when speaking of the Berlin Crisis, Dr. Dallek opines that it is best that JFK was running the show because RFK, being a hothead, might have gotten us involved in a nuclear exchange. Other than that minor, minor complaint, (because he is probably right on his opinionating), I think Dallek is great. So is his new title about Nixon, (and Kissinger,too.)
   
   Joe Nichols



5. An extremely informative book. I came away from the book having only a little respect for Kennedy as a man or politician.
   
   1) He accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book that was almost entirely ghostwritten for him.
   
   2) His daddy helped him cheat to win in elections and primaries.
   
   3) His primary accomplishment as a Senator was keeping the seat warm for the next guy.
   
   4) He, like at least one other President, lied about or withheld the truth about significant medical/physical problems.
   
   5) He appointed his brother to post of Attorney General even though RFK was completely unqualified.
   
   6) He treated his wife with blankfaced disrespect (openly philandering) in public and private.
   
   7) He was primarily responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco which made him look weak and emboldened Cuba and the USSR, thus leading to the Cuban Missle Crisis which he handled surprisingly well.
   
   8) He dragged his feet on Civil Rights because he was afraid of losing the support of Southern Democrats. (MLK Jr. said JFK's assassination was the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement)
   
   9) He freely admitted his first year as President was a miserable failure.
   
   10) He stepped up involvement in Vietnam without actually dealing with the problem. This forced Johnson and Nixon to make strategically terrible, morally insupportable and after-the-fact decisions.
   
   He was good looking and well spoken. Even his fiercest detractors admit he gave a great speech. He had a beautiful and cultured wife and adorable kids (Camelot). He was intelligent and erudite. He did his duty in WW2. As the President, he meant well but was inexperienced, naive & hopelessly out of his depth in high level cut-throat politics and completely lacking in moral courage. He did at least listen to the Civil Rights leaders and proposed bare minimum legistation. He got the space program off the ground (so to speak). He started the Peace Corp. He stared down the bombastic Khrushchev and the belligerent Castro. He encouraged Americans toward volunteerism and thinking of America 1st and themselves 2nd. All in all, a failed half-presidency with a few points of light redeemed by his martyrdom and subsequent mythology.

5 comments about The Autobiography of Mark Twain (Perennial Classics).

1. One of my favorite five books in the last five years, and I read a lot of books! I'm going to try to be brief, which will be a challenge, because I loved it.
   
   First, the concept behind this book is pure genius, especially for an autobiography. Because he didn't release his life story until he died, Twain was able to be completely honest. It's true- everyone on earth must restrain their tongue somewhat. But when we read about a great person from the past, we want to know the real deal.
   
   I won't go too much into how great Mark Twain was. I'm sure that subject has been covered quite well. But as a public speaker, writer, and fledgling humorist myself, I found many of the vignettes priceless. He tells us what the 'Lycium',the 19th American speaking circuit, was like, how one good writer failed miserably in front of an audience, how he (Twain) turned an old tired joke into a new exciting one... and on the subject of fame, he talks about how inconsequential was a particular woman who had become famous simply for having opinions (and because she happened to be the wife of a newspaper man). Indeed, except for Twain's ridicule, this woman has been utterly and appropriately neglected by history. We are thereby warned of the worthlessness of fame without substance or purpose.
   
   At times Twain sounds pompuous or narcissistic, but it fits his humorous style. We forgive him because we know he was great and because condescension is a great position from which to heap ridicule and satire. And you have to wonder- don't some great men know they're great even while they live?
   
   Twain had the fortune to be celebrated within his lifetime, and remains one of the most important Americans. He is the deep root from which modern humorists such as Garrison Keillor and Dave Barry spring forth. He is an example of the gruff and almost crotchety American intellect.
   
   His story also demonstrates how not to run your writing business (by letting suspicious character run it for you and steal your money).
   
   And he provides touching accounts of both his awkward courtship, and the exceptional character and intelligence of one of his daughters.
   
   What else? They say in public speaking: Begin with a laugh, end with a tear. Twain's autobiography does the latter - it's sad to see how quickly he went from the apex of life to lonely grief as most of his family died within little more than a year.
   
   Before we know it, before we want it, the book is over, and the great life is done. We are reminded of the temporary nature of life, and as this famous and delightful personality recedes again from our consciousness, perhaos at least for a little while, because of his example, we seize life with more vigor.



2. Buy this book, kick back in your easy chair and be prepared to take a journey with the Master of American Literature himself as he lies near death. From the Mighty Mississippi to the latter days of the Gold Rush; to the lecture (lyceum) circuit of his thirties-forties; and on to a family life of tragedy after tragedy and finally triumph, Mr. Twain will take you, the reader, into his mind where you'll share his wit, wisdom, and secrets. A must buy for any Twain lover or anyone interested in the 19th Century from a man who lived it. Lived it indeed!



3. It is one of the more interesting autobiographys that I have read. The author Charles Neider has taken a confusing pile of writings and has assembled them into a more streamline reading and a timeline of Samuel Clemen's (Mark Twain's) life.
   
   This book has given me a yearning to read more books by Neider on Mark Twain and reread some of Twain's classic's like Huckberry Finn.



4. American.
   Coinsidentially I finished the audio version of this autobiography the day he stopped writing: Christmas day. His daughter died Christmas Eve 1909. His wife had died a few years earlier. Another daughter died several years before that in chilhood. He had never recovered from those tragedies. His surviving daughter lived in Europe. He wrote of this in his diary & wrote no more. He was alone in a big house & died shorty after that. He knew that his autobiography would not be published until he died, long dead he hoped, so he didn't pull any punches. This editor Charles Neider was not as brave. He missed much of the insouciance that was Twain. He came out with a long linear, biography. Twain dictated a lot of it in his later years but just talked about whatever came into his head. Editing this disorganization admittedly was no mean feat. Mark Twain was not a disiplined writer. He could set down a novel he was writing & not return to it for several years. So it was with Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn. They were, by the way, populated with real people he knew in his youth. A gonzo writer of sorts, he wrote what he knew & had lived. He was one of the most travelled Americans of his time, spending long periods in Europe. He was a printer, a journalist, a riverboat pilot, lecturer & of course, novelist. He was a celebrity in his own time but a very poor investor & money manager. He had to go back to lecturing to recoup his loses. He hated that. It was too much like work & he admitted to being very lazy. He was very quotable & whole books have been devoted to his musings. Many of these concerned his atheism, his distaste for organized religion & he ridiculed the bibical god. These particular items were not to be seen in Neider's version which was the biggest disappointment.



5. I read a lot of autobiographies and biographies and they are often praised extensively and turn out to be very, very boring. This autobiography is great. Mark Twain writes it from the point of view that he is already dead and therefore can say whatever he likes. Of course it is funny but it is also very sensitive. His explanation of his feelings after the death of his daughter is gut wrenching.
   I am not being negitive here but I was delighted to find in this book that even the great Mark Twain can be boring at times. This fact truly impressed me and brought me to realize that even old Mark Twain was human. This was a wonderderful book and just the other day I took it out of mothballs to read for a second time. It is really too good for just a once over. It is too good man! Too too good!

5 comments about Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War.

1. 
   This is a fascinating work on Jesse James. It is not so much a standard biography as a "political history" of James. And that makes this an interesting read. The question animating this book is (page4): "Why should one set of criminals be so much more memorable than another?" The answer (page 6): " [Jesse James] was a major force in the attempt to create a Confederate identity for Missouri, a political and cultural offensive waged by the defeated rebels to undo the triumph of the Radical Republicans in the Civil War." Hence, his Confederate background resonated strongly with the politics of Missouri.
   
   The book itself follows a chronological organization, beginning with Jesse's father, a preacher. It also describes his mother, a most formidable person, who remained an important part of his life over the years--and a strong advocate for her sons. The Civil War was critical for the family. Frank James rode with some of the Confederate irregulars, such as William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson. Jesse was too young at the outset of the Civil War to be involved, but he rode with his brother, later on, with the partisans. When the war ended, the rage continued for the James brothers (especially Jesse).
   
   The book contends (and it is a reasonable case as made by the author, although I'm not sure that all readers will be convinced) that James' outlaw exploits after the war were a continuation of that conflict by other means. He was, in the eyes of the author, something of a guerilla; he is also termed a "terrorist," in the sense of using violence to try to advance a political cause (this case may not be convincing to readers; I have my doubts that the case is very strong to adopt this language).
   
   There follows an outline of his many robberies, the violence associated with them, the various members of his gang over time (including the Younger brothers), the ups and downs of their brigandage, and the political context in which their actions occurred. The political discussion appears to be done pretty well, placing the James' gang's depredations in a larger perspective.
   
   Then, they detail nicely the disastrous Northfield, Minnesota raid (disastrous from the James' gang's perspective--not from those who wanted to hunt them down). Frank and Jesse escaped, Jesse (and later Frank) to rob another day. Then, Jesse's demise. The book ends with a quick summary of the fates of key players from this volume, and provides some satisfaction in bringing things to a close.
   
   The political aspect to James, as argued by T. J. Stiles, the author, is very interesting and makes this an intriguing work. I am not sure that all elements of this work successfully (e.g., the use of the term terrorist). But the book provides a nice spin on the life and times of Jesse James.



2. This book explains how the Civil War gave birth to outlaws like Jesse James. It is very well researched, detailed and interesting. A must for historians.



3. This is one of the most in depth and well researched biographies that I have ever read. Stiles did extensive investigation into primary sources when performing the research for the book.
   
   There is a great deal of perception of Jesse James as a larger than life myth. Much of what he did was very much grounded in the history of his time and focuses on the Civil War as a driving force behind his actions and behavior.
   
   James's father was a Baptist minister who left the family to go to California during the gold rush in 1849. While there, he contracted an illness and died when Jesse was still a young boy. This left his mother to raise Jesse and his siblings on her own until eventually remarrying.
   
   The James family owned a good sized farm with quite a few slaves and so had a vested interest in maintaining the slavery structure. They were very much a part of the Confederate mindset and supported that side during the Civil War.
   
   Jesse joined his brother as a teenager during the Civil War by banding together with a bunch of "bushwhackers" who were basically guerrillas (or terrorists depending on how you look at it) on the Confederate side. They would walk up to Union sympathizers who were often neighbors and point blank kill them in cold blood simply for being supporters. This instilled fear in the local populace and a general sense of uncertainty and terror.
   
   People from the Union side did similar types of things to Confederates namely Jayhawkers from Kansas. Missouri during the civil war and the days afterwards had a feel like that of Iraq today. People of differing ideological backgrounds resorted to violence and force to push their political agendas and philosophies.
   
   Following the war James stayed with the bushwhackers until they gradually dissipated. At first they targeted banks to rob with Union ties for political reasons. Eventually, however, the targets became less political and more for pure monetary gain.
   
   One of the primary reasons for Jesse James's notoriety and fame was his frequent correspondence with newspapers. He was a voracious reader and constantly maintained his innocence in letters to editors. Newspaper man John Edwards became a champion for James and glorified him and his gang in articles. He cast them as heros and icons for the Confederate political agenda and used them in print to help advance political purposes. In that day, newspapers were very openly partisan and did not try to maintain an appearance of neutrality as news agencies do today.
   
   As James et al gained more and more fame and notoriety, public outcry became much more pronounced against them while encouraging local and state officials to crack down and bring them to justice. After stealing from express companies similar to Wells Fargo who operated primarily via railroad, private business interest arose in tracking them down and preventing future robberies.
   
   His gang branched out into other states as well such as Iowa, Tennessee, Minnesota, Kentucky, and West Virginia obtaining national attention.
   
   The Pinkertons a private investigative agency were hired to find them but most of their efforts were fruitless considering the James/Younger gang's support from local friends and their knowledge of the backwoods.
   
   On several occasions, Jesse was injured in gun fights some requiring lengthy recovery times. All told though he personally probably killed at least 20 men so came out on plus side from his battles.
   
   The gang eventually met their match while trying to rob a bank in Minnesota where the people fought back and injured or killed many members of the gang. Jesse and his brother barely escaped back to Missouri once word got out and posses were gathered to track them down.
   
   Jesse never could settle down to a life of honest work which resulted in his downfall. He was constantly suspicious of those around him but gathered a new gang to continue his exploits. A couple of brothers in his new gang plotted to kill him and eventually succeeded, collecting a hefty reward in the process.
   
   Stiles book reads like a combination of a pure history and real life historical novel. The first 200 pages are primarily devoted to the historical background of the Civil War and environment James grew up in. The last 200 pages are focused more on Jesse's emergence as a bank/train/stagecoach robber, leader of a gang, and Confederate symbol. As mentioned on the book cover, Stiles debunks the myth that James was a form of Robin Hood and was instead mostly interested in his own fame and fortune.
   
   At times the book moves slowly and is exhaustive in its coverage of the material but if the reader stays with it, he or she will have a very complete picture of Jesse James and the history of Missouri during the Civil War and the decades afterwards.



4. This book was way too politically bias for me to enjoy, and the author went on at length more or less attacking James for being a southern democrat. He should get over it, most people who are familiar with James know that he was Rebel and fought for the south during the war. The author details the Pinkerton detectives and the politicans who were against James more then he does the central character which is James himself. If it was written by a less politically oppionated person it cooooooooould have been decent, but it still kept diverging from the central theme of James and the James gang often enough and at such length that at times I wanted to hurl it against the wall. I only keep the copy I own because of the sepia photo on the cover.
   Read the assisination of Jesse James by the coward Robert ford, it or most any other book on the famed outlaw is surely far better then this account.



5. Jesse James was, bar none, the most famous criminal of the Old West, in part because of his addictively alliterative name. He, alone, has racked up more words written about him than all the other outlaws combined- including notables like Billy The Kid, Butch Cassidy, and John Wesley Hardin. In fact, in Western lore perhaps only Wild Bill Hickok, Crazy Horse, Geronimo, or General Custer rival him in name recognition value, but in truth they're battling for second place.
   
   In this latest book by T.J. Stiles the author tries to reinvent the oft-framed James. To many the early dime book portrayals of James as a latter day Robin Hood have been hard to shake. Then there was James a cold blooded killer. Stiles offers James as the forerunner to modern day terrorists. Given the year of its release this thesis smacks of blatant profiteering. Yes, there's no doubt that James got his start as a Missouri bushwhacker in the Confederate cause, and was undeniably racist. He was also a cold blooded killer, as well as bank and train robber. But, Stiles portrays this as all in the service to the lost Confederate cause, whereas even by the account of the letters it seems more proper to state James was merely being used by propagandists as a symbol of their lost Nirvana, rather than someone outright claiming to be its golden sun. And the tone of the letters James wrote, very few of which are actually quoted by Stiles, show more the psychopathic Jack the Ripper side of James, than the Osama bin Laden side....That said, the book is a good read, but not for what it says about James as much as what it says about the milieu, for James becomes merely a pawn, rather than an actor in his own drama. Part of this is because virtually nothing is known of James' early years, in narratives imparted by contemporaries. In a sense he is the American equivalent of Jesus Christ, a mythic figure who seems to have emerged fully formed. His death on April 3rd, 1882, at the hand of the cowardly and opportunistic Bob Ford, sealed his apotheosis from a contemporary figure whose name recognition already outstripped that of the President- Chester Arthur, for those in the know, to one whose name recognition will always be firm in Americana, as countless books and films on him have been proffered.
   
   Yet, as promising as the book could have been, in moving Jesse James closer to Stonewall Jackson than Billy The Kid, it ultimately fails because of the immutability of facts in the face of misinterpretation, as many of the pivotal events of the war that Stiles tries to paint as influencing James are surprisingly bereft of his presence. Nothing is offered to bolster the idea that James was intimately involved in such atrocities as the burning of Lawrence, Kansas, or the Centralia Massacre of unarmed Union POWs. As for the later, more famed bank robbing adventures. These are glossed over so that a neophyte Jamesian might actually believe the skewed portrait that Stiles lays out, much as many of the claimed missives from James, highly politicized, have never been shown to have actually been written by James- so you get a house of cards built on a house of cards, and when you look just at the facts the common perception of James as cold blooded killer and bandit, rather than some sociopolitical rebel, seems far more the truth. That he liked it and offered braggadocio to the newspapers links him far more with Jack the Ripper and modern serial killers than it does with Osama bin Laden.
   
   Detractors of the book seem to be mostly the hardcore Jamesians who have pointed out numerous factual errors in the book, ranging from the aforementioned embellishments to flat out wrong dates for crimes, and wrong cohorts at certain crimes. For example, Stiles claims James entered the bank at the famed and failed Northfield, Minnesota robbery, when no evidence suggests he did. There were also accounts of James being rather polite on some occasions, if not genteel, and stating he was only after the money. That does not square with a terrorist makeup, but more with a traditional brigand. Further evidence comes from Frank James, himself, to me the far more interesting brother and a wannabe intellectual, who showed no hint of being highly politicized after his brother's death, and who had far more exposure to the war and its depravities, and easily slipped into the role of carny.
   
   As for Jesse James? Due to the enigma of his youth it will never be possible to ascertain whether it was the war which baddened him, or whether he was a psychopath from birth. That he would have been a career criminal seems certain- the effect of the war may just have been to amplify that trait to legendary proportions. And with men like John Edwards simultaneously stroking his ego and grooming his legend it's no wonder that later revisionists like Stiles tend to miss the mark.

5 comments about Wait Till Next Year: A Memoir.

1. Most interesting for me since I am a "wait till next year" Red Sox fan. She's an excellent writer and commentator and this lives up to her standard.



2. Wait Till Next Year is about baseball and life. It is the title of Doris Kearns Goodwin's memoir of childhood. Set in suburban New York in the `50s, and lived before the backdrop of baseball, the account follows Goodwin through her childhood ending when she is fifteen at the death of her mother Helen, and the move from the family home. The opening line: "When I was six, my father gave me a bright-red scorebook that opened my heart to the game of baseball."
   
   When Thomas Kearns teaches his daughter to keep a scorecard on each Brooklyn Dodger game he initiates her love for baseball, as well as for telling a compelling narrative. Baseball bonds their relationship. With careful records Doris relives each game with her father after he comes home from work. Baseball permeates other relationships. Doris listens to games on the radio after school with her mother. Her first boyfriend shares her love for baseball; her best girlfriend Elaine does too, although she was a rabid Giant's fan. The repetitive disappointment about the team's poor results demanded optimistic philosophy. Ever hopeful of winning a pennant, "wait till next year" became the family theme at the close of a season of defeat.
   
   Defeat overwhelms the Kearns' family when Helen dies. For a time Thomas' grief was inconsolable. Doris threw herself into activity and study. One of the final scenes in the book takes place in the attic. Doris and her father are looking at a box of old scorebooks. Thomas admits he cannot live in the house anymore without his wife. It is time to move on. Baseball continues, as does their family. Cycles repeat. In the final pages of the memoir Doris initiates her own sons into the culture of baseball teaching them, like her father had taught her, how to keep a scorebook. Like her father she opens her sons' hearts to the game of baseball. "Wait till next year" prevails.



3. Doris Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize winning author. She is a democrat and mostly she writes about politics. However several years back she took part in Ken Burns documentary film on baseball and portrayed her memories and love of the Brooklyn Dodgers of the 1950s and later as an adult in Massachusetts, the Boston Red Sox.
   
   This stimulated her to reflect on her childhood days as a Dodger fan and she decided to write a book about it. But as she carefully researched her memory and her past she found that it was all intertwined with her life groing up as an impresionable girl on Long Island in the 1950s. Her parents her friends and her future wriing career were all tied togehter. So this delightful book is a memoir of her childhood growing up and living and dying for the Brooklyn Dodgers.
   I am 55 years old, slightly younger than Goodwin but I too grew up in the 1950s on Long Island and can relate to many of her experiences. She discusses how she started learning about baseball and the Dodgers when her father taught her how to fill out a scorecard. In the evenings during their quiet time together she would use the scorecard like a cue to narrate the game she listened to on the radio that day. This brought the game to life for her father and created an interest in her in narration that carried on into a career of writing.
   
   The book flows marvelously and you see the world from the eyes of an impressionable grammar school girl. Goodwin is somehow able to go back and put herself back in the mind of that little naive child. We see her devotion to the Catholic church, the fear of polio in the ealry 1950s before the vaccines. I know this so well as I contracted polio in the summer of 1953 though I never got it so bad as to need an iron lung. We here of her confessions as she admitted to her priest that she wished harm on the Dodger opponents. We learn about the kids in the neighborhood, all Dodger, Giant or Yankee fans. I was a Yankee fan but my brother and all my friend that I played ball with as a kid were Dodger fans. The Dodgers were the most popular team in New York. They were the underdogs and the team for the common working man.
   
   Goodwin's first boyfriend was a boy she got to know because he was a Dodger fan and they could talk so comfortably about the Dodgers. This is a story about the Dodger players she admired; Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Pee Wee Reese, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe and Carl Furillo and the Yankees and Giants that she dispised, Mays, Mantle, Martin, Berra and others. It is a story about devotion and heartbreak; Bobby Thomson's home run, the story of Mickey Owens' dropped third strike. Billy Martin's heroics is 52 and 53. But it is also the thrill of 1955 when Dodger fans finally didn't have to say wait till next year.
   
   As all this goes on we also hear about her mother's health problems and her childhood girlfriends, the beginning years of television, the Army - McCarthy hearings, the cold war, the civil defense drills and the fallout shelters, memorable events for those growing up in the 1950s.
   
   



4. As a college drop out I am not what many people might consider well read. While school was never my strong suit, and studying was an event that rarely ever happened, I did manage to read a few great books along the way. My first and best semester of college I read Wait 'til Next Year. While I am not a fan of sports and am not competitive at all, this book was beautifully written and takes the reader on a tour through the author's life, all in the language of baseball. Using the sport as a way to framework the personal story was a wise choice as it gives great metaphors and context to the tale. I suppose I also have good memories tied into the novel as well, considering that I did really well grade-wise that semester and I remember really enjoying this book when I read it at that time.



5. As a Brooklyn-born boy who came late into his true inheritance, love of the Brooklyn Dodgers, this book was recommended to me by a friend who appreciates my passion despite the fact that he is a NY Yankees and NY Giants fan.
   
   I've read and enjoyed several of Doris Kearns Goodwin's books, among them Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys : An American Saga, and No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, so I assumed I was going to enjoy WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR. And there are things I enjoyed very much.
   
   Kearns Goodwin's recollections of growing up in the Long Island town of Rockville Centre, New York predate mine by twenty years; but certain landmarks were familiar. References to Sunrise Highway, Wolf's Sport Shop, and the Cathedral of St. Agnes, Kearns Goodwin's church, connected us. Although Kearns Goodwin grew up several towns cityward from my own post-Brooklyn home in Massapequa, her compass was mine as seen from the train or through the car window as I commuted to or from home. And her reminiscences of playing in the streets and backyards of a less-crowded 1940s-50s Nassau County resonated with me. Kearns Goodwin can remember when there were 7000 televisions in America. I can't. But her descriptions of the quiet suburban streets and the general tenor of life on Long Island rang true.
   
   Raised in a religiously diverse environment, I could smile at her memories of her First Communion, her first Confession, and what passed for sin in the mind of a very Catholic and properly brought-up young lady of her time, which was pre- Vatican II. After a while, and even with this awareness however, I had to check the spine of the book to see if it had not been co-written by St. Augustine of Hippo. So much of WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR is filled with page after page of recitative of votives lit, novenas said, Hosts swallowed, Hail Marys repeated, and Acts of Contrition uttered that the middle of the book became a tedious slog.
   
   It was sweet to read of Kearns Goodwin's personal gift to fellow Catholic Gil Hodges of a St. Christopher's Medal blessed by the Pope, handed over at an autograph signing, and it was even more satisfactory to read that this gift broke Hodges out of a legendarily long and awful batting slump the next day. God bless!
   
   It was infuriating, however, to read about Kearns Goodwin's childhood fear of the eternal damnation of her immortal soul for the transgression of having visited the social center of an Episcopal Church to take part in an ecumenical, interracial event, a speaking engagement by Roy Campanella on tolerance and diversity. Kearns Goodwin never remarks on the irony of the situation. To be fair, I wasn't angry at Kearns Goodwin (who was only a child), nor at her parents (who to their credit let her attend), nor at the clergy (who reassured her of the harmlessness of such an act), but at the stultifying atmosphere of that form of 1950s white suburban American Roman Catholicism that could imbue a child with such terror.
   
   Kearns Goodwin did NOT attend parochial school. She went to public school, and her neighbors were not all Catholic, so her fixation---near obsession---on religion was unexpected (at least to this reviewer). At least she did not go so far as to say that some of her best friends were Jewish (even though some of them were).
   
   In part, this repressiveness was due to the inflexibility of Catholic dogma at the time, and it was also part and parcel of a world which was suffering from a polio pandemic, Cold War paranoia, McCarthyism, Rosenberg Spy Trial Mania, and fixed and seemingly immutable rules regarding the roles of women and men, the place of blacks and whites, the superiority of one belief system over another, and the rightness and wrongness of Right versus Left. People dealt with these issues differently. Kearns Goodwin's neighbors the Greenes (nee Greenbergs) converted to some branch of Protestantism and hid their previous identity; Jewish neighbors avowed their hatred of the Rosenbergs' presumed treason; her best friend found her personal ambitions frustrated by her family in favor of their son; Kearns Goodwin's father encouraged his family of daughters to investigate nontraditional roles; as she grew older Kearns Goodwin began questioning her received ideas about ethics and morality (as an example, in regard to the Legion of Decency's ban on Blackboard Jungle); and over all, the Brooklyn Dodgers integrated baseball, changing America forever. 1957 saw the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, and Kearns Goodwin came of age just as, and just in time for, the start of the social ferment that was the 1960s.
   
   Kearns Goodwin had the pleasure of meeting not only Gil Hodges and Roy Campanella and Clem Labine in person, but also her favorite player, Jackie Robinson. Her love of the Dodgers bound her to her father, a lifelong fan. Her heartbreak at the Dodgers' annual loss of the World Series to the Yankees is palpable. Her joy at their World Series win in 1955 is an event shared by millions.
   
   It seems to be a hallmark of this genre of memoir that the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers is linked to, and becomes a metaphor for, life-altering change and loss in the lives of the authors. Kearns Goodwin's mother died in 1958, when she was fifteen. Roger Kahn's (The Boys of Summer) father passed away in 1956, just as Jackie Robinson left the team; Thomas Oliphant's (Praying for Gil Hodges: A Memoir of the 1955 World Series and One Family's Love of the Brooklyn Dodgers) father survived a severe bout with a long chronic illness in 1957 and his family relocated to California in 1959, literally following the Dodgers; Maury Allen (Brooklyn Remembered: The 1955 Days of the Dodgers) was just beginning his overseas military service as the Dodgers won the Series; Michael Shapiro (The Last Good Season: Brooklyn, the Dodgers, and Their Final Pennant Race Together) was a child just coming into his first awareness of the outside world as the Dodgers departed at the end of the 1957 season; and Bob McGee (Greatest Ballpark Ever: Ebbets Field And the Story of the Brooklyn Dodgers), links the departure of the Dodgers to priceless memories of time with his father: "He said it would matter to me someday, I would value the time we spent, and he was right."
   
   So right.

5 comments about Grant.

1. This is an excellent and highly readable biography of Grant. However if you are considering the Kindle edition, note that there are some transcription problems:
   
   * Footnotes have been transcribed as inline paragraphs within the main text flow. They are normally included closely after the relevant paragraph, but they sometimes lag by a screen (or even two) and in one place surfaced in a prior screen.
   
   * The maps have been omitted.
   
   * The full original index is included. But since it includes neither hyperlinks to the text, nor Kindle locations, nor even paper page numbers, it is essentially useless.
   
   * The paper version uses indented paragraphs to indicate extended quotes. Unfortunately these show up as normal undistinguished paragraphs in the Kindle version, so I was sometimes surprised to discover I was in a quote, or that I had left one.
   
   * There are also occasional minor transcription glitches such as words being erroneously joined together or erroneously split apart; or sentences erroneously broken into separate paragraphs. But these are relatively minor.
   
   Note that most of these issues aren't due to the Kindle itself: for example it handle footnotes and textual links just fine. The issues are mostly with how this particular book has been converted.
   
   I don't want to overstate the issues: the book is still quite readable in the Kindle edition, and suitable for (say) travel reading. However the various glitches are sufficiently annoying (and the book sufficiently good!) that I have ended up also buying a hardcover version, for browsing and reference.
   
   For the biography itself 5 stars. For the Kindle transcription, only two.



2. After reading Professor Smith's Grant biography, two apparent things come to mind: the same cult of ignorance that has removed George Washington and Eisenhower from the lips of children and TV ditto-heads was responsible for the "overlooking" of this great leader; and, they, the racist, largely-white Establishment is on the march as we wage unnecessary war today with clue-less leaders in charge. This southern biography in one volume does great justice to that 19th Century and our 21st Century that stands on a precipice,serving as a trumpet call-to-arms. From the middle of Grant's memoirs at Vicksburg, I went headlong into this thrilling read, moved many times by its revelations,riveting insertions of quotes that dramatize the action with tremendous clarity. Insightful, balanced and engrossing from beginning to end. Clearly, U.S. Grant was forgotten by those whose sensibilities were offended that one man could be charged with being a Negro-lover, Indian-lover and a unifier. And for once, Jean Edward Smith got it right: the man who masters the battlefield challenges can deftly handle the administrative ones as well, without the meddling of professional politicians and slicksters. Until reading this biography, I was led to believe that the Confederacy was more noble defending the genteel plantation ways and pleasantries against the crudities of Northern pride. Like, how dare they attack Miss Scarlett! The Civil War was much larger than Margaret Mitchell, and Jean Smith builds this biography to a deeper understanding about the war and its cost. Not only does Grant rise in dimension, but he levels off and enjoys a special relationship with Lincoln that is unique and illuminating, before moving into his White House years and retirement.If one needs to know why leadership is empty in the Executive Branch since Eisenhower, you need not look beyond the enemies of Grant's legacy. The standards of conduct,on and off the battlefield, by all participants, their levels of understanding of the cause, especially their civility was so moving and numerous that one is shocked to return to 21st century conduct. There is much to admire about those times and the great man, U.S. Grant. Read this, keep it and learn plenty.



3. I really loved this book. What a great General he was. Very underrated President. Should be ranked right up there. His battlefield skills saved the country.



4. Jean Edward Smith has written an outstanding biography of Ulysses S. Grant, one of the more complex heroes of American history. Grant's complexity does not stem from his own actions, but from the fact that his career as a general is considered such a success while his presidency has always been looked at as an abject failure. Henry Adams had even written that denunciation of Grant, saying, "The Progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was enough to upset Darwin." Mr. Smith had the good sense to compare what Adams wrote to the earlier thoughts of his brother Charles Francis Adams Jr. who admired the general and called him "an extraordinary man."
   Sometimes history needs to unfold over a longer period of time before a figure can be properly judged. With Grant the fact was that for over 100-years he came out on the losing end of history because he was for Reconstruction and the civil rights of the freed blacks. When Rutherford B. Hayes came into power in 1877 the freedoms of blacks had become a dead issue and Grant was destined to appear a failure in the eyes of history. It has only been with the success of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960s that Grant was in a large way vindicated. Finally southern biographers were unable to point to him as a man who picked the losing side of history, and a man who sympathized with blacks and therefore was wrong.
   It is always difficult to attempt to judge anyone or any act of the past by the standards of today. That is why it is hard to condemn George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves because it was common-place at the time. They don't deserve any positive press for owning slaves, BUT if they had turned over their slaves while they lived and fought for the freedom of all then they would have been so far ahead of their time to almost not have been real. There was no-such-thing as Virginia planters of the 18th and 19th centuries who refused to embrace the benefits of free slave labor. At least, I do not recall anything of such people.
   Grant is different because while he was President he WAS popular and DID protect the freedoms of people (which is correct even though it was judged as wrong in the south from 1877 to the 1960s). Mr. Smith is actually righting a historic wrong by trying to view Grant as the people of his time viewed him rather than those who came after and detested him for taking what was for 100-years the losing side of history. For instance, if George W. Bush has many biographies written by his supporters (now less than 28% of the population) that help to shape how he is looked at in the future, it would require a writer like Mr. Smith to come in and show that DURING the vast majority of his term, he was not exactly what one would call "popular."
   Re-writing history is a dangerous game and it takes writers like Mr. Smith to set the story straight after it has gone too far astray. In the south for instance, it was around a century or more before there started to be seen positive views of Abraham Lincoln. It is said that history is written by the winner, but really history is written by whoever happens to be holding the pen, and it isn't always the winner. How else could one explain the "Lost Cause" mythology that turned Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman into villains? It is only after carefully dissecting what actually took place that the story can be set straight.
   In "Grant" Mr. Smith has written a biography of the 18th President and first four-star general in the nation's history that is more accurate than a great majority of those that have come before. His biography is free from the anti-Grant bias that flooded the view for so long. However he also does not gloss over faults of Grant. Grant was a man who sometimes drank too much, and Mr. Smith doesn't hide it. But neither does he extrapolate and assume (as many anti-Grant biographers have done) that Grant was a hopeless drunk who stumbled around at all-times and was hardly ever sober. That such views have been accepted by many historians as fact is absolutely ridiculous, and Mr. Smith finally sets things to right.
   In closing, what we get from Mr. Smith is not a biography that overlooks all Grant's faults and pretends that he was a man heaven-sent who never made a wrong turn in his life. Instead we are given the portrait of a man who sometimes trusted the wrong kinds of people too much and who would other times have been better off as President had he sounded his views out amongst the public (especially the Cabinet and Congress). We see a man who as general came close to defeat more than a few times, but who had the nerves and calm to stand his ground. We get an accurate view of a man whose best traits as a general (indeed the fact that he was not easily perturbed in the most trying moments) are what got him into such trouble with historians for over a century. Not only did Grant wind up on the losing side by supporting the rights of black Americans, he showed no remorse for having done so (nor should he have, though it hurt his legacy).
   Time has vindicated Grant in the end and given Mr. Smith the clarity to write a definitive biography of the man from Galena, IL. Finally Grant can be reassessed and while he may never crack the top ten or even top twenty on the list of the greatest presidents of all-time, he at least can leave the likes of Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and (something tells me) George W. Bush behind at the bottom forever.



5. Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant provides an excellent summation of his life by looking at the areas that defined him as a person. This is by no means a comprehensive biography of his generalship or presidential years but it does a thorough job of hitting all of the highlights. I will not go into excessive detail about all of the topics covered but there area few notable things to point out that Smith does well.
   
   1. The Civil war years are covered succinctly and through the lens of how Grants leadership allowed his subordinates to achieve victory while he pushed them on to continue fighting.
   2. It seems that there is some adequate explanation of the bad judgments that Grant made during his White House years and Smith points out there was never "a businessman Grant did not trust" which led him astray during his White House years.
   3. This is one of the few books that spend some time on Grant's personal life and the role his wife and daughter played are covered well. It also covers his military relationships very clearly which helps to understand the years after the Civil War.
   Overall it is an excellent summary of Grant's life and well worth reading.

5 comments about House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War.

1. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most-written about men in the English language. As a long-time Lincoln-buff, I don't mind that there are so many books, but I have to admit, I occasionally wonder if we've reached diminishing returns. A lot of Lincoln books are what I'd call "old wine in new bottles."
   
   But House of Abraham really is that rare thing: a truly new and important perspective on Abraham Lincoln. Having read most of what there is on Abraham and Mary, let me just say what I think is new here: First, the author fleshes out the Southern wing of the Todd family for the first time. These are some seriously colorful characters: David Todd was arrested for desecrating corpses in a Richmond jail; Samuel Todd and Alex Todd were Confederate soldiers killed in action; George Todd abused African-American prisoners who had been taken while storming Battery Wagner; Emilie Todd, widow of a Confederate Brigadier, spent a week in the White House, despite the scandal; Margaret Todd smuggled contraband through Union lines, on and on. In all my reading I'd never known any of this.
   
   Second, the author connects these scandals to Mary's growing unpopularity in Washington. Many books have mentioned that Mary lost three half-brothers on the rebel side (the author proves that it was only two), but none have demonstrated so clearly why her family-ties became such a problem.
   
   Finally, while House of Abraham begins as a book about the Todds, it becomes more and more a meditation on family, on the nation as a family, and on Lincoln's evolving understanding of the War. Ultimately, the author convinced me that Lincoln saw the Todds as a microcosm of the nation and that he understood the war as a "mosaic of family crises."
   
   As some of the other reviewers have pointed out, the book isn't very long, but considering it limits itself to saying something actually new about the most-written-about-man-in-America, I don't think that's surprising. Team of Rivals (which I loved) was 900 pages, but not that much of it was new. It was really the framing that was so impressive. In fact, I'd recommend reading Team of Rivals and then House of Abraham in succession. They make a terrific pair.



2. Stephen Berry's work House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War is a wonderful addition to the field of Lincoln historiography. His work is very insightful to the machinations of the Todd family. The Todd's were truly a family divided by the Civil War and its aftermath. The work is well written and researched throughly by the author. Lincoln's extended family, i.e. the Todd's were surely an embarassment for the president and his wife. However, even though many of the Todd's were confederate sympathizers, Lincoln always was supportive of his wife's sisters. This is a fine work on Lincoln and essential for Lincolnites to read.



3. This is an entirely new perspective of the Lincoln family, specifically that of his wife's. While there is much known about Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, as well as their oldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who was the only child to live to a ripe old age, I know very little about the Todd Family, and was especially intrigued that a book had finally been written on this little known side of the Lincoln family. Although the book was short, and, as admitted by the author, only a cursory story of several of the members of the Todd family could be done, it was admittedly an interesting book and whetted my appetite for additional information on the Todd Family. I found that the book added a few more pieces to the complex character and personality of Abraham Lincoln the man, and found further that his "melancholia" that is so much discussed was not solely due to the failures of many of his generals, the exorbitant loss of life in the battles of the conflict, the political intrigues of the Radical Republicans and the Democratic-Copperheads, but also partly due to the inner family turmoil that he and Mary experienced with their own family, specifically the Todds. Truly, Abraham Lincoln was quite prophetic when he said that a "House divided against itself cannot stand", and surely this could be said of the Todd family who themselves were divided with several family members serving in the armed forces of the Confederacy and the Union, several killed in battle, and one assassinated. I would recommend this book, and hope to see further detailed studies of the Todd Family in the future.



4. Their have been some good Civil War family biographies lately. The Whalen's book on the Fighting McCook's and this book on the Todd family come to mind. Family biographies can help us understand the human cost of the Civil War as no other histories can. As family members die, we understand the war's causalities in very personal terms gaining an idea of what this costs those involved.
   
   The McCook family had no conflicted loyalties, no question of who to fight for nor any hesitations in committing to a side. They were able to establish a record of service fighting for the Union that was unique. The Todd family had conflicted loyalties, questions on who to fight for and hesitated in committing to a side. A large slave owning family from Kentucky with an in-law in the White House would cause problems for everyone. Lincoln, his wife, her brothers & sisters their spouses created a series of confrontations, personal and political problems that make up this story.
   
   The author introduces the Todd family and the principle people giving us a solid foundation for the story. Lincoln tries to keep as much of the family on the Union side as possible. His efforts delay some members "going South" and produce some real political problems in 1861 for him. Each year of the war is a chapter. This allows us to follow everyone from assignment to assignment or battle to battle. Against this backdrop, Lincoln's personal life and family problems becomes worse and worse. Each newspaper story, each battle death adds to Lincoln's problems and Mary's woes. However, at Springfield as Lincoln is buried, the Todd in-laws stand as family.
   
   The author is easy to read and manages to keep all the story lines together. These are not likable people and he clearly does not like them. This come through in a number of places and may have colored the story. In addition, the author makes misstatements about the battle of Shiloh and the POW exchange. None of his mistakes are major but he is accepting of popular stories as opposed to good scholarship. A nice touch is to take each person from 1865 to his or her death. This is always something I look for in this type of book and feel is really important. The author does an excellent job on each person giving the reader a feel for who they were.
   
   Overall, this is a very readable book. The people are well drawn allowing us to see their world and have some understanding of their choices. In addition, the author shows how the divisions in Lincoln's personal family helped him reach out to the national family as reflected in many of his speeches.



5. Why did the majority of the Todds choose the South over the North? Their's was a border state that stayed in the Union. They owned too few slaves to have fortunes staked on the system. On p. 174 Berry defines the Todds as being "shrill with hatred... collapsed in self interest and grief". What drove them to this?
   
   Are they really "a once happy family" as Berry says? The litigation over their father's estate belies this. The litigation not only left their father's second wife (mother of 6?) dependent, but also disinherited those, like Mary, who had already had gifts from the father. Did early favoritism cause the rift as much as the war?
   
   Lincoln appears to be the model brother-in-law. Risking charges of favoritism and nepotism, Lincoln helps his Union oriented brothers-in-law (who also married Todds), giving one the ability to contract for provisions (which he exploits and when challenged threatens blackmail) and another a coveted army position away from the fray in the west. He entertains a Confederate Todd in the White House, and provides a pardon for another who will not take an oath of allegiance to the country that pardons her. His tolerance and charity towards his family recalls his tolerance of McClellan and a host of cabinet officers of similarly dubious motives.
   
   Mary personalizes the Confederate allegiance in her family as a fight against her. Maybe Mary was close to being right. Some seem to bask in the status of being able to malign a relative. Others just expect too much which can breed disappointment even under normal conditions. Maybe some of their intensity was a family rebellion against the one grown up who, by chance, had married into their family.
   
   While the book is short, it is not entirely focused. For a book on the family, too many of its precious paragraphs are devoted to sketching the war such as the battles of Manassas and Shiloh and the seige of Vicksburg. I would have liked a reference table in the beginning showing the birth order of the Todds and their marriages. Most importantly it needs some discussion on why the Todds did what they did.
   
   In a lighthearted afterward the author describes his research. While a lot went into this effort, I hope it is not thorough, because I would like to know more of these Todds.

5 comments about Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley.

1. This book is a detailed account of the second half of Elvis Presley's life. Peter Guralnick has painted a vivid portrait of the man whose life should have been magnificent, but instead was so terribly sad.
   
   After reading Guralnick's first volume (Last Train To Memphis), I ran out immediately to buy this one. While I did devour it, it's a bitter pill to swallow. Many nights, I closed the book and then lay awake, thinking, or trying to stop thinking about Elvis. Why did a life with such promise turn out this way? Why did a man who should have been on top of the world, end up so low? Enormous fame and the death of his mother were major contributing factors. Drugs, prescription and otherwise, killed his spirit, his talent, his health and his relationships. And he was exploited by many, especially Col. Tom Parker who trotted him out on tour, when he should have been hospitalized and certainly long-retired.
   
   When I finished the book, I thought, "Did I really want to know all this about him?" Do you? It's your call. I do now understand many things I never did before. And I will not be so quick to idolize, judge or envy anyone unless I've walked a mile in their shoes.



2. This second volume, along with the first -- Last Train to Memphis -- are riviting. One of the absolute best biographies I have ever read. A journey through the life, from beginning to end, of one of the world's great entertainers and personalities. Highly recommend.



3. Extremely revealing portrait that makes clear that Elvis became a drug addict even before he went into the Army in 1958. This bio leaves out nothing, including all the dreary and the tawdry as well as the musical genius. While Jerry Lee Lewis lost his career for dallying with his 13-year-old cousin, Elvis got clean away with dating a 14-year-old Priscilla. All the bizarre details are here. Guralnick does it again. A must read for anyone who wants to know the story of Elvis.



4. I first read the Guralnick books on Elvis about four years ago (2004) when I was just ready to explore the Elvis World. I'm second-generation (about Lisa Marie's age) but missed all the hoopla, and my parents didn't say much. So when I decided to "research" Elvis for myself, I searched the Amazon.com reviews for guidance.
   
   I have to agree with the heavy, authoritative (but not authoritarian) reviews of other Elvis fans who felt Guralnick's work was "comprehensive and accurate." Once I read the Guralnick books, I felt -- not disillusioned -- but bludgeoned with information. Reading Guralnick's book, the reader almost has no choice but to come out not liking Elvis, not only personally but musically or artistically. It was a bitter pill; I had really liked Elvis before reading Guralnick's work.
   
   Four years later, while I'm still "researching" Elvis, what I have found is most of Guralnick's work is actually a compendium, a "Reader's Digest" if you will (a Brittanica), of nearly all major Elvis publications up to that time. In short, Guralnick's work wasn't so much the decisive definitor of Elvis' composite work, but rather the encyclopedia of combined published information. I hasten to point out that Guralnick was not deceptive in any way, but fans and interested persons may have made the mistake of thinking because Guralnick had the "most" to say about Elvis (in two large books) he may have been the most accurate or comprehensive, and that simply isn't true.
   
   As a fan, and someone who has since come to truly appreciate Elvis in all his humanity, my advice for those who want to know Elvis is to BEGIN with Guralnick, as a map, then read the books Guralnick quoted from (and attributed) and then read the little offbeat books written by people claiming to know Elvis. (Use your discernment to know which may have merit and which are entirely fictitious.) Elvis wouldn't want one author to be the judge of his life.
   
   Guralnick did a great service by collecting and basically annotating the collected written works regarding Elvis up to that point, but I think if you really read between the lines, Guralnick himself does not claim to be an expert, nor does he really draw a conclusion. Guralnick's great service is he opened a door, but he does not claim to define the beginning or end of Elvis Presley. That choice -- like the music -- is up to the individual to decide for him or herself. In short, start with Guralnick, but do not end with him. I think he himself would agree.



5. I have reviewed this book and must say that although Peter is a fantastic researcher the work comes up very short and has sunken to the level of Alana Nash. I am at the point where it is almost better to only read from people that were actually around Elvis like Joe Esposito or Jerry Schilling. Read what they write and you cannot go wrong. From Joe Esposito Remember Elvis, Elvis Straight Up and the Celebrate Elvis series with Daniel Lombardy. Jerry Schilling his book Me and a guy. If you want a great Guralnick book aquire Elvis Day by Day pound for pound the best in terms of an Elvis dictionary.

5 comments about Grover Cleveland: (The American Presidents Series).

1. This is a really great addition to the American Presidents Series. The man that historian Henry Graff dusts off for us is deserving of a good deal of respect, and certainly deserves to be remembered for more than simply having served two non-consecutive terms. In these pages we are introduced to a chief magistrate who didn't concern himself with rocking the boat or actively engaging in creating policy. Rather, Grover Cleveland saw his role as one in which he would keep government honest.
   
   Cleveland's greatest responsibility, he felt, was "the public trust" (that is, keeping government's promise of responsible representation of "The People"). That said, he also believed that, while the public should support the government, government was not in charge of supporting the people. This hurt him politically during his second term when the country fell into difficult financial times. He was thus unwilling to have the Federal government step in to enact legislation that might well have made a difference. Here, Cleveland stands in stark contrast to future Presidents (most notably FDR and the New Deal) and reveals himself to be typical of men who governed during America's "Gilded Age." In our retrospective points-of-view, however, we consider this -Cleveland's laid-back response-to be his one remarkable failing.
   
   Cleveland had no great crisis with which to contend, no nation-changing events that might have challenged him into action that would have lifted him into the category of great or near-great presidents. He was no Lincoln. Then again, he didn't need to be.
   
   Mr. Graff's book is easy to read and is a good, brief introduction to a man whose best legacy to the Oval Office was his service as a good and decent man who restored credibility and respect to the Office of President after a series of rather luke-warm, forgettable presidencies.



2. This book does precisely what it promised to do, and not one thing more... it is a compact, readable, and informative account of the life and times of Grover Cleveland. I would enthusiastically recommend it to anyone whose knowledge about this underrated president is minimal but wishes to learn more; for those who already know a great deal about him, I would recommend those books that explore the details of his life, character, and administration (like the biographies by Allan Nevins or Rexford Tugwell). This book is a primer, nothing more and nothing less.



3. Grover Cleveland's reputation among the presidents has risen over the past few years and Henry Graff's contribution to the American Presidents' series is welcome, though it is not a not terribly revealing study. Cleveland was known for his integrity but hardly remembered as a risk taker of any length as he served twice in the presidency. His years in Washington were solid, if not overly productive.
   
   This series about the U.S. presidents is designed to give a brief overview of the subects covered. This is not the best book in that series, but it is informative in many ways. The author tends to have more of a bent for covering the election process and the style of life exhibited by President Cleveland. Indeed the three elections in which Cleveland ran for president were all fairly close and worth a look, but I would like to have seen more on Cleveland's legacy and how it affected future presidencies. Graff's "Grover Cleveland" is a pleasant read, however.



4. If you want great detail on the presidents, this book series, "The American Presidents," will not be for you. If, however, you would like to get better introduced to some of the Presidents with some quick reads, this series could be very attractive. "Grover Cleveland," written by Henry Graff, is one book in the series. At the outset, I will say that this is a nice introduction to Grover Cleveland; if you want lots of detail, though, this book will not be for you.
   
   That said, this is up to the usual dependable quality of works in this series. The book begins by placing the Cleveland family in context (e.g., I had never guessed that one of Cleveland's predecessors was a founder of Cleveland, Ohio, after whom the city was named!). The story of Cleveland's political career began in earnest when he served as Mayor of Buffalo, NY. This served as a launching point for his accession as Governor of New York. In the latter role, he distinguished himself as a "reformer."
   
   After that, as a result of a confluence of events, he was nominated for President as a Democrat. While running for office (not that candidates did much in the way of campaigning), it came out that Cleveland may have fathered a child out of wedlock. Indicative of Cleveland's reputation, when asked what his "handlers" should do, he said, "Tell the truth." Rather refreshing!
   
   Once elected, he served as a competent president, with some accomplishments in his first term. He was defeated when he ran for re-election, with Benjamin Harrison ousting him from office. However, four years later, he was re-elected to serve the White House. There were many challenges in his second term, some beyond his control. There was also the medical problem that was kept from public eye.
   
   The book winds down by talking of his life after the presidency. This 138 page volume gives a nice glimpse of Grover Cleveland, his presidency, his times, and his accomplishments. For what it is, it does well. Recommended for those who want a brief introduction to the presidents generally and Cleveland specifically.



5. I think there is another book out there on Grover Cleveland called an honest president. Here Graff just confirms why Grover was a straight shooting honest politician. He made the comment when faced with controversy with "Lets tell the truth". What a novel way for a politician. This is why Cleveland appeared on three presidential ballots, and was elected twice. People believed in him and his standards.
   Graff does a excellent job of detailing the 22th and 24th President. The book flowed easily, and I found myself interested throughout the book. Maybe it was because of the character of Cleveland. The nation needs leaders like him now.
   
   A very good short biography of an overlooked president. Graff sticks to the details but makes them interesting.

5 comments about Minor Characters: A Beat Memoir.

1. Joyce Glassman's memoir is very well written and is truly a fascinating account. She manages to describe a scene and give the reader a glimpse of a particular era--long gone. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the 1950's, the beat generation, women in the 1950's, and New York City at that time.



2. This memoir recounting a young woman's years spent in the inner circle of Jack Kerouac is well-written and gripping enough to hold its readers' attention. Placed firmly in the center of the Beat Generation, her story teems with indecision and insecurity, the desire to get up and go, leaving responsibilities at home to see the nation and experience life.
   
   -- Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens



3. This was the third book I bought at the City LIghts bookstore when I was there in 2005 or so. It was this one, a book of beat poety and a collection of San Francisco short stories. I read the beat poetry and this memoir at about the same time, which was a good way of doing so, as many of them dovetailed. I bought it for Joyce, not for Kerouac, as I'm not his biggest fan anyway and have never read On the Road. Was very impressed. It does a good job of showing the lives of the beats and how they lived and the insanity moments of them. Captured the feel of it. But sad. I liked Elise and Hettie a lot and kinda want to read Hettie's memoir too. And probably the dudes at some point too. I like when she's talking about beatnik as a commodification situation.



4. Baby boomers will recognize the freewheeling emotions and impulses described in this book about the late '50s, because these were ours in the '60s and '70s. Joyce Johnson's own transformation, and her close observations of her beat companions and the intellectual stew of NY in the late '50s, give hints of what will happen to America in the following 15 years.
   
   In particular, the author has a unique ability to articulate the feelings female baby boomers absorbed growing up, before the feminist revolution swept us away in the early 70s. As a small example, she points out how girls reading adventurous novels (like On the Road) didn't separate themselves from the guys but fully inhabited the male characters. Male narrators are not a problem for women the way female narrators can be for men.



5. I just finished reading this novel yesterday, I loved the novel and how Johnson describes life in that inner circle. I agree with other reviews, do not read this book if you're only interested in Kerouac. What I came to realise was Johnson's point of view was not only to the idea of being a "minor character" in the history it self, but the fact that women during that time frame were only considered minor characters in life. I highly recommend this novel to any.