2 comments about Edward VII: The Last Victorian King.

1. edward 7th was the uncle of kaiser wilhelm and they did not like each other



2. He waited in the wings while his illustrious mother ruled on and on. And when his time came to strut across the kingly stage the performance was all too brief. But it was not merely a cameo role that "Bertie" was to play as Edward V11, as this portait by Christopher Hibbert makes clear.

   Hibbert traces Bertie's early life as a backward child who was to become the bane of his parents, Queen Victoria and her worthy, hardworking though somewhat stuffy Consort, Prince Albert. So concerned was Albert about his son that he consulted a phrenologist, who promptly noted the "feeble quality" of Bertie's brain.

   "Poor Bertie, he vexes us so much", wrote Victoria. And the vexation turned into near hysteria a few years later as a result of Bertie's escapades with young ladies definitely not thought worthy to be considered future queens.

   When Victoria's long reign ended in January, 1901, the Ewardian Age began. The new king was 59 years old, portly, and going bald. But he took up his new duties with obvious relish, fully conscious of his vocation, combining hard work with his more agreeable activities of cards, racing, partying and womanizing. Aware of the dangers of war in Europe, he set out to strengthen his country's position on the continent. He had notable success in Paris. At the beginning of the visit an aide noted the subdued response of the crowds when his carriage passed. "The French don't like us", the aid whispered. "Why should they?" replied the King and continued waving. By the end of the visit the King had won the French over and had cemented the Entente Cordiale.

   Hibbert writes that Edward V11 was popular as a monarch because he was a human one, and because, in spite of his racy life, he was never hypocritical or pompous. As Hibbert puts it, "he would rather sit down to a meal with an entertaining acrobat than a tedious duke."

   It's easy to form an analogy between Bertie's relationships with his parents and those between the Prince Regent and his father, George 111. And it's even more tempting to form a similar analogy between the current Prince of Wales and HIS parents, though we will probably have to rely on future historians to put that into perspective.

5 comments about The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, Revised and Updated.

1. If you enjoy and read novels, biographies or history books about England and Europe this is a must have reference book. Very condensed, dry and factual history but a tremendous help in keeping people, time and places in order and perspective.



2. If your a history buff like I am you will love this book. It is a must for those interested in the past.



3. I love this book. Even with all of the reading I have done on the British Monarchy, this book had never before seen pictures. My only complaint would be that it often focuses more on political events rather than personal lives. But, there is wonderful information in this book, and I have enjoyed every page.



4. As a lover of British royal history, I think this is a fantastic overview that 'sums' things up, devoting a few pages to tell the story of each monarch. Antonia Fraser manages to pass on a lot of information in short form. The illustrations are wonderful, as are the charts (although as someone else mentioned, they are missing some details for us serious fanatics). I consider this is a great compilation if you just want the big picture, or a starting point to jump off into detailed biographies of individual monarchs and/or houses.



5. My dad gave me this lovely book for Christmas back in '99, and I have used it as a reference ever since. Although it is a splendid read from cover-to-cover, I find that it is one of the best books out there to really whet the appetite for more in-depth research into the monarch, rebel or time period of your choice.
   
   The genealogy charts are fun to puzzle out, and the illustrations, including coats of arms, maps, tapestries and portraits, add extra personality to the history, which is, in itself, fascinating.
   
   Of course, a book of this length only scratches the surface of the noble, scandalous, shocking and never-dull lives of the British monarchs, their families, friends and enemies, so you must dig deeper if any one subject appeals to you. All in all, a well-written, organized and illustrated overview of a sizeable chunk of history.

No comments about Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I.

5 comments about The Book of Margery Kempe (Norton Critical Editions).

1. The reason why this book is so inspirational is because Margery is very honest throughout about how difficult she finds her spiritual path and her commitment to God, combining this with marriage, children and the persecution and ridicule she faces on her pilgrimages. It is a very rewarding read because of this and one of my favourite books.



2. I read this for my Later Middle Ages history course, and I must admit that I didn't care for it. The book as other reviewers have said, is written over 20 years in hindsight, and Margery herself must have been an insufferable person whether her experience was true or not. It seemed to me that she brought most of her suffering upon herself and later justified it with her visions...but whether I agree with her experience is really not the point.
   
   As the first known English autobiography, and as an insight to one of the forms that faith took in the Middle Ages (not to mention being from the female perspective) this book is invaluable. But had it not been for class I wouldn't have suffered through the 50 pages of weeping and rambling that I did (we didn't even have to read the whole thing!). Though she was a pilgrim to many holy sites, she notates almost nothing of her external experiences in Jeruselam and Rome - so I don't think that it would be particularly useful to those interested in general history.



3. At first, I rather enjoyed this book - Margery Kempe is quite kooky. But reading more and more, Margery just became annoying, especially with all her weeping. Is it any wonder that no one wanted to travel with her? Or that she was arrested so often? Did she really think her activities would win people to God? Or am I just guilty of being another one of her persecutors?



4. Another book I read for class. I knew a little about Margery Kempe beforehand, like she had 14 children. I didn't know that the first autobiography ever written in English was so boring. I felt like Margery repeated herself, over and over. I wanted more details about her life- about her husband, her children, and her pilgrimages. I don't think I would pick this up unless you are specifically interested in early Christianity writings.



5. Margery Kempe lived from about 1373~1440s, and she really LIVED. In this book, accorded by many to be the first autobiography in English, a scribe records the tale of her life, but most specifically the aspects of it that relate to her spirituality. She was outspoken, controversial, courageous, annoying, devout, and eccentric and all of these aspects shine through into the book, even through the cloudy filter of a male religious scribe who may have 'polished' her words to make her sound more orthodox.

   Margery began life as the daughter of the mayor of Lynn in England, and made a well-suited marriage. After the birth of her first child, she went mad due to some pent-up guilt and an unsympathetic confessor, and during this madness was spoken to by Jesus. This moment changed her life, and snapped her out of the madness. She continued with her worldly ways with failed attempts at entrepenurism and her delight in the physical side of marital relations... but after aobut 20 years she felt the pull of God and decided she needed to devote herself entirely to him.

   Margery went about a long process of procuring chastity from her husband and set off on pilgrimages world wide. She was known for her loud, uncontrollable weeping fits that occured at random and caused many to claim she was a heretic. However, she stood trial before the Archbishops of England, on multiple occasions, and was never once convicted of heresy, and in fact often impressed the higher church officials with her knowledge of doctrine and the Bible. She went through many struggles in her life, but her deity was always there communicating with her or helping her through the cruelty of others, assuring her that all her pain on earth would only increase her joy in heaven.

   Some reader bewares: Margery was hated for a *reason*, you can see this in so many of the encounters that she has, it is so easy to imagine how nagging and annoying having a prim, preaching, all-knowing person along with you on a long voyage all day long would be; or how alarming it would be to have some woman in hysterical fits day after day in the middle of your church when you were trying to pray. Margery comes across as arrogant in some ways - but if you had the unshakable knowledge that your deity loved you and you were going straight to heaven, wouldn't you be a tad uppity too? She was humble though, for example she spent weeks living in a hovel serving a beggar woman while in Rome, and she returned home to nurse her dying husband when he had a fall.

   If you are interested in medieval studies, in women's history or feminism, in mysticism or religious history, this is a must-read for both its historical significance and its entertainment value. Its being taught at college campuses across the country now, so its gaining in recognition. Don't skip the introduction because its extremly informative, but the chapters can be read out of order because they are only loosely chronological and very short. In her time people either loved or hated Margery Kempe, and the same holds true today, so pick up the book and see which side you're on!

5 comments about The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones.

1. This is a decent rock and roll book about the Rolling Stones that traces their history up until Altamont. As others have noted, the first part of the book is dragged down by the author's ongoing trouble with securing a contract (who cares?). It's worth sticking it out, b/c the book gets more interesting. The stuff about Brian Jones was new to me. He was more wacked out than I realized.
   
   One odd thing is that it seems the author describes incidents that he witnessed, but their descriptions are straight out of the Maysles' doc "Gimme Shelter". If you watch the film while reading the book, you'll see what I mean. Maybe he used the movie as a way to jog his memory. Maybe the clips in the film were the most interesting things to highlight. It's hard to tell. But you see the author at a few different points in the film, notably when the band is listening to their new record in the hotel room. It's pretty cool.
   
   All in all, this is a great book. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Some of it is beautifully written. But don't go by the blurbs in the back of the book stating it's the "best book about the 1960's". But worth the time, nonetheless...



2. To book eventually goes from a chapter to chapter switching from the old days (interesting) to the 1969 tour and back. I skip over any parts that don't have to do with the Stones directly and that helps keep it interesting. Entirely too much time spent on the question "Will I get the rights to do this book?". Want to just get the stories. He runs hot and cold but generally when he talks about the Stones (or quote Keith), it is a good read, especially if you read it while listening to old Stones records.



3. There is no stronger, clear-minded, and focused writer of American Music Culture than Stanley Booth. He never writes from a distance. In fact, sometimes he writes from too close, within firing range, as with The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones, also published under the title of Down & Out With The Rolling Stones. Booth says it took him years to recover from the experience. I say he hasn't recovered yet. When you are from Georgia and live in Memphis, you learn to survive, but you don't recover. The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones is a historic, deep panorama of a different violent time in America. In order to create, you have to go through the fire. Stanley Booth has done just that.
   
   And when you finish with The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones, pick up a copy of Rythm Oil, I think his best book, and then Keith.
   
   There is no one writing about music with the grit and guts of Stanley Booth. All others, with the exception of damn few, are just playing.
   
   



4. STANLEY BOOTH HUNG OUT AND PARTIED WITH THE STONES. HE BECAME FRIENDS WITH AND WAS A KINDRED SPIRIT TO KEITH RICHARD. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT ACCOUNT OF THE MONUMENTAL 1969 STONES TOUR. HE ALSO SEEMED TO HAVE GOOD INSIGHT INTO BRIAN JONES AND THE STONES DYNAMICS WHILE HE WAS IN THE BAND.
   HIS EYE MAGAZINE ACCOUNT OF BRIANS 1968 DRUG BUST WAS A MUST READ CLASSIC.



5. It is not often that any writer/biographer is given such unlimited access to his or her subject as Stanley Booth was given in 1969 to the Rolling Stones. As an invited insider with the world's greatest rock and roll band at their musical apex, Booth ate, drank, took drugs, and traveled with the band and its entourage. What great interviews he could have done! What amazing revelations about the Stones and their often oppositional creative processes he could have shared with Stones fans!
   
   Granted, most people who have reviewed this book have really liked it. Maybe I missed the point, but I did not come out of this book feeling like I knew the Stones any better, and certainly did not learn any more about the dynamics of their musical collaborations and clashing personal and creative styles. What I got was a good look at a writer hired to write a book about the Stones who ended up writing a book about himself writing a book about the Stones, and five hundred pages of insider gossip, most of which doesn't even border on historically significant or interesting.
   
   C'est la vie.

5 comments about Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton: A Biography.

1. This is a very large book & not a light read. Sir Francis Burton is one of history's more interesting people but after reading this book I don't think he was someone that was easy to get along with. He was a brave & determined man & most people just wouldn't want to do the things he did. Also the things he did are incredible but the writing isn't as gripping as the things he did.



2. Richard Francis Burton was a very unique individual even when compared to the Victorian age when it seems Britain had an abundance of eccentric Englishman making world-shaking contributions for the benefit of their Empire or mankind. Burton had a knack for picking up other languages and dressing in native costume, so much so, that in a matter of months he could pass as a native. He exploited this gift throughout the Indian subcontinent and the Arabic speaking world. From an army to a Foreign Service diplomatic career, Burton did not spend his time idly. He led explorations in East and West Africa. Burton's name should be as famous as Stanley's or Livingston's except for happenstance. He explored various Arab speaking areas for the Royal Geographical Society and frequently passed himself off as a local by speaking Arabic fluently. He received Islamic religious training, enough to be the first or second Westerner to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca and obtain entrance into the Kabbkah. As an Author, his books of his exploits never sold well. The author of this book concludes because of the haphazard method of relating information to the reader. Burton was not good at organizing his expeditionary note, but they are full of curious facts that show his sharp scientific mind. The author of this book does an admirable job relating Burton's life to the reader. The book's quoting various diary entries and newspaper articles shows it was well researched, especially his turbulent public life. As Richard Francis Burton grew older he used his language skills to translate various books of Middle Eastern tales and poetry into English. He is perhaps best known for translating the classic A Thousand and One Nights.
   This was a very rewarding book, This reader plans to read some of the books still in print by Richard Francis Burton.



3. I believe that I have read all of the Burton biographies - all of them available on Amazon, that is, except Rage to Live, which I am reading now. It started as a keen interest in the subject, and is now just a matter of completing the task. Rice's treatment not only seems to be very correct but is free from editorial. Many other authors feel the need to second-guess the history without the means to do so, or to make him a hero or a villain. For example, his pederastic forays in Hindustan are stated matter-of-factly, with the helpful insight that there is no suggestion he never went back to it. His portrayal of a certain negress royal harem slopping up banana beer, sow-like, on all fours as his own death sentence was imminent can only be called Burtonesque - complete with a lengthy quote from the master himself. If you can only read one, this is it.



4. Of the Burton biographies I have read, this is quite by far the best. The research is great, and for a history book, this is a true page turner. I found it fascintating, that while reading this work, I had to keep reminding myself that this guy, Sir Richard Burton, was a real person, and was not some figment of a writer's imagination. Richard Burton led a fascinating life during a fascinating time in our history. The author captures both the time and the man. I highly recommend you read this one, if at all interested in this man and his time and further recommend you add it to your library as you will probably want to give it more than one read.



5. I have never even heard of anyone like Richard Burton. He is one of those people that certainly took advantage of life. I often wonder how he had the time to accomplish all of those feats. This particular biography is a very balanced portrayal of Burton and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you want to be entertained then read this book.

5 comments about Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens.

1. 
   This dual biography by Jane Dunn is an excellent and highly engaging work of history, and tells much of the Elizabethan age regarding not only politics but also society, religion relationships and gender.
   
   Elizabeth refused to marry and reigned for 45 years as the solitary monarch of England, at the time a revolutionary decision.
   A women of great strength, a wise ruler (although as the author points out, unlike Mary, she was blessed with dependable and skilled advisers) and as we see a great orator and poet.
   Her rallying of the people of England against the Spanish Armada certainly was something of a reflection of Churchill's rallying of Britain against the Nazi menace 400 years later.
   We need leaders in the West today who can stand up against the threat of Islamo-Fascism and terror.
   
   Mary was a passionate and wilful adventurer. married twice for political gain, but took several lovers, and certainly was passionate at different times in her love for Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley(who she came to despise for good reason later) and for the Earl of Bothwell.
   
   Mary was a vengeful ruler and the more ruthless of the two queens, she felt nothing plotting the overthrow and death of Elizabeth, while it was with great anguish that Elizabeth was forced to sign Mary's death warrant, after Mary's plotting (The Throckmorton and Babington plots) made her end inevitable.
   
   Essentially the book is about a fatal and tragic clash of interests.
   "A fatal complication ensued when Mary turned her sights on the greater crown of England. believing it her rightful inheritance and a claim worth pursuing. Elizabeth's fundamental insecurity in her own legitimacy, where the whole of Catholic Europe was ranged against her , 'the bastard child of a whore' increased the tension and emotional volatility of the issue. The complex rivalry, the feint and parrying of their personal relationship, sprang from the challenge Mary made for Elizabeth's throne, and the unassailable legitimacy of her claim. The powerful passions this relationship engendered in each was a result of their strikingly different natures. The fact that they never met allowed their rivalries to inflate in each Queen's imagination, their qualities elaborated upon by ambassadors and courtiers intent on their own ambition".
   Elizabeth was a prisoner accused of treason and threatened with execution as a young girl, before gaining the throne, seen by the majority of England's people as a great deliverer from her older sister 'Bloody' Mary I's 's tyrannic religious repression of the Protestants.
   As was written in John Fox's 'Foxes Book of Martyrs' where he records the names and circumstances of ordinary people put to death for their faith under Mary I "When these at Maidstone were put to death
   We wished for our ELIZABETH."
   
   At the time of her mother's execution Princess Elizabeth was two years and eight months old.
   She was soon stripped of her title of princess and declared illegitimate.
   Elizabeth who was an incredibly bright child, did not notice that her mother was gone but she did notice the change of her name. She apparently said to her governess. "how haps it governor, yesterday my Lady Princess, today but my Lady Elizabeth?"
   
   Elizabeth must have grown up under great trauma , her mother executed when she was three years old, on her father's orders, all but rejected by her father and declared 'illegitimate.'
   
   
   Mary of Scots became Queen in a blaze of glory before a series of intrigues and catastrophes led to her being cast off the throne in a civil war, before fleeing to England.
   She was detained on Elizabeth's orders as she was a very real threat to Elizabeth's life and throne on which she had designs, but lived in great luxury and with a large degree of freedom.
   Elizabeth did all she could to be merciful but Mary's plotting and attempts to take the throne sealed her own fate.
   As Elizabeth wrote to Mary "You have in various manners attempted to take my life, and bring my kingdom to destruction by bloodshed. I have never proceeded harshly against you but have on the contrary protected and maintained you like myself. These treasons will be proved to you, and all made manifest' before asking Mary again to answer for her actions and admit her guilt, and Elizabeth would again be merciful.
   Mary's actions played into the hands of Elizabeth's council who then forced elizabeth to give the signal for her execution.



2. This was an interesting book to read. The comapnion biographies gave me a fresh perpsective on the relationship between the two monarchs. My only criticism is that there is a lot of repetition. Dunn writes over and over again about the view of women during the 16th century and about the difficulties faced by a female sovereign. After a while I just kept thinking to myself, "OK! I GET IT!"
   But at the same time it was interesting to read about their lives side by side. I never stopped to think about the fact that while Elizabeth was spending a difficult childhood being threatened with execution after being accused of treason, Mary was the star of the French court and already queen of Scotland in her own right. Elizabeth, as a result, learned very early to tread very carefully and never give away her true thoughts. Mary, on the other hand, never had to learn how to govern. She was priveleged, and was constantly the center of attention. Hardly surprising that she made some catastrophic decisions when she returned to Scotland.
   So although this isn't what I would consider to be a great book, it did give a fresh perspective about how closely entwined the two queens were. If you are interested in the realationship between Elizabeth and Mary you may find this book to be worth your time.



3. I received prompt and reliable service.... my book arrived so quickly and in perfect condition! I'm grateful!



4. For anyone looking for a straight forward biography of these two fascinating queens, Jane Dunn's excellent book is not for you. This is an in-depth, sociological, and psychological study of the two rival queens and the events that shaped their lives. Critical reviewers have accused Dunn of unfair bias toward Elizabeth, but, given the extraordinary achievements of Elizabeth, how can one not be? Mary Stewart was a very romantic, tragic, almost mythical figure, but she played the traditional female role of a queen who needed a king to rule with her; surprising considering she was the daughter of the formidable Marie de Guise. And her appalling choices of husbands #2 and #3 caused her life to spin out of control. Her poor decisions regarding the treason plot against Elizabeth displayed emotion over reason, and ultimately brought about her downfall. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was magnificent. In an era when women were commonly accepted as inferior to men, she not only overcame huge sociological prejudices to become the most powerful ruler of her era, but ultimately did it well, bringing Elizabethan England to great prosperity. The contrast between the two women, Elizabeth, struggling to be equal to a king in a totally male dominated world and Mary, relying on her femininity to achieve her desires, could not be more marked. The issue of succession, with Elizabeth's choice to remain a "Virgin Queen," (in name only, I have to say, I disagree with Dunn's viewpoint that she and Dudley were "just friends") in order to maintain her control, and thus leaving England without an heir, is complex and warranted more discussion in the book. But really, after all the historical sturm und drang does anyone else see the great irony that Mary's son James became king of the British Isles anyway, ascending to both the English and Scottish throne?



5. For anyone looking for a straight forward biography of these two fascinating queens, Jane Dunn's excellent book is not for you. This is an in-depth, sociological, and psychological study of the two rival queens and the events that shaped their lives. Critical reviewers have accused Dunn of unfair bias toward Elizabeth, but, given the extraordinary achievements of Elizabeth, how can one not be? Mary Stewart was a very romantic, tragic, almost mythical figure, but she played the traditional female role of a queen who needed a king to rule with her; surprising considering she was the daughter of the formidable Marie de Guise. And her appalling choices of husbands #2 and #3 caused her life to spin out of control. Her poor decisions regarding the treason plot against Elizabeth displayed emotion over reason, and ultimately brought about her downfall. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was magnificent. In an era when women were commonly accepted as inferior to men, she not only overcame huge sociological prejudices to become the most powerful ruler of her era, but ultimately did it well, bringing Elizabethan England to great prosperity. The contrast between the two women, Elizabeth, struggling to be equal to a king in a totally male dominated world and Mary, relying on her femininity to achieve her desires, could not be more marked. The issue of succession, with Elizabeth's choice to remain a "Virgin Queen," (in name only, I have to say, I disagree with Dunn's viewpoint that she and Dudley were "just friends") in order to maintain her control, and thus leaving England without an heir, is complex and warranted more discussion in the book. But really, after all the historical sturm und drang does anyone else see the great irony that Mary's son James became king of the British Isles anyway, ascending to both the English and Scottish throne?

5 comments about Reach for the Sky: The Story of Douglas Bader, Legless Ace of the Battle of Britain (Bluejacket Books).

1. Excellent book about a truly amazing man. If you enjoyed this one, try Fly for Your Life, by Larry Forrester, which chronicles the life of RAF pilot Robert Stanford Tuck. Tuck is mentioned several times in Reach for the Sky and his book is another 5 star, Battle of Britain story.



2. I ordered this book for myself after having read a borrowed original first edition hard cover from a friend.
   The story is wonderful and inspiring, and I wanted to own this book. This soft cover reissue version is O.K.,
   but the photo reproductions in it are shamefully bad. I'll continue to search for an original copy ...



3. I read this book in middle school YEARS ago, well, ok, I wore this book out in middle school. When I saw it on Amazon I had to get it! What an amazing, inspirational story. Anyone with an interest in flying or history will find this a fantastic read!



4. An excellent and accurate story of a historical figure, Douglas Bader. It was interesting to read and thoroughly enjoyable.



5. I read this book when I was 9 yrs. old and now that I read it again I think that this is one of those books that I will keep and read over and over.
   This is a riveting story that makes you feel like you are there experiencing the events yourself.

5 comments about The Life of Thomas More.

1. Sir Thomas More was a Londoner from birth. He was born in 1478 in the last flowering of the late Middle Ages Roman Catholic world of that distant day. More was a brilliant student who studied at Oxford and at the law courts of Lincoln Inn. More rose high and became Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. All was well with Sir Thomas as he served King and Country as lawyer, judge, diplomat, Steward of Oxford and Cambridge, pious Christian layperson and author. His book "Utopia" has become a deserved classic of satire.
   More was a humanist who was friendly with great men such as Erasmus who often visited him in his estate in Sussex. More was twice married to Jane Colt who died at 22 and the widow Alice Middleton who was witty, wealth and wise. More had a quick wit, deep love of God and strong belief in the
   beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. More had several children by his first wife. His daughter Margaret was considered to be the smartest woman in England being proficient in Latin, Greek and the classics. All of his children loved him. More indulged in scatological jokes; had countless pets and viewed life as a grand drama with him as an actor upon the stage of affairs.
   On becoming Lord Chancellor after the fall of Cardinal Wolsey he was zealous in the persecution and burning of reformers and Protestant. More opposed the English translation of the Bible by William Tyndale. He could be cruel and was a bitter enemy of anyone who opposed the Church. Like most people of the age he was superstitious believing firmly in ghosts, omens in dreams and the literal interpretation of the Bible. More called for reform in the existing church but believed everyone should obey the Pope in Rome as a father is obeyed in the well ordered home. He would not brook breaking away from Roman Catholicism.
   More was beheaded in July 1535 and his property was attained due to his refusal to subscribe to the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. More believed Henry's marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon was valid. He believed that by marrying Anne the King of England was not in obedience to God's law. More believed the church should be governed from Rome rather than be ruled by the King of England. He hated Martin Luther condemning him to hell. More was inimical to the Protestant Reformation. His faith was in the old church which had governed Western religion for a millenium.
   My feelings towards More are mixed. I do not like his persecution of heretics but one most concede that he was a product of the cruel times in which he lived. I do admire his courage in dying rather than sacrifice his belief in what is right to do as God gave him the light to discern that right. More has been sainted by the Roman Catholic Church.
   Peter Ackroyd is the author of this 400 pages book making it much shorter than the definite biography of Sir Thomas by Richard Marius. Ackroyd portrays More warts and all giving a balanced view of the controversial man's life and times. More and his contemporaries are often quoted using the English of the period. This may prove annoying to many readers who prefer to read about him in a standard English format. This is a fine biography by one of England's best biographers.



2. Thomas More lived an exemplary life during hard times. His faith in the Catholic Church was put to the test by his king, and though he failed his king and paid the price on the scaffold, he served his God and was rewarded with martyrdom and sainthood. Peter Ackroyd's book is a brilliant and dramatic telling of More's life.
   
   Thomas More was born in London in 1478. He was educated at Oxford where upon his father's insistence he studied law. But he was also interested in theology and thought for a while of becoming a monk. Famously he wore a hair shirt his entire life. Instead of taking vows, however, he took a wife and had four children. He made sure his daughters received as rigorous an education as his sons. (His wife died in 1511 and he married Alice Middleton and adopted her daughter.)
   
   The law was More's lifelong profession where he represented various groups in the courts and helped settle trade disputes abroad. He wrote a history of King Richard III, wherein he portrayed Richard as a cruel, even criminal, ruler. In 1516, he published his most famous book, UTOPIA, which described an ideal community governed totally by reason. When Cardinal Wolsey failed to secure an annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he was replaced by More as lord chancellor. He worked diligently in this position and became a friend to the king. But troubles were already visible in the horizon.
   
   When Henry, through the Act of Supremacy, declared himself the head of the Church of England, More was in opposition to him: he refused to take an oath of allegiance to Henry that would deny papal supremacy of the church. He was tried, found guilty, and beheaded five days later.
   
   Ackroyd is especially good in relating the dramatic events during these last few years in More's life. He narrates this with the power and skill of a novelist; indeed, it's almost impossible to put the book down during the last 100 pages. Anyone in want of moral uplift need only read these last pages for complete satisfaction. More went to the scaffold bravely, even telling the executioner to stay calm and aim true. He joked after stumbling on the scaffold steps and received help: "When I come down again let me shift for myself as well as I can." Then "he died the King's good servant but God's first," which is his life in a nutshell. Ackroyd writes with authority and tremendous style, but it's the drama that he infuses in his account that truly sets this book apart. Highly recommended.



3. The moment I finished Peter Ackroyd's "Life of Thomas More," my strongest impulse was to close it, open it up to the first page again, and start -- immediately -- reading it all over again, word by word, page by page.
   
   I hung on every word of this text. I wanted to understand Thomas More.
   
   I wanted to understand a man whose misogyny was obvious in his many derogatory statements about women. For example, when asked why he liked short women, he said that it was best to choose the lesser of evils.
   
   When a mature man, More married a mere girl and got her pregnant so many times in such rapid succession that she lived only a few short years after marrying him.
   
   More married his second wife, as the saying goes, while still in mourning clothes for his first. He mocked that second wife, Dame Alice, publicly. He wrote texts that associated women exclusively with sex and disgusting bodily functions like vomiting and diarrhea.
   
   And, yet, More was exceptional for his time in educating his beloved daughter, the one great passion of his life, Margaret More Roper.
   
   More persecuted his countrymen who deviated from the Catholic faith, and published vile condemnations of Luther, and eventually, knowingly, and humbly, sacrificed his own life to his own interpretation of that faith.
   
   More rose, through obediance, flattery, and dogged labor, from relatively humble circumstances to being Henry the VIII's chancellor, and a wealthy man, and then tossed away his considerable worldly goods and power to die an ignominious death.
   
   You want to understand a man who could encompass so many passionate apparent contradictions.
   
   And, so, I hung on every word of Ackroyd's detailed and yet economical text.
   
   My attention was amply rewarded. Ackroyd marshalls the kind of authentic, telling details of the Medieval life that More lived that can make an era, and its inhabitants, come alive. Even so, Ackroyd is never wordy. When he has said enough, he simply stops.
   
   Along the way, Ackroyd brings to light the life and impact of a woman he says has been nearly forgotten: Elizabeth Barton, a seeress and nun in Kent. Barton spoke against Henry VIII's divorce of his wife, Catherine of Aragon.
   
   Her voice was considered so important that Henry himself visited her.
   
   For her trouble, Barton and her priestly followers were tortured to death.
   
   As I read, I could not help but reflect: in our own age of "celebrity," we know too many details about non-entities we don't care about at all -- the Britney Spears and Paris Hiltons enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame. We can view film footage of their most intimate moments on the internet; hear their every thought in televised interviews.
   
   Thomas More lived five hundred years ago. We can't ask him to reconcile for us his hateful diatribes against women and his love of Margaret, his ant-like accumulation of worldly goods and his sacrifice for his beliefs.
   
   The records just don't exist.
   
   And, yet ... even though the More in these pages has to remain something of a cypher, even though More, as was the norm in his time, wrote with extreme caution in ambiguous, tradition-bound, unspontaneous and sometimes flowery prose, I felt I had an encounter, through Ackroyd's book, with a remarkable human being. I was in tears throughout the final passages leading up to More's death.
   
   A final word: I am a fan of "A Man for all Seasons." Again and again, reviewers pit Ackroyd's book against the Robert Bolt play and subsequent movie.
   
   One does not necessarily cancel out the other...both the film and this book work, for me, from what I know about More, as explorations of his life and impact, and his famous final choice.
   
   I never saw Paul Scofield's More as a Thoreau-like figure, as some reviewers have said; he was not depicted as living in a house in the woods, after all, and he did base his decision on adherence to a greater principle than personal conscience, i.e., the law, just as Ackroyd's More does.
   
   So, yes, do see the movie, and do read this book.



4. Gosh, golly gee, crikey - the superlatives could go on all day. This is a superb, densely textured biography. Ackroyd revels in the complex psychology and sociology of his subject, e.g., his devotion to duty, his father fixation, etc. He also places Thomas More firmly in the London of his time and in his historical moment - the Reformation - especially through More's own writings.
   
   It has been remarked that the chapters amount to a series of vignettes. That's true, and the amount of knowledge retailed in each glimpse of More and his world is staggering.
   
   To give but a few examples:
   Chap. 3 - St. Anthony's Pigs: we follow young More through the streets of Tudor London to his school and get insight into the Renaissance education system.
   
   Ch 4 - Cough Not, Nor Spit: Thomas' early career as a page to Archbishop (of Canterbury) Morton, Henry VII's notorious "enforcer". This relationship illuminates More's later dealings with Cardinal Wolsey.
   
   Ch 8 - We Talk Of Letters: sketches of Grocyn, Linacre, Lily, Colet, More - the "London humanists", or More's intellectual circle.
   
   And so on. The book continues in the same fascinating vein. It is a hard slog to read, and I'm sorry that Peter Ackroyd did not give a glossary of A) Latin and Greek expressions, and B) even some of his more obscure English words. I also regret that there's no map to illustrate Ackroyd's loving depiction of the London where More learned, lived, worked and suffered.
   
   More's story is well known and often told. Ackroyd has given a fully-rounded portrayal of the man, his background, career, family and friends.
   
   What a pleasure to read.



5. I enjoyed this book, but I do think that as a narrative history it is perhaps slightly flawed. The main strength (and problem) I have with this book is that the character study is so dominant that is completely ignores the larger historical picture that More lived within and, at times the dominant philosophy, that may have allowed a deeper understanding of More.
   
   The gnawing problem I have with this book is the main currents that More struggled against and the ideas he fought for are little outlined. The church that he so selflessly defended is little described beyond its social context in which More was raised. The central point of More was that the sublimation of the time honoured traditions (though admittedly flawed) could not be merely circumvented by mans personal appeal to God. Direct dialougue with God allowed a virtual pandora's box of interpretation and clash of beliefs that could only lead to mass bloodshed --- and he was right! This belief is left unexplored and the historical events, such as the peasants revolt in Germany that More abhored and used in his polemical tracts against Luther (a thoroughly scatologically unsavoury character) is not described. In addition Charles V sack of Rome and its influence on the relations with Henry VII are not considered relevant.
   
   So I feel dissatified because I am not getting a wide historical narrative. Although I understand the texture of the stones that he worshipped upon and the feel of the robes he wore, I have little feeling of the times that surrounded him. For the first-time reader of More, this may appear disconcerting.
   
   I realise that my critique cuts another way: if Ackroyd did write the larger historical narrative I wanted, he may have digressed into the narrative historical self-abuse of the 1000 page biography (only acceptable in the most exceptional of circumstances).
   
   I also get no sense of a building dennoument in the encounter with Henry. There is a annoying blase telling of the story with some bright moments -- the book gets better as one goes through it -- it is dense and quite frankly, a little boring in the beginning.
   
   ALso the Olde Englysh translations do detract from the flow of the narrative. Although it is easily understood ones reading flow slows from 700 words per minute, to 50 words per minute in the old English translations. He should revise it from the 16th Century vernacular to modern spelling.
   
   In final analysis I feel that I really did not understand the man. I feel that I need to get a hold of a better biography of the man. So if Ackroyd succeeded in doing this, then it was worth the read.

5 comments about Virginia Woolf.

1. this is the best biography of Virginia Woolf to date. The book is broken into four parts based on four broad periods in VW's life: 1882 - 1904; 1904 -1919; 1919 - 1929; and 1929 - 1941. The chapters, however, are theme-based; for example, Chapter 15 is "Bloomsbury"; Chapter 19 is "War"; Chapter 24 is "Monk's House"; and Chapter 37 is "Fascism". This then serves as a wonderful reference book to go back to read about specific events (war) or themes ("Bloomsbury") without having to search through an index for disjointed entries. Of the four biographies I have read of VW (Quentin Bell's, Hermione Lee's, Julia Brigg's, and James King) I recommend this biography as the one to start. King, 1994, was willing to write more about her personal relationships (read, "sexual") and is a good follow-on.



2. Of the many literary biographies I've read, only Peter Ackroyd's "Dickens" seems to me as "definitive" as Ms. Lee's terrifically compelling book. One finishes it with the sense, however illusory (see Janet Malcolm's extraordinary "The Silent Woman" for a convincing argument that it must be), that the Virginia Woolf found in its pages is essentially identical to the actual woman who lived and wrote and died. Anyone with even a slight interest in her must consider this book essential reading. I found it a real page-turner throughout its considerable length despite being unconvinced of Woolf's literary eminence (except for her sparkling correspondence) and finding her character unattractive (i.e. snobbish, frigid, a false friend, etc.) even by the usual standard for writers.



3. Probably the best bio of Woolf we are likely to see for some time. Lee has succeeded brilliantly and gracefully in that most elusive and troublesome task of capturing the "spirit" of another human being and then conveying that without simplification or reduction. What is most moving is that Lee allows Woolf her complexity and contradictions, her courage and cowardice, her generosity and meaness, without indulging in a sort of inconoclastic glee in smashing received images of Woolf as victim or feminist icon (or any other of the several and various "Woolfs" to be found these days.) Lee's bio is a stunning feat of sympathetic imagination and rational scholarship which ranks with the other "best" bio of the last 20 years or so, Deirdre Bair's marvelous and beautiful "Simone de Beauvoir." I am grateful to both of these writers.



4. I am taking this book slowly and am nearing the end. It is terrific and I find, on the days I take off from reading it, that I miss Virginia Woolf and want to go back to the "place" that is her life. I thank Ms. Lee for giving me a closer intimacy with Virginia Woolf.



5. I enjoyed the book, but have a fairly detailed knowledge of Woolf & her contemporaries. I think a new reader of Woolf & her work might get lost in the maze of essentially unexplained personalties & their relationship to Woolf & her circle.