5 comments about The Kitchen Boy: A Novel of the Last Tsar.

1. based on many years of research into the last months of the Romanovs, Alexander hypothesizes the life of a 14-year-old who does general errands and entertains the Tsarovich. Detailed, gruesome recounting of the last weeks and hours of the Russian Imperial Family are well-told from the perspective of the innocent, naïve young man. Ending is pure fantasy, of course. I recommended it to a friend who seldom reads fiction and she loved it.



2. Robert Alexander, author of The Kitchen Boy, is an enthralling story-teller. So richly detailed is his story and so filled with supportive historical information, that I had to keep reminding myself that, although it was extremely unlikely that he was an eye-witness to all of the events surrounding the imprisonment and execution of Tzar Nicholas and his family in 1918 Russia, you could have fooled me.
   His depiction of the imperial family as decent, warm but clueless people who were themselves victims of centuries of tradition is priceless
   
   I stayed up all night to read this book, and have already ordered "Rasputin's Daughter" and "The Romanov Bride" by the same author.



3. What an amazing little book! The story of the kitchen boy who worked for the Romanovs just weeks and days before their deaths. This little book was quite the page-turner for me and I would not have put it down last night if it weren't for my eyes refusing to stay open. It was the first thing I picked up this morning and I'm glad I did.
   
   Although the book is fictional, the letters printed in the book are not, and provide a little taste of the horror the family must have been going th...more What an amazing little book! The story of the kitchen boy who worked for the Romanovs just weeks and days before their deaths. This little book was quite the page-turner for me and I would not have put it down last night if it weren't for my eyes refusing to stay open. It was the first thing I picked up this morning and I'm glad I did.
   
   Although the book is fictional, the letters printed in the book are not, and provide a little taste of the horror the family must have been going through. The writing is easy to follow and does not get in the way of the story and the main character so easy to sympathize with.
   
   Very much recommended.



4. I really enjoyed this book. I first became interested in the Romanovs when my 7th grade teacher read us excerpts from a biography. This was a compelling re-telling of the last days of the Tsar and his family, combining a glimpse of present day Russia and the dark and bloody days of 1918. I especially liked the inclusion of actual diary entries and letters.



5. Although I did enjoy parts of this book, which was a quick read, I felt that it did not do more than skim the surface of this critical event in world history. I felt the author repeated himself as he tried to build to the suspense of the family's last days, especially when referencing the hidden jewels and forshadowing of the final hours, as well as how the general population may have felt towards the Tsar and Tsarina. Again, too little depth. There is a little bit of a surprise ending, but I was not engaged enough with the characters to feel strongly about the "truth". More like "oh" instead of "oh my". I am very interested in this family and would like to learn more, but this is not a strong source. This novel lacked the richness that could have, or should have, created great compassion for the characters.

5 comments about Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

1. 
   
   
   I have placed these remarks concerning Mr. Bugliosi's book as a comment elsewhere. The book happened to be on sale for $10 last year, so I said, "why not try it?" Lately there was a TV reminiscence of the assassination, and that renewed my attention to the subject. I have read, very carefully 1/3 of the book, and skimmed the rest, becoming more and more impressed by the meticulous assemblage of facts and details and the logic with which the author has seemingly dismantled every possible conspiracy theory. I am a retired forensic pathologist and agree completely with the autopsy analysis. Mr Bugliosi has put a tremendous effort into dismantling practically all the myths and folklore and scientific misconceptions about this affair.
   
   Recently, however, a friend brought up the issue of Israel and the Mossad (their spy agency), and an alleged CIA conspiracy with those two entities. So I replied, "I'm sure Bugliosi covered that in his exhaustive book." I looked through the index and the CD of endnotes, and astonishingly could not find ONE WORD mentioning those alleged conspirators. None, nada. Even the references to Meyer Lansky did not mention "Jews" or "Israel."
   
   Backing up this claim, is a book, listed on Amazon, in its sixth edition, "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper, 2005; this book supposedly details this alleged Israel, Mossad, CIA conspiracy (motive: JFK was holding up Israel's development of the "Bomb"). Surely this plot should have been covered by Bugliosi, even with a quick dismissal. It was not. Since the author mentions every least crackpot who has ever been unearthed in this horrible affair, I find this lack of coverage, unbelievable and probably negligent, unless I am somehow way off the mark for a reason I can't figure out. I'll mention, I have not (yet) bought the Piper book, unwilling to chase phantom rabbits down holes unless I get some more clues.



2. I have long been puzzled by the notion that JFK was killed by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald. My early uninformed reading and research on this matter naturally led me to believe that a conspiracy was possible (if it wasn't than why so much dispute?). As I read further, it became clear to me that these theories were incomplete and pejorative...how could anyone who approached this crime thoughtfully and with a modicum of common sense conclude that someone other than Oswald killed JFK? It wasn't until Vince Bugliosi penned this marvelous paragon to the crime that my feelings were affirmed.
   
   To say that this work is comprehensive is short changing it...over 1500 pages of text and 800 pages of endnotes filled with detailed research and clear logic should certainly be enough to convince even the most strident THOUGHTFUL conspiracy theorist that there IS an answer to this crime: Oswald acted alone both in the murder of JFK and J.D. Tippet and all the other theories have at best circumstantial attributes and pure nonsense at worse. I'd challenge anyone who is reasonably open minded to come away from this work without at least some doubt concerning a conspiracy and some motivation to find evidence to the contrary. I don't think it's possible.
   
   In reading this book one is constantly hammered with clear thought and evidence of Oswald's crime. The first section "Four Days in November" recounts the assassination in narrative form similar in pace and detail to his account of the Manson murders in "Helter Skelter". Chapter upon chapter and fact upon fact follow in sections devoted to the autopsy, the Zapruder film, Oswald's actions/character and the conspiracy possibility. Bugliosi's mastering of the Warren Commission report and supporting evidence used in that report clearly debunk the detractors of that document. All this clearly points to Oswald as the trigger man and plainly refutes any opinion to the contrary. Again, it didn't take me long to realize that this evidence made perfect sense to the thinking person.
   
   Admittedly it is a struggle to get through this monolith...most reviewers report months and sometimes years of reading to finish (I finished in 8 months), but if one is truly after the facts and the natural conclusion of those facts than it's worth the journey. Read it and decide for yourself.



3. This book does much more that establish the truth for what happened on November 22 - it teaches you how to think logically.
   >How to stick to the evidence.
   >How to stick to common sense.
   It teaches you how to reach a rational, compelling conclusion based on evidence and reason not on emotion or conjecture.
   
   It recaptures your ability to think historically once again. Unquestionably the book of the year for me.



4. If this author thinks that Oswald was involved in killing JFK then he is living in a dream world. Just ask the Mafia. Oswald was their "pasty" Oswald even said it himself. Jack Rudy was working with the Mafia and they hired him to take out Oswald because they were afraid he would talk about how the Mafia was working with the CIA in Cuba to take out Castro. Mafia leaders hired killers to take out JFK to get back at his brother because Bobby was harassing the mob. The Mafia knew if they killed JFK, Bobby would lose his power in trying to jail some of the Mafia leaders. Wake up world, Oswald was in the wrong place at the right time. Oswald didn't even fire a shot........



5. A bit long and drawn out, but one more sane voice in the wilderness trying to talk the conspiracy theorists off the ledge.
   
   But it will be, I'm certain, to no avail. Here's how the world works in Conspiracy Land...
   
   If 95% of the earwitnesses had heard 4 or more shots they would be bouncing off the walls claiming this was proff of a second gunman. But when 95% of the witnesses claim there were 3 shots or less, as they actually do, it proves nothing to a conspiracy buff. And never mind that only 2% of those interviewed said the shots came from more than one location, that too is a trivial matter when you're convinced that a second shooter was on the grassy knoll. (Can you even imagine the reaction of the buffs if it were the other way around, if 98% of the witnesses had said they heard shots from more than one location? Think they'd take that to the bank as proof of a conspiracy? Hmmm?)
   
   Here's what they do; they draw a picture of Kennedy and Connelly seated directly in line and then they draw the path of a curving bullet and say, "Ah ha, there you have it, proof that the single bullet theory is wrong!"
   
   But when you draw Kennedy and Connelly's postitions correctly, with Connelly on the jump seat slightly below and to the left of Kennedy, the wounds line up perfectly with a shot fired from the snipers nest. So not only is it possible that they were hit by the same bullet, it is IMPOSSIBLE that they weren't. Kennedy is clearly blocking the entry wound on Connelly!
   
   But fear not conspiracy buffs, there is a way around this evidence. (Isn't there always?) You see, Kennedy must have shot Connelly! It's so obvious, Kennedy must have been in on the conspiracy! After all, wasn't Jackie wearing a RUBY ring?! Get it? Ruby, as in Jack Ruby! And, come on, his name was Jack! Jack Ruby, Jack Kennedy!! Don't be naive people!
   
   I think I'm on to something here, it was a murder/suicide plot by Kennedy, who once ate a Cuban sandwich while meeting with a CIA agent named Johnson at a Russian tea room where they talked about the mafia!! That's it, I'm starting my book...
   
   Lee Harvey Oswald actually tried to prevent the assassination and THAT is how his prints got all over the snipers nest! Someone snuck into his home and replaced the curtain rods that he meant to take to work with him with a rifle that they bought under his name. (They also tricked him into posing with it for a picture taken by his wife.) While Oswald was having lunch, a gunman shot Kennedy and then raced downstairs and persuaded him to flee the building, kill a police officer, and hide in a theater.
   
   In the meantime, a second gunman was positioned behind the grassy knoll because if you're going to hire a marksman to shoot the president you are obviously willing to risk blowing the whole deal by having a second man exposed and vunerable to capture just to have a backup. This only makes sense.
   
   Or, better still, what if the two gunmen didn't KNOW about each other! OH, I like this! By shear coincidence two seperate groups picked the exact same moment to shoot the president! Now all I need to do is decide which of the doctors, policemen, CIA agents, and witnesses were working with which gunman...

5 comments about Royal Flush (Royal Spyness Mysteries, No. 3).

1. I'll be mentioning Rhys Bowen's blue-blooded heroine and Dorothy Sayer's Lord Peter Wimsey in the same sentence now, and chances are I'm about to trigger someone's outraged button. So be it. We're always craning our necks to get a gander at the royals, aren't we? I think one irresistible draw to the Her Royal Spyness series is that Lady Georgiana Rannoch, 34th in line to the English throne, gives us somewhat of a behind-the-scenes look at what it's like to be of the privileged born. And, of course, that young Georgiana (or Georgie, to her pals) happens to be also dirt poor and actually trying to do something about it just adds to her appeal. Her Royal Spyness is a more lighthearted, fluffier series than Lord Peter's novels and, no, Georgie isn't quite the dazzling sleuth that Lord Peter is. Georgie, in fact, is barely a sleuth, although she demonstrates pretty good instincts for the thing. But where Wimsey is a calculating machine, Georgie tends to stumble into the solution to the case.
   
   ROYAL FLUSH is the third in the series, and in the sweltering summer of 1932, in the thick of the global depression, Lady Georgiana is in even more dire financial straits. Still residing at the impoverished Rannoch house in London, her gig as a cleaning maid (light cleaning only!) has dried up, what with her clients having fled to cooler climates. When she notes all the lonely gents dining alone in restaurants, she hits on the idea of offering herself as a "charming dinner companion." Except that she shouldn't have advertised it in the paper as an Escort Service. A disapproving Scotland Yard sends a humiliated Lady Georgiana packing to her Scottish ancestral home. Where she promptly lands in a mystery.
   
   In the previous novel, A ROYAL PAIN, our girl was instrumental in exposing a deadly plot against Their Majesties. So the Home Office feels comfy enough about Georgie to ask for help. Someone, it seems, is trying to harm members of the royal family by arranging "accidents" and evidence points to an inside job, to someone in the royals' inner circle. All sorts of nobility, including Their Majesties, are attending the grouse shooting at Balmoral, which isn't too far from Rannoch Castle. Georgie, of course, already has an invite. And now she has an undercover mission.
   
   The accidents keep piling up, the suspects are plenty. Factor in, among others, a sleazy gossip columnist, a bold aviatrix, Georgie's prankish cousins, a dodgy former school mate of the Duke of Rannoch (Georgie's brother) saddled with the sad, sad name of Beasley-Bottome. Not to mention the gaggle of intrusive Americans which drop on Rannoch Castle like a nattering plague.
   
   A strength of this series is Georgie's regular supporting cast, and these folks are all here, my favorite still being Georgie's down-to-earth non-royal ex-bobby of a grandpa. For the female readers, the dashing, mysterious Darcy O'Mara shows up again to confuse and aggravate our smitten heroine. And, yeah, Georgie's flighty mother also shows up and as always tries to make it all be about her. She's a hoot, especially when she's warring with snooty Americans.
   
   But Lady Georgiana remains the best character in this series. A bit clumsy and a lot sheltered, she's more at ease back in her beloved Highlands. And if there's a downer in this book for me, it's that I relish Georgie's misadventures in London when she hobnobs with them common folks or when she's in her guise as a maid and toiling for the upper crust. Her scrape with the "Escort Service" earlier in the book is a fine example.
   
   But it's also fun to see a change in the dynamics between Georgie and her sour, stingy sister-in-law Fig. The ugly Americans' invasion of the castle has made Fig a kinder soul eager for Georgie's advice (in, basically, how to get the Yanks the eff out of there). ROYAL FLUSH follows the series pattern in that it often reads like a comedy of manners, and Georgie and friends do get up to shenanigans.
   
   The mystery is well drawn out, Rhys Bowen gradually escalating the danger. Georgie may not have the keen wits of Lord Peter Wimsey, but she's level-headed and a sharp enough observer. Is it her snooping or her being 34th in line to the throne that soon puts her life in jeopardy? And what's that monster in the loch got to do with things, anyway? Georgie is up to her neck in murder. But it probably beats cleaning houses.



2. In 2007 the author of the Evan Evans and Molly Murphy series started off her new Lady Georgiana series with HER ROYAL SPYNESS. She followed that up last year with A ROYAL PAIN, and now Georgiana returns in ROYAL FLUSH.
   
   Georgiana is 34th in line to the British throne, but that doesn't mean she is wealthy. Her brother Binky struggles to maintain the family estate at Castle Rannoch in Scotland, and Georgiana lives in the family's London house with no servants. It is the 1930s and it wouldn't do at all for her to look for work, so she has had to be inventive and engage in subterfuge to obtain paying employment.
   
   When one of Georgiana's moneymaking schemes backfires, she is persuaded to leave London for a few weeks and return home. On her return, she is surprised to find Castle Rannoch overrun with a large party of Americans, consisting of Wallace Warfield Simpson and her friends. The royal family is in residence at nearby Balmoral and Binky has been asked by the Prince of Wales to host his paramour and her friends, much to the chagrin of Binky's wife, Fig.
   
   Georgiana learns that several of those in line of succession to the throne have recently met with serious accidents that could have been fatal. The Home Office has taken note of these developments and asks Georgiana to keep her eyes open and report on anything she learns. The accidents become more frequent, bizarre and dangerous, and Georgiana is soon convinced that someone is targeting the royal family.
   
   This is a lively cozy with a charming lead character. You might occasionally feel that Georgiana is a little slow on the uptake, but you will probably enjoy this story if you like lighter-weight historical cozies. It includes glimpses of many members of the British royal family, including a very young Princess Lilibet, who will become Queen Elizabeth II.



3. When it appears that someone is trying to do in England's royal family, Scotland Yard enlists the aid of a minor member to spy on her relatives at Balmoral. A delicious evocation of all those screwball mystery comedies of the 1930s; if you are old enough or a film buff you can visualize a stable of character actors supporting Claudette Colbert, Barb Stanwyck or Joan Blondell as she goes stumbling about, getting into one scrape after another only to be rescued again and again by a dashing Dick Powell or Robert Taylor who appears fortuitously out of nowhere. Turner Classic Movie fans will find this a hoot.



4. Lady Georgiana is back in Scotland after another failed business attempt (really, is she that sheltered about an "escort" service?), now given the task of watching the royal family since numerous "accidents" have been occuring to them. At the castle include an American house party, including "that American" who is incredibly catty. Grandpa makes a timely appearance and helps again to find the one behind the violence. I enjoyed again the twists and turns that the author takes to the end. Still hoping that Darcy and Georgiana will find love (although that sentence does seem a bit incestous given literary history :) )



5. Fine enough for an easy read, but I wish the author would check her facts or employ an editor that knows London - geographical errors and the fact Tatler magazine is entitled "Tattler" by the author (it has never been known by that name) are grating.

No comments about Robert Ludlum's (TM) The Bourne Objective (Jason Bourne).

3 comments about Three Days Before the Shooting . . . (Modern Library).

1. Finally finally finally.. it's in my hands. I have been waiting for years and years for
   someone to publish Mr. Ellison's unfinished manuscript.. I only wish they would have
   published it just as it existed.. in his writing.. just photographed the whole thing.
   Though I have it on my shelf, I had refused to read Juneteenth because he didn't put it
   out.. and someone else had decided what he meant.. I would rather have this 1100 page
   monster than have someone elses idea of what he meant.. anyway.. I got it!! finally and
   I'm enjoying it.. I only hope the rest of his writings are also published..
   
   Peace.



2. I'm about half way through this wonderful collection. This is a very frustrating book because you can see how close Ellson got to finishing what would have been his masterpiece. It reminds me of All the Kings Men, it's that good. It's snowing outside. No school. Coffee. An unfinished epic. Life is good.



3. The great American novel is the white whale for American writers. In his uncompleted second book, //Three Days Before the Shooting//, Ralph Ellison personifies the quest for the great American novel and how difficult it can be. After the success of his first novel, //Invisible Man//, Ralph Ellison spent the next forty years trying to complete his second novel, the so-called "Oklahoma novel." What we have instead are basically two stories which, when combined together, are a novel almost in its completed form.
   
   The story revolves around the shooting of a white racist senator in Washington, by a black man in gallery. From there, the book shows how the senator became so racist by dipping into the past when he was known as Bliss and was being raised by the Reverend Hickman in the South. With Hickman at his bedside, the senator relives his memories of his time with Hickman before he ran away and finally became the racist senator.
   
   The second plot in the collection follows a white reporter as he waits in the hospital near the senator for word about the senator's condition, wondering why the senator would want Hickman at his side. It is a story of the consciousness of race in America and the impact it can have on the psyche of the nation. Combine these two stories and you get Ellison's masterpiece.
   
   The editors have done a wonderful job of putting this together from the fragments that Ellison has left over the decades. After the two stories, you get into the mind of Ellison's thinking, the editors present fragments of scenes that did not make it into the rest of the main story; as well as individual scenes rewritten two to three times. Some of the differences are minor and others are major. Even though Ellison had difficulty finishing the book and left it unfinished, it might be better that way. The story is left up to the reader in how it will end.
   
   The writing is like listening to jazz, with stops and starts, long solos and wild percussion. The language is varied between people and even between scenes. You go from the deep South, to the far north. It is a work that goes across generations and cultures. Yet, at its core, it is looking for what America truly is, and it never did quite got there, which is why Ellison left it unfinished. This is why Ellison is such a great writer, not just because he published //Invisible Man//, but because he made something greater than that with this book.
   
   Reviewed by Kevin Winter

5 comments about Assassination Vacation.

1. Well, now, it seems we have some rather distinct differences about Sarah Vowell's writing style. Though I have not read all of the reviews, those that I have read do not criticize the veracity of her factual statements. It is clear from her anecdotal descriptions of various events in her past that she has a passion for history and historic detail.
   
   I also think that some of her interpretations of historical events may get her into hot, but not scalding water. After all, this is the stuff of historians, who argue over interpretations of detail all the time. Most of these debates are never resolved, and it is understanding the differing viewpoints that reveals the history for what it really is--real life. In this sense, I find Vowell's descriptions of events to be incredibly refreshing. She does tend to bring the realities of events into a clearer focus by delving into the failures and even the dark sides of individuals who we know mostly through 2-dimensional mythologies. Her sense of irony is impeccable. It seems to me that it is primarily her lively descriptions of these realities that captures the approval of the majority of those who have commented.
   
   Alas, Sarah is also incapable of leaving her political views out of the scenarios. The few criticisms she attracts seem to dwell upon this aspect of her writing. If you find this too distracting, especially if you have conservative leanings, then I fear you will be unable to look past it. While I do find these comments to mar her fundamentally sound approach to history, I am not so myopic as to let it avert my interest from a truly interesting and penetrating view of historical events. I think that the vast majority of readers will find they have the same (forgiving) reaction.



2. Not only is this book good history but the author makes us stop and look at how history repeats itself. It makes me wonder if more people read history would we stop making the same mistakes? I am pretty familiar with the Lincoln bits bit Garfield and McKinley were new to me for study. I will look for more of her books.



3. When I read The Wordy Shipmates by Vowell, I thought that detours into Sarah Vowell's past and politics were simply irritating intrusions into an otherwise interesting narrative history.
   
   I see now that I was wrong.
   
   After reading Assassination Vacation, it's clear that Vowell's politics and past are the reasons for which both The Wordy Shipmates and Assassination Vacation were written. These books are not about Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, John Winthrop or John Cotton; these are merely opportunities for Vowell to turn the conversation back on herself. I'm reminded of the kids who used ask how your Christmas was, just so they could tell you about all the cool stuff they got.
   
   Once you've read these two books, you'll know the following about Sarah Vowell, since the reader is relentlessly beaten over the head with these points. She:
   
   * hates Republicans generally and George W. Bush specifically.
   * is from Oklahoma and had ancestors on the Trail of Tears.
   * is an atheist.
   * likes creepy stuff.
   * doesn't like being outside.
   * likes big cities.
   * suffers from multiple neuroses, especially a fear of driving.
   * used to work at a college radio station.
   
   The last point is so clumsily worked into the narrative of both books that, every time Vowell went off on one of her "look at me" detours, I could almost hear Toad the Wet Sprocket playing in the background. Want to tell the world all this stuff about you in writing? Fine, no problem. But the literary bait and switch technique is unfair to the reader.
   
   What's extremely irritating about Vowell is that she really is a gifted writer. She's witty and easy to read, and clearly loves history and telling others about it. She has all of the skills necessary to be a great popularizer of American history. And that's what's so maddening. When she can stay on topic, she's fantastic; the best part of Assassination Vacation is the Garfield section, which was both enlightening and amusing. She badly needs a less pliable editor who can tighten up her work.
   
   I may read more from Sarah Vowell in the future, but it'll have to be post-Bush. Otherwise, it'll just be another trip though Sarah Vowell's therapist's office. I want to like her stuff so much, but the books are going to have to be about something other than herself.



4. I love listening to Sarah Vowell on NPR so thought I'd check out her books. Listening to her stories in 15 minute excerpts is much different from an entire book though, even trying a chapter at a time. I thought I would learn some history in a fun way, but instead am subjected to Sarah's precocious name dropping of her favorite bands (none of which I've heard of), art gallery openings, plays, people she knows ad naseum with schizophrenic history facts scattered about in such a flurry that I have no idea what she is talking about. She jumps from one thing to another, sandwiched in between talking about all the fun she has, all the while telling us what an anti-social introvert she is.....after about half a chapter, I'd had enough. Even not knowing any history, I can pretty much predict what she is going to say and how she is going to say it since the same cuteness creeps into everything. I have to hand it to her, doing all the research and being interested in all these things, and keeping it in her mind enough to write a book about it, but the interesting stories that sound good on NPR read like a jumble of disconnected facts on the page. Maybe if she employs a new editor.......



5. The beauty of reading history is that the diversity of opinion and interpretation of facts are such a subjective enterprise that one can read many tomes on a single subject (such as Abraham Lincoln for example) and still get a wide range of understanding and literary experiences. We can assuredly add Sarah Vowell to the list of "diverse" authors of history as she pens a unique view on the assassinations of presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. More like hanging out than lecturing, Vowell takes us on an untraditional journey into these nation altering events and along the way provides a smart and sassy view of presidential history.
   
   Purported to be a study of the first three presidential assassinations, Vowell instead allows us to tag along on road trip after road trip as she pursues dark and anachronistic memorabilia pertaining to these tragedies. With unique anecdotes and astute observations, we learn that the McKinley assassination spot is memorialized by a decaying stone plaque...Garfield's is now the National Archives building (it was the Baltimore/Potomac railroad station) and we follow various paths of the Lincoln conspirators with possibly the most lurid being the prison site of Dr. Samuel Mudd (in the Dry Tortugas west of Key West). Her passion, curiosity and literary skills are only exceeded by the nerdy, sometimes melancholy, always affecting attitude. The reader (this reader anyway) at the end suddenly concludes that this peculiar approach serves the historian well...all the while being delightfully entertaining.
   
   A work that would captivate my seventeen year old daughter as well as the (semi) serious historian, Sarah Vowell conclusively combines history with sentiment and proves that, yes, history can be fun!

5 comments about Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer (P.S.).

1. For everything historians know about Lincoln and that history teachers teach us about the President, seldom is said in the classroom about Booth. This book is amazing and really details the chase of Booth. I really enjoyed it and recommend it highly for anyone who is interested in Lincoln.



2. Saw this book at the Newsmuseum in DC. This is an excellent reading to any historian and Lincoln buff. Easy reading and hard to put down until the end. Reading this book fits in as a good supplement to Team of Rivals and also stirs interest to those who know the haunts of DC. I've learned a lot of historical facts tha I never heard of before. The price was right from Amazon.com.



3. Bought this book for my father and he really enjoyed it- he's a big big history buff, generally the only books he prefers so, his outlook on any book is a very high review.



4. The book MANHUNT, the 12 Days of Chasing Lincoln's Killers was fasinating. This book opened my eyes as to how the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth took place and how it was ended. This is a must for any Lincoln reader.



5. I bought this book with the understanding it would be mostly about the actual chase of Booth and his accomplices. I am a historian and know basically ALL the details of the assassination and was disappointed that so much of the beginning of the book was involved with those details. I know why he included it, trust me, I am not saying that he shouldn't.. since this book was written for the general public looking to read interesting history.. not some of the normal *really* boring historical stuff that is churned out. But as I said, I thought it would briefly talk about the killing then go on quickly to the chase.... as it is.. it's a pretty interesting account.
   
   The book reads very fast. It's pretty fascinating BUT... my biggest complaint is Swanson's need to be absolutely disgusting with the morbid details. You can honestly tell he relishes in describing the blood, blood, and more blood. I think if I read the word blood once I read it hundreds of times. Listen, it's not that I can't handle reading it. It is all (supposed) fact. I love slasher movies. I don't mind violence in books or film, but I have to ask.. did Swanson think he had to include all the disgusting details in order to make his book interesting? Let's just say it's not for the faint of heart and I can't help but think the gore is just exploited instead of written in a useful way.

5 comments about JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

1. The assassination of JFK, and its immediate aftermath, was burned into my then sixth-grade brain by its shocking suddenness and brutality. In those days, we weren't yet used to seeing people murdered live on television. Since then, I have read literally dozens of books and watched many hours of movies and videos, in an attempt to make sense of this terrible act. And thus I've heard that the Mafia, the Communists, the Jews, and virtually every other group that "people love to hate" were behind it all.
   
   Finally I picked up this book, and it changed everything. Putting not his assassination, but Kennedy's life and spiritual journey towards true peace for all of Earth as the backdrop, "JFK and the Unspeakable" makes it crystal clear exactly what we lost. I cried when I realized for the first time exactly how close the destruction of the world was during the Cuban Missle Crisis: recently declassified information shows that Russia had *four times the number of nuclear missles in Cuba* as we previously knew about. And the author shows in exhausting, footnoted, yet never dull detail how Kennedy was literally about to pull us out of Vietnam (bitter fact: he was quoted as being greatly concerned about the 47 American dead up to then, and said the conflict wasn't worth another American life). Maybe JFK wasn't perfect in his personal life, but even as a kid I sensed how great he was as a president. He was the kind of statesman we haven't seen in a long time; the kind who looked past politics and saw what was right and what was wrong.
   
   That's why he was killed.
   
   Don't read this book if you're not prepared to learn the complete truth about who, how, and why. If you're a thinking person, the full impact of what was done to JFK and our country will disgust and alarm you. This book will put all the presidencies since JFK's into proper perspective. It will make you curse those literal maniacs (yes, names are named) who *wanted us to start a nuclear war* with the Soviet Union, and who did get us into Vietnam, causing the death of millions of people. It will help you realize that Nikita Khrushchev was not the nasty warmonger he was made out to be in the 1960s. And it will make you realize how much damage a small number of truly evil, power-hungry people have done to this country...and how it's not too late for honest folks to turn things around.
   
   N.B. Now my own son has borne similar witness to 9/11, at virtually the same age as I was when JFK was killed. I hope the conspiracy theorists are wrong, and 40 years from now we will be positive that it truly was bin Laden's minions that perpetrated this evil act. Still...search for "Global Guardian" and ask yourself how likely it is that multiple aircraft hijackings took place exactly when and where the military was simulating multiple aircraft hijackings taking place...and remember that the same kind of evil cynical maniacs are still in high places in our government.



2. I received this book on schedule. I'm still reading it. I find it very enteresting.



3. THE GOOD...
   
   - Presents a chronology of events before Douglass presents his research in 6 sections/chapters, which I believe is important to keep in mind since Douglass does not go in chronological order (understandably so when you see how he organizes the book). This will elevate the information presented in his book if you keep the chronology of the events in mind.
   
   - Douglass' unique and objective narration does a supreme job of detailing the unspeakable truth of JFK's REAL situation in the White House when he was in the midst of politically dealing with historical events (aka the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and Indonesia), which climactic-ally led to his controversial assassination
   
   - Like a good book, Douglass also communicates a positive, redeeming message from these ugly events and truths, which I doubt other books do on JFK's controversial assassination. This book uncovers how JFK was himself a profile in courage and candidly shows his true character during his presidency as he courageously turns towards peace. However, it does not do it in a fanatical way... the author posed questions as to why JFK did and what compelled him to advocate for more peaceful resolutions when the majority of his administration would rather be "dead than red." This book, I would say, is a redemption of what happened and I have much admiration for JFK now (which I didn't when I first read this book).
   
   
   ---
   
   
   THE BAD...
   
   - As thorough and detailed Douglass is... this book is dense. There are sections where you're thoroughly engaged and in wonderment as to how this whole thing was uncovered and covered up, but then there are sections where it's so loaded that it can be a bit confusing and draining at the same time.
   
   - Douglass does not go in chronological order in presenting and exposing the unspeakable truth, but he does present his information in a functional manner. However, he goes back and forth so much, that sometimes I wonder if the impact is lost because of this. However, from time to time, he does a good job of reminding you the critical part of the information when he does go back and forth.
   
   - This isn't really a criticism, but it would've been nice to get RFK's viewpoint, post-assassination in there. As we all know, RFK was JFK's most trusted adviser and companion throughout this time - I'm sure having that bit of information would've created more depth and complete-ness to this already complete book. This is something I would have preferred knowing as well.
   
   
   -------
   
   
   All in all, great book, great buy. This was the first book I bought on JFK after becoming well-versed on the Kennedys - I was curious as to why there were so many good reviews on this on Amazon and gave in and bought it. I think it's worth it and endorse this book!



4. By far the most comprehensive and best researched publication on the assassination of President Kennedy. The author presents fact after fact leading the reader to draw conclusions which are hard to avoid. I am surprised that this book has not had more of an impact. It is definitely worth reading, and will change your perspective on both this historical moment in US history and on the role of the intelligence community within the US government.



5. This book portrayed JFK as America's "King of Camelot" and sheds intimate light on possible reasons for why he was killed. After the near-apocalyptic experience of the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK had a dramatic change of heart and established a secret dialog with Kruchev to work toward peace and disarmament. He was particularly concerned for the children of the world. His vision for world peace clashed (violently in the end) with the Power Elite who rather saw a struggle-to-the-death with their mortal enemy - Communism. They saw JFK as a traitor to their cause who had to be eliminated. He knew the likely personal cost to his stand for peace, but courageously continued anyway. A quote that sticks in my mind is JFK's echoing of Lincoln's quote, "I know there is a God - I see a storm coming; if he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready." America, as most Americans naively see it, also died on November 22, 1963 - they just don't know it yet.

5 comments about Term Limits.

1. Excellent. I hate to say it but maybe if we followed the processes in the book, our country would be much better and I government would start doing the right thing.



2. I got word of the author through a friend of mine and decided to try it out....awesome book, i'm excited to read the rest of the series.



3. Simplistic and predictable plot combined with one dimensional character's resulted in a book I struggled to finish, simply because it was so bad. I purchased the Kindle version, and if you have that option I recommend downloading the sample first to gauge whether or not you want to actually commit time to reading the full novel...I wish I had.



4. While in Iraq for my first combat tour, I found a copy of this book that was donated to the MWR in Camp Taji, Iraq and was hooked. I lost a lot of sleep over not being able to stop. I couldn't find a good stopping point because the chapters leave you hanging at each end. I am a big fan of political thriller movies and shows and not much of a reader but Vince Flynn has brought me back into the world of reading! I love this book!



5. Change a few names and you've got the setup for this "Obamanation" of an administration. I could not put it down once I started reading it, and have since loaned it out to a couple other people who have absolutely devoured it. Mr. Flynn has more fans!

No comments about Don't Blink.