Reviews (7)

Great book by a great man
Growing up in the 1990s, I was never familiar with President Carter or his specific policies. This book gives a very thorough and honest review of the major policy issues confronting President Carter in the late 1970s. If you think his presidency was a failure, you should at least take time to read about why he acted the way he did. He explains the seemingly endless energy debate in great detail and also what led him to give his infamous "crisis of confidence" speech. He gives a practically minute-by-minute account of the hostage crisis and how he worked (successfully) to win their release without nuclear weaponry or massive bloodshed. His coverage of the 1980 election was somewhat superficial so I suggest those interested in that election look elsewhere. If you are a die-hard Republican intent on bashing President Carter, this book is not for you, but if you are sincerely interested in knowing more about the Carter administration, then by all means buy it. Carter does try to justify his actions, but what presidential memoir doesn't? This is a great book that some of the other reviewers seem not to have read.

Embarassingly terrible...
I am one of those people that has to finish a book once I begin, whether it's great or terrible. I wished I wasn't after the first page of President Carter's memoirs.

My opinion of Jimmy Carter as a President aside, this book is an exhaustively boring collection of boring anecdotes, embarassing international incidents, and cowardly Presidential acts and statements. I'm too young to remember the Carter Presidency in any detail, but I can only imagine how truly miserable a time that must have been for our nation with the author of these memoirs at the helm.

I've read many Presidential memoirs and autobiographies, particularly those of the last half century. Interestingly enough, I'd skipped right over Carter's, jumping from Ford to Reagan without much concern. The historical void that doing so created left me feeling better off than having now read "Keeping Faith." No other work authored by a president or past president has left me feeling more insecure at the thought of that man having been the most powerful in the world for a time.

A good man but a bad president
Jimmy Carter is like Herbert Hoover in more ways than one. Hoover's memoirs are among the most lucid and insightful that any president has ever written. So are Carter's. Hoover was one of the most intelligent presidents we've ever had. So was Carter. Hoover translated Christian charity into concrete action all his life. So has Carter. But Hoover's presidency was one of the century's worst. Regrettably, so was Carter's.

The Camp David Accords and the Panama Canal Treaties were his only notable successes. These were grievously outweighed by his failures -- double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, the ill-considered "crisis of confidence" speech, the fall of Nicaragua to the Sandinistas, and the fall of Iran to medievalist radicals. On this last point, Carter's refusal to let the Shah come to the US to die was motivated by a desire not to offend the Islamic militants who hated him. (Don't take my word for it; read Carter's own explanation in "Keeping Faith.") For all Carter's moral courage, this episode is one of the most despicable examples of moral cowardice in the history of the presidency.

The message of American weakness was not lost on the rest of the world. Our allies in Europe, doubting America's commitment to them, proposed to base intermediate-range nuclear missiles on their own territory, which led to so much danger in ensuing years. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And the Iranians seized the US embassy and held the hostages for 444 days. That they were released at the very moment of Reagan's inauguration was no coincidence.

Carter's book is not very candid. It lays much heavier emphasis on the few successes than on the areas of weakness and failure, and has a flavor of rationalization and self-justification. And his discussion of his meetings with Reagan during the transition after the election of 1980 is bitter and petty.

If he could rewrite his memoirs today, I suspect Carter would do it differently. His life since then has been so exemplary that he no longer needs to worry about history's judgment of his failed presidency. For that judgment will be eclipsed by history's judgment of him as a man.

Well Written - Insightful
Jimmy Carter was a unique individual among recent US Presidents. In the wake of Watergate a man unknown outside of Georgia stunned the pundits by taking both the Democratic Nomination and the Presidency. He brought to the Oval Office a habit he shared with two of his 20th century predecessors, Nixon and Truman - that of writing dailiy entries in a diary. This he maintained, thankfully, throughout his presidency. It is from these entries that his memoirs are constructed.

The book is refreshingly open and honest abount the man's objectives, triumphs, mistakes and regrets. The problems that Jimmy Carter faced in the White House were tremendous. His solutions were thoughtful and long term. Thus we are left with the perception that Carter was a failure. He did fail in making Americans feel good, and he failed in the image game. He never came across well on television and came across preachy.

Had Ford won in '76 he too would have faced the same crises, and, perhaps would have managed them as well as did Carter. Ford would have done so with a Washington savy that smacked of competence. Carter won essentially because he lacked such Washington savy - I honestly believe he lost in '80 for the same reason. The This book succeeds where President Carter failed - in communicating his ideas.

Ironically, The Great Communicator's book fails where Reagan was most successful. 'Keeping Faith' is well written and worth the reading - this cannot be said of Mr. Reagan's memoirs 'An American Life'.

Recollections from a failed President
Jimmy Carter is a failed President, with failed policies, and it is sad to read a memoir justifying his failures. Mr. Carter gave us double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, downgraded our military, and caused our allies and enemies to lose respect for us. His self-righteous, self-pitying prose is hard to read. All I can say is thank God for Ronald Reagan! ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of sports literature's great whitewashes and cover-ups, Ty Cobb's autobiography is anything but the "true record" of its titular claim. Cobb was as haunted and complex a man as has ever sharpened a pair of spikes, and, in his 70s, when he sat down to tell his story, he simply didn't want the whole of his truth revealed; he preferred to perpetuate his legend. What results, then, is a flawed fairy tale filled with colorful anecdotes and reminiscences that duck the demons that fueled Cobb's inspired play like a pitcher trying to hide from a line drive smashed in the direction of his eyeballs.

Interestingly, the story behind the book is far more raucous and compelling than the book itself. Cobb, as violent and demanding at the end of his life as he was in his playing heyday, virtually kidnapped Stump (one of the most honored sports writers of the late '50s and early '60s), subjecting almost every word and observation to Cobb's approval. Stump finally exacted his literary pound of flesh years later when he slid spikes high into Cobb's ghost with the publication of his marvelously rich--and real--accounting of Cobb's life in Cobb: A Biography. Stump not only nicked the fuzz off the Georgia Peach in that second effort, he recounted the harrowing circumstances behind the first. Together, the two books provide a fascinating prism into a man's life and legacy, the first volume bending the light to diffuse the truth, the second straightening it out to preserve it. --Jeff Silverman ... Read more

Reviews (13)

If ya like Ty, you'll like his book
I was born in 1951 & read Cobb's autobio around 1961. My 1st baseball biography. I like it now as much as then. It's considered "in" today to cut it & Cobb up & call it "self-serving". Well, I've read hundreds of "autobio's" since & never come across one that isn't self-serving. Isn't that the point of writing your story? I find Cobb's book no more dishonest than any other. It's true value is to get you to think as a ballplayer & offer a window into his times, how they played the game. Whether or not you like his book depends on if you like him. And I do. I think he's the greatest player ever by a long shot. So did all the players from his & Ruth's time. Ruth ONLY wins the nod among those who never saw either one play. Although Ty was emotionally unbalanced, wrapped way too tight & was wired to go off at most anything, he also was the most honest guy, and also generous. He helped dozens of guys on other teams improve their hitting & play. I highly recommend Ty's book & also Stump's later Cobb bio. Together they're something else!!

What Charles Alexander said on Al Stump's later Cobb works.
"For those who preferred to remember Cobb's good qualities and let his faults be buried with his physical remains, Stump's article was at best an exercise in poor taste, and at worst a severe injustice to a man who had done much for his hometown and substantial good otherwise. (Stump mislead readers in implying that he had been Cobb's companion nearly all the time, when in fact he had seen him only a few times during that "wild" ten-month period.")...Stump...made no efforts to check facts. Thus the book included a number of mistaken dates, places, people, and situations...Unable to do much sustained work with Cobb, Stump relied considerably on a seven-part biographical sketch published in 1950 in the Sporting News by H.G. Salsinger, longtime Detroit Baseball writer and one of Cobb's few real freinds, as well as Cobb's 1952 Life articles and a book put together three years later by Cobb and John D. McCallum, combining reminiscences with tips on how to play the game."

Does he tell the truth?
I think that this book was very well-written. Cobb seems like a smart man who was ahead of his time when it came to baseball. He comes across as a very bitter guy though... of course Ty was in his 70s at the time and oldtimer athletes always seem that way. Complaining about how the game has changed to be horrible and such. Its always cool to get an insider look at pro sports and athletes tho , and while i feel he didn't always tell the whole truth, I think it was a good book overall. Especially if you are a baseball history dork like me. i give it 4 out of 5.

One big story, with a million entertaining substories.
I really enjoyed reading this book. It was the first book about Cobb that I had ever read; before that, he was just a name and statistics to me.

The overarcing story of this book is Ty Cobb's career in baseball, with a little bit about his life before and a few flashes into his life after. Now, it would be easy to sum up a career in baseball with several numbers, a few game highlights, etc. But that is not what you'll find in this book. What you'll find is a ton of short, 5-10 paragraph interludes about almost every big name in baseball from the 1905-1928 period... and even big names elsewhere. Ty Cobb was fortunate enough to have interacted with everyone from actors to presidents to business executives, and he has humorous angles on each of them. I actually laughed out loud several times while reading this book at the way he portrayed various people.

In a lot of ways, reading this book is almost like listening to your grandfather tell stories of his adventures and his friends in his youth. Except it's not your grandfather, it's Ty Cobb, telling stories of the Golden Age of Baseball, and his friends were legends like Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Connie Mack, Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance, Nap Lajoie, and others who may also simply be names in the Hall of Fame to you. Cobb's stories bring life to long-dead names, color to old black-and-white photos. Most of us have only heard legends of those early parks, players, pennants, pitches, pundits. Cobb was there. And through reading his story, it almost feels like you were there, too.

While I've read other reviews that say this book hides the Dark Side of Ty Cobb, I don't think that is entirely true. He definitely talks about some ways he treated people, such as Shoeless Joe Jackson, that makes you realize that at his core he was a man who would stop at nothing to win.

It doesn't matter if you like Ty Cobb or hate Ty Cobb. If you want to hear some great baseball stories, read this book.

A LOOK AT A LEGEND
TY COBB TELLS OF HIS LIFE AND CAREER IN THIS INTERESTING STORY. I FOUND HIS SIDE OF THE STORY TO BE VERY REFRESHING. HE CERTAINLY IS NO ANGEL. HIS FAMILY LIFE IS MENTIONED, MAYBE 5 TIMES IN THE WHOLE BOOK. HE WAS A TRUE BRAINY PLAYER AND TOTALLY FEARLESS. HIS TROUBLED BOYHOOD WAS A REAL NIGHTMARE (HIS MOTHER ACCIDENTLY SHOT HIS FATHER TO DEATH). HE IS TOTALLY WRAPPED UP IS HIS OWN LITTLE WORLD NEVER ALLOWING ANYONE TO GET CLOSE TO HIM. I FOUND HIM TO BE FULL OF HIMSELF AND IN SELF DENIAL CONCERNING HIS ANGER AND SELF CENTEREDNESS. AS A HUMAN BEING HE IS VERY FLAWED, HATED BY TEAMATES AND JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE. A TRUE LEGEND AS A PLAYER AND A VERY INTERESTING AND TROUBLED PERSON. RECOMMENDED. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

A triumph of writing
This, the second (and apparently final) volume of William Manchester's projected biographical trilogy of Sir Winston Churchill, is a triumph of writing style. It will be read for centuries to come, like Boswell's life of Samuel Johnson, as an example of what the English language can be at its best. A biographer of Churchill faces a terrific challenge. He or she has to be able to write, if not as well, at least almost as well as Churchill himself. After a lifetime of journalism and historical writing, Manchester was able to finish this book, the dramatic story of how Churchill came together with the nation that had rejected him. Together, these two forces, Churchill and the British nation - and Manchester correctly personalizes them both, sees them both as equal characters in a dramatic story - forged a partnership to fight Hitler and save the world from disaster.

It would probably be a lot easier for all of us if we all knew what it is like to have courage. I am writing this review at a time when we Americans, and the people of the world, are being called upon to have quite a lot of it. Apparently, the universe is built in such a way that we human beings must try to be courageous whether we want to be so or not. The true reason of history, and of historical books like this one, is to hold a mirror up to courage and the other human virtues, to show us what these virtues are like so that we must follow them if we are able to do so. Like Thucydides said, happiness comes from being free, and freedom comes from being courageous.

It is too bad that this is where Manchester's great biography of Churchill must end, but he has brought the story to its climax. The work of people like Manchester is an inspiration to other writers, and perhaps some other historian will appear some day to finish the work begun and broken off here.

A look at one of history's most courageous figures
Though I have not read the first of this series, I plan on doing so immediately upon finishing Volume 2. Manchester is a terrific writer, a portrayer of history as a kind of tragic story and not a conglomeration of facts and figures. Churchill's resoluteness in the face of English apathy in the 1930's is well-demonstrated, but this is no fluff piece; WSC is shown as a real man who had very real faults, and seeing these in relation to his accomplishments keeps him human in our minds. In addition to the tremendous story, it's first-rate literature. For those interested in the war period and the relations between Churchill and other allied leaders, may I suggest "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns Goodwin, which details further the wartime relationship between FDR and WSC.

A Real Beauty- The Best Churchill Volume I've Read
Anything and everything with Mr Manchester's name on it is superior. But this 2nd WSC volume may surpass all his other work . He shows in fine detail how this eccentric,brilliant,pushy,bulldog of a man manipilated,charmed and bullied his way,and what a rough time he had in convincing the smug British establishment in the mid 30's of the dangers brewing in Germany.At the time WSC was "out in the cold".It's an old story,but the sheer drive of Mr. Churchill, and the ostrich-like ability of his compatriots to look the other way,here amounts to a fresh,mesmorizing account. WSC's days in exile are described in minute detail, even his habit of walking around Chartwell in his birthday suit,and the reaction of his female secretary.All the players are here,and Mr Manchester's method in exploring motives and personalities will keep the pages turning...I suggest giving the TV a rest for a couple of weeks to make an effort to read this.It may be more interesting now with the parallels in the post 9/11 world.

GRIPPING PRELUDE TO WWII
Winston Churchill was one of the most dynamic leaders of the 20th century and Mr. Manchester does not disappoint in his gripping follow-up to Vol. 1 of THE LAST LION. We're told in sometimes too much detail Churchill's activities at home and at his desk between the two world wars: painting, fixing up his beloved Chartwell, writing endlessly to pay for his lavish lifestyle during a world depression and keeping tabs on those bullies across the Channel. In his "wilderness years" when he was a political pariah, he boldly warned over and over the threat to world peace but was laughed at and ultimately ignored. The gripping finale leads up to Churchill's restored to power as the world teeters on the edge. The beautiful characterizations of the main players in this drama are just one of the many attributes to be gained from this wonderful bio. Sadly, it's an incomplete story because Mr. Manchester, due to poor health, cannot complete this series and refuses to let someone help him --- I cannot blame him as the writing is very singular and a monumental job would face his (in effect) ghostwriter. We must therefore satisfy ourselves with what we have and rue the writer who thinks he's got all the time in the world to finish what he started.

4-14-01 CSPAN BOOKNOTES
Today [4-14-01] Lady Mary Soames [nee Mary Churchill] stated on CSPAN Booknotes that William Manchester is ill and will not complete the third book on Sir Winston Churchill.

Godspeed William Manchester, and thank you for everything....... ... Read more

Book Description

Warrior and writer, genius and crank, rider in the British cavalry’s last great charge and inventor of the tank—Winston Churchill led Britain to fight alone against Nazi Germany in the fateful year of 1940 and set the standard for leading a democracy at war.

Like no other portrait of its famous subject, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill is a dazzling display of facts more improbable than fiction, and an investigation of the contradictions and complexities that haunt biography. Gretchen Craft Rubin gives readers, in a single volume, the kind of rounded view usually gained only by reading dozens of conventional biographies.

With penetrating insight and vivid anecdotes, Rubin makes Churchill accessible and meaningful to twenty-first-century readers with forty contrasting views of the man: he was an alcoholic, he was not; he was an anachronism, he was a visionary; he was a racist, he was a humanitarian; he was the most quotable man in the history of the English language, he was a bore.

In crisp, energetic language, Rubin creates a new form for presenting a great figure of history—and brings to full realization the depiction of a man too fabulous for any novelist to construct, too complicated for even the longest narrative to describe, and too valuable ever to be forgotten.

... Read more

Reviews (28)

Fresh take on a well-told story
This must have been a hard sell at the publishers: a brief book (only about 250 pages in a small format) on one of the most written-about subjects of recent history. And in a form that may never have been tried in biography before: not in chronological order but in 40 short chapters - each one, well, a different way to look at the subject. Yet Ms. Rubin pulls it off with seeming effortlessness. Her innovative format, rather than being gimmicky, does indeed bring a fresh approach to the facts of Churchill's life that many readers will already know well. And although not a historian of the stature of Manchester or Gilbert, her writing shows a clear and unabashed personal voice that brings enthusiasm, even intimacy, to a subject more often given a far weightier treatment. Future generations may eventually feel that the Churchill story is exhausted, but Ms. Rubin proves that there was indeed room for one more Churchill book on the shelf. This is a superb book. Buy it.

A Grand Portrait of a Great Man
This is an excellent book -- a must for Churchill fans. Many of my favorite stories about Sir Winston are here, but I also learned lots of things I didn't know. (Do you know what the Great Man's last words were? What his favorite brand of cigar was? Whether he was a hero to his valet? Read the book and find out.)

"Forty Ways" is an extraordinarily honest book: Rubin does not pretend that a biographer can know it all. She presents both sides to questions about Churchill's drinking, his "black dog" depressions, his relations with the two Randolphs in his life (his father and his son), his egotism ("I am so conceited," Churchill wrote his mother, that "I do not believe the Gods would create so potent a being as myself for so prosaic an ending" as an early death). There is no effort to deceive the reader here, to trick him into embracing the author's favorite theory: Rubin candidly admits that her Churchill is a hero and a great man, but she insists that the reader must draw his own conclusions.

Rubin is splendid on Sir Winston's use of language, the blessings and burdens of his Spencer-Churchill heritage, his painting, his bulldog bellicosity, his "island nation" patriotism, his relations with Hitler, the Romantic qualities of his historical imagination, the "Dickensian aptness" of his name, his complicated relations with his wife. ("Oh my darling do not write of 'friendship' to me," Churchill told Clementine, "I love you more each month that passes and feel the need of you & all your beauty. . . . I am so devoured by egoism that I wd like to have another soul in another world & meet you in another setting, & pay you all the love and honour of the gt romances.") The end of the book is extraordinarily moving.

The Churchill who emerges in "Forty Ways" is more complex than we knew. No traditional portrait, conceived and finished in a conventional way, can possibly do justice to the man Isaiah Berlin called "the largest human being of our time." Only an exercise in what the poet Keats called "negative capability" can possibly comprehend his contradictions. "Forty Ways" conveys the exquisiteness of the tensions in Churchill's life and personality without pretending to resolve them in the name of Thesis. Yet the effect is rather to add to his greatness; and the impression one comes away with is of a hero of Homeric proportions. The "horrors of war cannot rob the progress of the sun," Rubin quotes Churchill as saying. There is a world of intelligence in that line; the reader of the "Iliad" remembers that in that poem no day is so terrible but that the poet must describe the splendor of the sun when it rises and when it sets. Such an heroic vision was Churchill's as well.

A loosely labeled historian
I have read Meacham and Jenkins to get an understanding of what I understood to be a fascinating man. This book its so utterly different and completely better than the typical historic epic written by the typically historical historian, it will overwhelm with its approach. Highly, highly, highly recommended. You will keep it in your library for future enjoyment.

For something completely different...
A really interesting look at a fascinating (if overanalyzed) man. The book is far from perfect--the 40 chapters do overlap and can be repetitive--but is really worth reading. The various perspectives remind anyone interested in history that the meaning of it all depends on where you are standing and where you look. Churchill was a great man and I learned many great facts, stories, and and perspectives from this unique book. It works another level as well--as a critique of the biographical form. It reminded me in that way of Alain De Botton's enjoyable novel "Kiss and Tell." Oh well, enough of that.

Forty fresh perspectives
I was recently asked which year in the 20th Century I would choose to live and why. I said "1940" with the rationale that this was the great turning point in history when the values of western civilization might've been lost. They weren't lost because a single indominable man stood firm. Had the newly installed PM, in May-June of that year, sided with Halifax and the other peace seekers, Hitler would have won. What followed would have been just mopping up.

Gretchen Rubin succinctly illuminates this great man in a new and fresh format. She writes extremely well. This is the perfect first or second book for a reader just catching the Churchill bug. (Following Manchester and Gilbert) It belongs on any short list of Churchill books. One hopes Ms. Rubin won't stop here. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An Unrefined Gem
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor (or Special Advisor to the President for National Security Affairs) for President Carter. This alone makes his memoirs useful reading for anyone interested in how the formulation of foreign policy works.

There are several caveats to keep in mind with this book. First and most important is that Brzezinski has always been an apologist for Carter, and this book reflects that fact, as well as Brzezinski's personal stake in portraying a foreign policy he helped formulate. Second, Brzezinski is very careful not to step on any toes. Brzezinski begins the book by explaining his relationship with the other major players, and he is very careful to express respect for them, personally as well as professionally. The book is carefully written so as not to cast anyone in an overly negative light, and this cuts down on its usefulness. Lastly, it occasionally reads like a copy of his schedule for the day-- 8:15 meeting with the President. Ate breakfast. Wrote a memo. However, the pace often picks up, and the format sometimes gives a useful insight into the workings of power in the White House.

That said, Brzezinski's memoirs give a fascinating insight into the formulation of foreign policy in recent history and a detailed explanation of the major events in foreign policy in the Carter era. The "close-in" format gives an interesting view of the nitty-gritty of diplomacy, and illustrates how useful proximity to the President can be in the internecine power games of the White House.

Not destined to be a classic on the shelves of those interested in foreign affairs, due to its unrefined quality and excessive care not to offend anyone, but a useful and interesting ready anyway. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Maria Callas is a biographer's dream. Born into poverty, she turned herself from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan, and in the process became the most celebrated diva of the 20th century. She breathed life, drama, and passion into an art form that had hitherto remained the preserve of an intellectual elite, and was single-handedly responsible for turning opera from an arts-page sideshow to front-page news. Her bust-ups with the New York Met and her disastrous love life--culminating in a tragic obsession with Aristotle Onassis--were as enthralling as her voice, and there was a depressing inevitability about her mysterious, early death in 1977 at the age of 54.

It's hardly surprising, then, that there have been any number of books written about Callas. Most have been little more than well-researched clippings jobs. Callas spent nearly 30 years in the public eye, and there is any amount of material about her on public record. What separates Stelios Galatopoulos from the rest of her biographers is the wealth of previously unpublished material from which he draws. He is stronger than most on Callas's early years--particularly the German occupation of Greece during the Second World War--which is a period many writers try to ignore, as Callas was accused by many Greek patriots of having been a traitor to her country by continuing to perform for the Nazis in the Athens opera house. Galatopoulos is quick to absolve her of any charges of collaboration. This is probably a correct assessment, though he falls short of labeling Callas and her mother as the ruthless careerists and opportunists they undoubtedly were.

Herein lie both the strength and weakness of the book. Galatopoulos was a close personal friend of Callas; as such he was privy to her most private thoughts and he offers us some fascinating new insights into her husband, Giovanni Meneghini; her lover Aristotle Onassis; and her mother. What he doesn't always do, though, is maintain a critical eye. Whenever he deals with anything controversial, he is happy to give Callas the benefit of the doubt. But all this is really a minor quibble. Overall, Galatopoulos does a superb job in re-creating the opera world of the 1940s through to the 1970s and he excels in his assessment of Callas's artistic achievements. Maria Callas: Sacred Monster may not be the final word on the diva, but it's as close as it comes. --John Crace ... Read more

Reviews (6)

With a friend like this who needs enemies?
There's not much to recommend this book. Some of the photographs look as if they've been smeared across the pages. Others are clearly NOT Callas at all, and one has been so badly cropped as to make Callas appear to be juggling balls whilst singing Iphigenie. The text reads as if it was written for Woman's Weekly in Athens and would have benefitted from a very strong editorial hand. The author claims to have been a friend of Callas. Really - One's friends!

Throw a stick at the Met or Covent Garden [when it re-opens] or the Paris Opera and you will hit six people who could put together a better biography than this, and without the many somewhat spurious 'Callas told me's' with which this book is littered.

To date this is the author's fourth attempt at Callas biography, [and should get some sort of an award for so gallantly persisting in a task for which he so clearly unsuited] and whilst the information has changed from one edition to another, and the grammar and prose has improved [and, believe me, that's not saying much at all] I do hope this is his last book on his 'friend' until he does a little more research and just some plain old fashioned observation of photographs. I had the feeling that the author feels he 'owns' Callas, with all the obsessiveness and lack of insight of a stalking fan.

Search out the magical Thames & Hudson Callas by Fitzgerald and Ardoin, or Ardoin's Callas Legacy, and Michael Scott's Maria Meneghini Callas is a must.

Spectacular photographs in themselves make this a great buy.
The spectacular photographs of all of Callas's performances are in themselves worth the price of the book. In addition, the discography and quotes from reviews of the performances give this book much value as a reference source. Even if one doesn't always agree with the author's interpretation of events in Callas's personal life, the reader comes away with a profound sense of her artistry.

My own private Callas.
I found this book deplorable. Badly written, it could have used a strong editorial hand both in the prose and the picture captions. Especially disapointing is the re-hashing of incidents that have long since been disproved or properly researched, i.e. Callas's first audition at the Metroplitan Opera, which resulted in no offer of work from that house. Likewise, the famous incident in Rome when Callas abandoned a performance of Norma. Galatopoulos claims there was uproar in the audience whilst she was singing, but a tape exists of this performance and there is no disturbance at all at that point. These are just two of a number of incidents in the book where the author does not seem to be able to relate information long and freely available to his own conception of what happened. It is a long established fact that Callas made her Italian debut on the 2nd August 1947, but Galatopoulos sticks to the innacurate date of 3rd August which was current well into the 1970's. [The Arena di Verona celebrated the 50th anniversary of Callas's debut on 2nd August 1997] This gave me the distinct impression the author felt that he and he alone was/is THE authority on Callas and there isn't any need for him to read anyone else's scholarship on the subject. Fortunately he isn't and I had the feeling, shored up by all those verbatim conversations, this tome was simply an attempt to present the author's version of "My own private Callas." Another area of the book I found disturbing is the photographic content. I found it impossible to identify Callas in her first stage role, the picture is simply not clear enough. Whereas Callas is easily identified as Brunnhilde are those pictures of Isolde really Callas? There is one photograph supposedly of Callas in I Puritani but there is a small child in the picture with her, and the lady in the picture, wearing an off the shoulder dress, does not look like Callas. I leave readers to form their own opinions.

Maria Callas is an on-going phenomena, her voice is as inspiring and awesomely thought provoking now as it ever was. There are now generations of people who never heard or saw her live, there are only recordings and old films. A few authors; John Ardoin, Gerald Fitzgerald, Henry Wisneski and Michael Scott have shed new light on Callas the singer and Callas the woman with serious scholarship for future generations. Stelios Galatopoulos's work is not in this league.

The best biography of Callas I have ever read
I'm sorry to see that this book is getting such bad reviews, because I think it is the best biography of Callas that I have ever read. The others seem to concentrate on one side of her life: either her art or her personal life. This book deals with both and keeps a good balance between them. The pictures were wonderful! There were many pictures in this book that I had never seen before, including one from Callas' very first opera, a student production in Athens, which she sang when she was 15. I also loved the chronology of her performances and the author's comments on Callas' recordings.

A low-class job
Much as I admire the subject, I simply can't read through the book. The prose is lousy, sometimes resembling the breathless (and brainless) outpourings of those photo-romances so popular in postwar Italy, and the illustrations are of very low quality, almost as if done on a cheap photocopier. Callas would have hated this book. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Albert Camus, writer.
For too many decades and by too many college instructors, Albert Camus has been clumped together with Jean-Paul Sartre and others under the heading of "Existentialist". This collection of Camus' notebooks indicates that there were many other things going on in his thinking, and Existentialism was hardly one of them. In fact, several revealing excerpts show us a man who disagreed with it fundamentally.

That aside, what it really presents to the reader is that Camus is first and foremost a writer. Whether it's creative writing, critical writing, reflective writing, etc., he was accomplished at all of them. His description of a sunset, quaint as it might sound, is so beautiful it's almost heartbreaking. Meanwhile, his political observations are keen, with a strong sense of urgency.

Equally fascinating is to observe his literary works taking shape: to see the mind of a writer putting a major opus together. To me, this is the major contribution of the book. I highly recommend this book to aspiring writers, diarists, or to anyone interested in the mid-20th century thought. That goes for Existentialists too.

Great insight to his work
This novel , more like a autobiography is great because in it he tells of certain unforgetable conversations and ideas that his mind has come up with. It just makes me want to read more of his work because now i know how he gets some of his ideas and the process he goes through in creating a grea novel. Although the notes are written in a form that is different then usual , they are great to read. I recomend it.

A book of wise sayings
This book...a rather large one...is wonderful and incredibly special since it is a peek into Camus' thoughts. He wrote everything down, afraid he would not remember his thoughts. This book is especially interesting since it has some powerful sayings in it...if you are searching for a good quote to write an essay about, I recommend this book. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A Trying, but Rewarding, Read
There is no doubt that this is the definitive biography of the renowned Captain Cook.For no other reason, persons with an interest in the greatest navigator of all time should read this work.While few details of his life outside of his three major expeditions have been retained, this book brings to life the Captain that sailed the world on his three voyages, including his personality, his foibles, his leadership, and his intellect.He was indeed a man with many admirable qualities.

So why only three stars?While the book is well researched and well organized, it is not well written.Far too often, a jumble of words is presented as a substitute for a sentence.If Beaglehole could write clearly, this would certainly be a 5 star work.On the other hand, sadly enough, a clear writing style has not always been the hallmark of a professional historian.

Definitive Biography of Cook
New Zealand historian J. C. Beaglehole was perhaps the 20th century's foremost authority on European exploration in the Pacific.The main results of his long and distinguished career were "Exploration of the Pacific" and "Life of Captain James Cook". In preparation for writing the Life, he produced the definitive modern editions of the Journals of Captain Cook (4 volumes) and the Endeavour Journals of Jospeh Banks (2 volumes).
An understanding of Cook and the voyages must begin with Beaglehole.

Brilliant, comprehensive, scholarly defense of Cook.
This is a tome which occassionally tells you just a little more than you really want to know about the three great voyages to the Pacific, but anyone seriously interested in the western penetration into the Pacific will want to read this book. It is also an articulate and formidable defense of Cook's character, seamanship, and wisdom. While Cook is not quite so venerable now in a time of great sensitivity to the depradations western invasion inflicted on indiginous people, this book presents us with an undoubtedly great man interested not in conquest but in geography, exploration, discovery, science, anthropology and peaceful relations between cultures. The aftermath was a tragedy,(see Alan Moorehead's The Fatal Impact) but Cook was simply too high-minded and short-sighted to forsee what would come after. Cook was for better and worse a man of his time--and it was an age of enlightenment--an exemplar of the period of science, exploration and adventure. He was of course a cold fish and hard to cosy to, but there is much to admire in this brilliant portrait of the man and his age.

The most comprehensive Cook biography to date
The Life of Captain James Cook by Beaglehole is the book that I have been searching for a long time. For some reason, one of the greatest explorers and navigators in history never had a comprehensive biography written on.In a very short series of partial accounts, Beaglehole's book stands out asthe most comprehensive biography ever written about cook. It is apparentthat Beaglehole spend several years in researching, and the result isadmireable in its depth and capacity. Although the book is sometimes hardto read, beacuse of the many details, it is still worth going through. Manyunknown facts about Cook are being revealed, which throw a whole newperspective about his life .The author also did a good job in recreatingthe atmosphere of the life on an explotation ship, and putting Cook'sexplorations in the historical context. For lighter reading, I guess thatRichard Hough's book is easier to read, but if you want the whole story,this is the book to read. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

This book is beautifully written and an excellent biography.
I had the great pleasure of recording this entertaining book for the American Foundation for the Blind's Talking Books program. Rather than summarize its contents, well done in other reviews on this site, I will simply say that I found it extremely easy to record because it is written in such flowing, evocative prose. In fact, it reads very much like a fascinating adventure novel, and Robert Louis Stevenson could almost have written it. The travels of Captain Cook are superbly recounted, and make engrossing, absorbing reading.

A well written biography
I was prompted to read this book after finishing Longitude which alludes to the progress Captain Cook made in a seamans health at sea. What I found was a man who rose to the top of his trade by applying himself and following his curiousity. He not only changed the way men lived while at sea, he travelled the globe in search of new and exciting places. While it's true he wasn't a great discoverer, the length and success of his trips speak for his talent and drive. Imagine spending upwards of 3 - 4 years at sea seperated from you home, family and friends and doing it on a vessel 100 feet long with a crew of 100! It's unheard of today and speaks of the fortitude adventures, such as Captain Cook, possessed. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in setting sail on the open seas from the comfort of your chair, you won't be disappointed!

This is a very solid biography.
We Aussies have a great deal of affection for dear old Captain Cook, who mapped our east coast whilst exploring the pacific. This book traces Cook's life and long career in an expert and readable fashion. Cook never advanced as rapidly as Lord Nelson, and traded in strictly military missions for other roles of importance to the Admiralty. But, as this fine biography shows, he stands alongside Nelson as a great British naval hero.

A biography that reads like a thriller
Before Captain Cook left on his first Voyage of Discovery, 40% of the Earth's surface had not been mapped. By the time he died - eaten by the Hawaiians, with only his thigh bone and uneated hands, one of them bearing a recognizable scar, delivered back to the ship - he had mapped essentially all of the unknown surface of the Earth. This biography is beautifully written. A few months ago I was sitting at a bar in Cook Islands, reading this book, and a local said to me that he had bought about 20 copies to hand out to his boatie friends. You are in for hours of discovery and enjoyment.

Was Cook Burned Out?
This is a fine biography of a fascinating man. And, judging from a search of Amazon.com, there don't appear to be too many biographies about James Cook in print. Mr. Hough's book is much easier to read than Beaglehole's; and it is a good introduction to start with before tackling Cook's Journals.

One thing that caught my attention was how radically different Captain Cook behaved on his third and final voyage. On the earlier voyages, he acted much more decisively, and showed remarkable concern for his men. They in turn developed great affection and respect for their leader.

On that last fateful voyage, Cook acted very much out of character. He was short-tempered, even cruel. He made hasty or stupid decisions and took foolish risks. At more than one point the crew was close to mutiny.

Hough explains that perhaps Cook was suffering from a parasitic infection or other physical and mental afflictions. This might explain his unusual behavior. It also occured to me that perhaps the good captain was simply "burned out" (to use a modern phrase). After having completed two round-the-world trips of 2-plus years each, the last thing this man needed was another long voyage. Even his superiors in the Admiralty knew he needed and deserved a rest. Cook himself must have known that too. Yet, his sense of duty impelled him to volunteer for one more mission. The Admirals should never have permitted it. Certainly not so soon after Cook's return from Voyage Two.

This is a good book. I have long admired James Cook; now after reading Hough's work, I list the captain among my heroes.

One final note: another reviewer asks why Cook was "always returning to Tahiti." Perhaps I missed something, but I only counted three visits by Cook to that island. Once to observe an astronomical event (the official reason for his First Voyage); later (on his Second Voyage) because his ship was in need of repairs and supplies; and then on the Third Voyage to return a Tahitian they had taken to England on the previous trip --- and this was the official reason for the Third Voyage.

On second thought, could anyone fault Cook for frequenting the beautiful Polynesian islands? Perhaps a few months on the beach --- but away from his work! --- would have saved the man's life! ... Read more

Amazon.com

According to many standard histories of the Pacific, when Captain James Cook landed on theisland of Hawaii on January 17, 1779, he was received by the natives as an avatar of the god Lono andfeted accordingly. In The Apotheosis of Captain Cook Sri Lankan scholar Gananath Obeyesekerequestions this "fact" of history, arguing that it was the Europeans, and not the natives, whofound a need to establish their colonization of new worlds on the notion of deities come home. Cookhimself, Obeyesekere adds sympathetically, was a man caught between social classes, treated as an equalby Polynesian kings but shunned by members of the English nobility because of his lower-classbackground; he was a good man, but a god only in the imaginations of his compatriots. Obeyesekeredevotes much of The Apotheosis of Captain Cook to arguing spiritedly with anthropologist Marshall Sahlins over matters ofHawaiian history. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Very interesting
I bought this book because of a general interest in Hawaiian history and Captain Cook. I'm not a professional historian and don't have any comment on such matters as quality of footnotes. However, I thought this was an excellent, very readable book. Mr. Obeyesekere takes historical fragments - diaries, letters, and so forth, and re-constucts the last few days of Cook's life. It's done so cleverly, in such a readable style, that it reminds one of the end of a mystery novel, where Sherlock Holmes explains his reasoning to Dr. Watson. However, there's the similar suspicion that it's being too clever, and that the author is taking evidence to fit the conclusion, rather than the other way around.

Also of interest was the repeated theme of cultural imperialism, explaining how modern historians project their own cultural predjudices (in this case, the simple savage, and a view of religion that is decidedly rational and rooted in monotheism) onto foreign cultures, and the misunderstandings that naturally arise. There's a number of similar cases I can think of, where the common knowledge is so influenced - best example is the view that Cortez conquered Mexico as an unimpeded God, when a simple reading of Bernal Diaz shows that's not the case.

I do have to complain, though, that a overly large portion of the book is given to the academic refutation of fellow scholar Mr. Sahlins. The author is challenging common thought, and I appreciate being able to read the debate with a prestigious scholar who represents the status quo. However, I thought it should have been made more distinct from the rest of the book - much interesting information is revealed in the argument, but it's comparatively dry reading.

Still, overall, this book makes for a very interesting read, and encourages one to re-examine their historical and cultural assumptions. I definitely think it's worth reading.

The Great "Cook" Book Debate
You have to give Obeyesekere credit for looking beyond the Makahiki festival, which dominates Marshall Sahlins' study of the apotheosis of James Cook. Obeyesekere sparked a minor maelstrom when he challenged the renown scholar's thesis that Cook was personified as a god by the Hawaiians. Obeyesekere looks beyond bicameral minds, and insists that the Hawaiians were fully conscious of their actions.

Cook was not the great god Lono, nor did he pretend to be. While his second arrival at the Sandwich Islands did coincide with the Makahiki festival, the Hawaiians did not deify him, but rather invited the Captain and his crew to take part in the ritual. Unfortunately for the Captain things seem to devolve afterward, and the Hawaiians killed him and several members of his crew.

Many have tried to piece together the tattered remnants of this story. Several of his crew kept journals and attempts were made after the fact to collect oral history from Hawaiians who were part of the cannibalistic ritual. Unfortunately, few of these accounts jive. Marshall Sahlins has done the most to try to piece together the events, but he seems to discount the Hawaiians ability for cognitive thinking, which tarnishes his work.

Obeyesekere attempted to draw Sahlins out, which he did with this book. Sahlins responded with the more scholarly but overbearing "How Natives Think," which he hoped would settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, Obeyeskere is not an anthropologist and his arguments tend to be a bit thin, but he does shoot plenty of holes into Sahlins' thesis.

Foolish views from a diluted man
This book is a travesty. I'm a history student researching the death of Captain Cook. My prof. who gained his PhD from Yale suggested I read this book as a counterpoint for how historical research should be done, and presented. Obeyesekere is way out of his league in this book. First he claims to be an islander so he can relate to the natives (in fact he is 1/2 sri lankan and the other half is european). From taht point it goes down hill. The man's arguments while compelling on the surface are completely unfounded. If you actually read the footnotes of his arguments they site often his own articles and essays, or take comments from European acounts out of context that when read do not state at all what Obeyesekere says they do. Do not get taken in by the popular denial of the truth of Cook's death. This book represents an obvious vendeta against historians who know what they are talking and have true expertise in the field such as Sahlins.Who knows ancient Hawwian traditions, is an expert in ancient polynesean language and culture, and studied in many places in the south pacific. Unlike Obyesekere who has no background in any of these things. This is another great example of a man who is way out of his league atempting to make a name for himself by rocking the boat.

The facts and the myth
Obeyesekere does a remarkable, clear and concise job by using the events in Hawaii to show that to get an understanding in the meeting of cultures we must look at the views of all cultures involved. Where Sahlins work resides mostly from the Mythical viewpoint and looks at the events of Cook's landing in Hawaii in 1779, Obeyesekere opens up for debate logical questions that may never be answered but remind us that we must look at the entire spectrum of any historical event. Obeyesekere is critical of the myth and the way Sahlins advances that myth. The better of the two authors questioned the myth of Cook and that is the correct way to interpret the actual events leading up to Cook's death.

Ten Years On
Ten years hence it is tempting to beat up on this book and its shortcomings. We should resist the temptation. Obviously Nicholas Thomas in his new book "Cook" couldn't resist. That's a shame.

This was a necessary book. It raised and raises fundamental issues about anthropology and the nature of socio-historical inquiry that were and remain unresolved and are perpetually debated.

One thing Obeyesekere did with this book is expose the hypocritical underbelly of much of anthropology. Especially anthropology as practiced in Hawaii. Once he turned on the light, the cockroaches started running, and it got pretty ugly. Much of this book contains an extended response to various critics, especially the mostly pathetic "How Natives Think" by Marshall Sahlins. Somewhat regrettably, those two books are now linked forever.

In the end I would like to think that this book is about more than just a pissing contest between two relatively elite and priviledged academics. While Obeyesekere here is far from perfect, he is more right than Sahlins and his sympathizers. One reason why establishment "white" superstar academics cannot deal with legitimate postcolonial criticism is that they can't stand the thought--whether they want to admit it or not--of being looked at with the same scrutinous gaze that they themselves use. This "using and taking" aspect of anthropology is a fundamental aspect of the discipline, and it's a big part of the book.

The intellectual and political reaction of the Hawaiian community to this book is perhaps the most interesting aspect of it. Obeyesekere could have done a better job of establishing a sense of ethnographic authority with the Hawaiian community, but that in no way excuses the lame ass and racially prejudicial attacks he had to endure for being a "half breed" Sri Lankan intellectual. Quite frankly, I think many of the people at the Center for Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa had no real clue what this book was about when it first came out and had to resort to the same old trite, truistic, and nationalistic slogans in response. Instead of accusing Obeyesekere of not being "Hawaiian" and therefore by definition not able to truly speak about, much less for, Hawaiians, why not encounter and respond to the man's argument?

This book is now part of the postcolonial pantheon and it is still used in a lot of anthropology courses. Ironically, my sense of the book is that many of the people generally sympathetic to the themes of this book may harbor many of the elitist and romantic biases about Hawaii that Obeyesekere sought to challenge. And that is perhaps the book's biggest shortfall. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (5)

Churchill, Champion of the Augustan Era
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, is the uncontested military genius of late Stuart England, the uncrowned political/military heir to William of Orange and the famous ancestor of Winston Churchill. In tandem with Austria's general, Eugen of Savoy, he led the coalition armies in the War of the Spanish Succession, defeating in detail several of Louis XIV's French and Bavarian armies, most famously at Blenheim, but also at Ramilles, Ourdenarde and Malplaquet. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, his wife, the beautiful but intemperate Sarah Jennings, later Duchess of Marlbourough, became a "favorite" of Queen Anne and secured for him (at least for most of the war) the political support that necessary for him to field an army on the Continent for the many years.

As a writer of history, Churchill ranks with Gibbon for his mastery of prose and his ability to use vivid imagery to hold the reader's attention to minute detail. For each year of the Spanish Succession War, Churchill opens with a strategic appreciation of how the Anglo-Austrian forces plotted out each year's campaigns, and goes to great pains to explain the reasons behind Marlborough's various deployments. And he paints on a simply massive canvas: he begins with a detailed account of Charles II's Restoration, of James II's abortive reign (and Marlborough's role in ending it), of William III and Mary II's joint reign (Churchill is NOT a fan of William and Mary) and of the underlying workings of the French monarchy. He is not afraid to address the various failings in Marlborough's character, particularly his secret negotiations with both the enemy and the exiled Stuarts, but does seek to defend Marlborough (and Sarah) from the more libellous charges.

This book was written in the 1930s, politically Churchill's decade of exile (and personally, his worst years of depression). If everyone turned unemployment, financial crisis and depression to such good use, the world would be a far better place.

Churchill on Churchill
Winston Spencer Churchill's biography of, his ancestor John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough stands out as a restoration of Marlborough's reputation, an account of England under the reigns of Charles II, James II, William III and Queen Anne, and an in-depth military and political history of the War of Spanish Succession.

WSC gives us a picture of the whole man, including his faults. One of WSC's purposes is to rescue Marlborough's reputation from the attacks of generations of historians. The book becomes a brilliant defense and of course it cannot be unbiased. WSC is Marlborough's defense attorney, not his judge.

By the 1920s, Marlborough had been called miserly, greedy, ambitious, duplicitous, disloyal and treacherous. As he recounts Marlborough's life, WSC continually picks up an episode that seemingly illustrates one of these traits, but turns it around.

Where unsympathetic historians saw miserly habits, WSC saw thrift and WSC goes further. Marlborough was miserly when it came to his own needs, such as when he insisted surgeons cut his stocking along the seem so that it could be resown. Yet he paid his army's bills and wages on time; apparently this was unusual in those days. He paid, from his own discretionary funds, which other generals often pocketed as a matter of course, for military intelligence that proved crucial to securing many of his victories.

Where accusers saw ambition needlessly prolonging a difficult war, WSC presents Marlborough has being bound by duty to achieve the best results possible, and to reject a timid peace, which would have left Europe in the hands of a despot.

WSC has a more difficult, but no less successful time defending Marlborough's continued correspondence with St-Germain, the exiled English court of James II and later his son, as recognized by Louis the XIV. The problem here is that today such acts would indeed be treason, but in the seventeenth century they were part of the normal workings of diplomacy, war time or not. After all, if passports and safe conduits were routinely given to enemies to allow them to rest and confer in between campaigns, it could not have been that unusual to keep in touch with people one knew, even if they were officially enemies.

WSC also presents Marlborough's most important relationships: with his wife Sarah Jennings; with his military ally Prince Eugene, with whom he won at Blenheim; with his political colleague Godolphin, who secured funds for his military work; with the kings and queen of England from James II to George I;

But WSC does accuse Marlborough on occasion of having been unwise. He is particularly critical of the Duke's obsession with his palace at Blenheim (where WSC himself was born). Marlborough didnft want an opulent residence, rather he wanted to leave a monument that would survive centuries and remember his name to future generations. WSC writes that as such Blenheim was a failure: it added nothing to the Duke's reputation and the worries it caused may have taken years from his life. Winston Churchill must have felt his biography was a better memorial to his ancestor.

I have to defend wellington from such major historical
oversight.

''one and only victory''?
What about the penninsular war, Between 1808-14 Wellingtons army fought up the spanish penninsular all the way to France constantly beating such noted Marshalls as Massena and Soult, battles in: Salamanca, Corrunna, Rolica and sieges: Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz to name a few.
He didn't even consider Waterloo to be his greatest victory.
Wellington is the only general to have successfully came up with a tactic to beat the revolutionary armees (using line formations versus French coloums and obscuring his armys behind obstacles)therefore desrves praise.

Wellington only once called his men ''scum of the earth'' this was in relation to the english recruiting methods (picking up drunks, prisoners) so it is true, his armys where riff raff though by 1814 he called them ''the finest fighting force in the world''

I've never considered Wellesly to have a big nose, are you not getting him confused with Nelson?

Churchills books are incredible.

Another thought.....
On re-reading I find Marlborough's contrasts with Wellington amusing, almost grotesque.

Marlborough was charm itself, Wellington coarse and foul-mouthed.

"Corporal John" was very careful with casualties (English, if not French), but the Iron Duke of course was callous to the point of carelessness, constantly calling his men "scum." (He would make a fine modern Russian general - I wonder what kind of impression he made on Kutuzov!). He treated officers differently.

Marlborough was born in straitened circumstances, Wellington in wealth and status.

Marlborough was a courtier all his life, with all the risks that came with such a position - in the end he paid for royal disfavor. Not even falling on his knees - he could have knocked two holes on the marble floor - made much difference to a Queen bent on revenge.....for his wife's misdeeds. Sir Winston calls this episode "painful to record" and an "unnatural spectacle" which "reduces the stature of a soldier [literally!]." (Book Two, p. 796-7) Wellington? The Big Nose treated HIS sovereigns with ill-concealed contempt (for good reasons, I might add) mixed with the occasional insults - unthinkable for Marlborough's character and times.

Last and above all, Marlborough's fame rested on a string of great victories - ten in all I think - while Wellington's one and only victory, a near-run thing even with Bluecher's help, made him immortal. Wellington was further assisted by the fact that Napoleon was not himself that day.

No wonder Marlborough was admired even by Louis XIV, while Napoleon turned purple at the mere mention of Wellington's name. (He did admire Nelson though.) Marlborough and Eugene thwarted Louis's ambitions, but the conqueror of Napoleon was surely Napoleon's own folly.

Why then is Marlborough less famous than Wellington, even in Britain? If I have to guess, it is because of Bonaparte's far greater importance than the Sun King's.

This book will give you hours of pleasure, especially if you keep at the back of your mind the lives of Wellington, Winston Churchill, etc., who are Marlborough's dramatic contrasts in many ways.

Maurice Ashley, who for four years did the bulk of the original research for Winston Churchill in writing this book, wrote his own biography of Marlborough, which I must confess I have not read (it may be available from amazon.com). No doubt it casts the great man in a different, perhaps even more disinterested light.

(Note: what amazon.com presents as "Volume I" is actually "Book One" - this biography is divided into two "books," each of which is subdivided into two "volumes," One and Two, and Three and Four. For me Book One is the more interesting "volume.")

Excellent
The name John Churchill, the First Duke of Marlborough (correctly pronounced: "MO-bra"), may not ring a bell among many of my American friends - except for those interested in history. It is true that he never achieved the worldwide fame enjoyed by his descendant and worshipper, Sir Winston Churchill, who is the author of this book and his unofficially official biographer. Neverthless Marlborough it was who gave the British lion its first roar - while Sir Winston gave it its very last.

It's not difficult to see why Sir Winston admired John. In his own day Marlborough was the greatest Englishman, the best general, and the finest diplomat of Europe. His spectacular victory at Blenheim was one of the world's most significant. He fought many battles; invincible, he won them all. For this he was granted a magnificent home named the Blenheim Palace (for its size to call it anything else would be a misnomer) - in which Sir Winston himself was later born. Like his younger contemporary Frederick the Great (one of my heroes), Marlborough was truly impressive in all aspects of warmaking: strategy, tactics, field command, logistics, diplomacy, personnel, intelligence. Like Frederick he was personally and physically brave (if a little LESS reckless). And like Frederick he had to run a country at the same time. In one way though Marlborough was even greater than Frederick - he never lost a battle.

It is true that without Prince Eugene, Marlborough would not have succeeded the way he did. But his prowess on the battlefield should rank him among the greatest commanders in history.

Striking was Marlborough's dependence on several women in his life, to whom he owed his entire career: his own sister, who got him his first job (as a lowly page to the Prince of Wales); the Duchess of Cleveland, who lavished money on him for his exceptional "services"; Sarah Jennings, his wife, who rose from equally humble background to be politically important; and Queen Anne, who made him Duke and head of the English army. A genius in war, he was also lucky in love. Stunningly handsome, he matched his looks with flawless manners plus sparkling intelligence; not surprisingly his charm was irresistible to women (and, as has been pointed out, men too). Yet he had a happy marriage. (His wife, a tremendous beauty in her own right, lived in constant if unfounded fear of his infidelity. Though the youthful Marlborough had a bastard daughter with Cleveland, he was no Casanova in married life.)

That Marlborough was a genius and his life a phenomenal success story, no one can deny. But in the interests of family loyalty as well as personal devotion Sir Winston was willing to turn a blind eye to some of Marlborough's faults: his insatiable financial greed, his manipulativeness, his tightfistedness with money, his suspect honesty, his all-consuming ambitions, his inability to write in literate English. But as I am a fan of Marlborough's myself, I do not blame Sir Winston. I only wish to add that his one-sided account, though the best, does not provide a complete picture.

It's puzzling to me how with increasing age, fame and fortune Marlborough's thick skin, which had served him well in his youth, got thinner and thinner, until he was almost destroyed by his sensitivity to criticisms. Too bad, because his political enemies were so unworthy compared to him. A ruthless man (though not necessarily a Stalin) would have been aggressive and hounded his enemies to THEIR death, but Marlborough lacked this killer instinct......all the stranger for a soldier! Instead he gave himself a stroke and that was the end of his career.

No admirer of Sir Winston's - I dislike him - I nonetheless recommend this book very highly. It is extremely well-written. Be sure to get both volumes. And pay particular attention to the military campaigns - these are true masterpieces of historical writing. If you must choose, however, get vol.1 - it has the best actions, including the high points of his career: marriage to Sarah, the meteoric rise, the Garter, Blenheim, the Dukedom. The chapter entitled "Avarice and Charm" - two aspects of his personality - is particularly interesting.

Not for nothing did Sir Winston win the Nobel Prize for Literature, and by common consent "Marlborough" was his best work. ... Read more

Book Description

This original and thought-provoking book compares the art, lives, andachievements of three artists, each of whom became the preeminent twentieth-centuryfemale painter of her country: Emily Carr of Canada, Georgia O'Keeffe of the UnitedStates, and Frida Kahlo of Mexico. Important themes tie these artists' visually disparatework together, the book shows, and viewing their work collectively sheds new light onthe art of the continent. ... Read more

Book Description

IF YOU COULD ASK A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER ANYTHING YOU WANTED...

Since 1901, the Nobel Prize has honored the world's great geniuses in the most important fields: physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics, and world peace. What if children could ask these creative thinkers about some of life's most intriguing mysteries, such as "Why can't I live on french fries?" and "What is love?" The answers from the Dalai Lama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Desmond Tutu, and seventeen other Nobel Prize laureates are rich with surprise, humor, and of course, wisdom. Every single answer will make you think...and learn something new.

WHAT IS LOVE?
The Dalai Lama

WHY CAN'T I LIVE ON FRENCH FRIES?
Richard J. Roberts

WHAT IS POLITICS?
Shimon Peres

WHY IS THE SKY BLUE?
Mario J. Molina

WHY DO I FORGET SOME THINGS AND NOT OTHERS?
Erwin Neher

WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOL?
Kenzaburo Oe

WHY IS THERE WAR?
Desmond Tutu

WHY DO WE FEEL PAIN?
Günter Blobel

HOW DO I WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE?
Mikhail Gorbachev

WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE RICH AND OTHERS POOR?
Daniel L. McFadden

...AND ELEVEN OTHER RESPONSES ... Read more

Amazon.com

He was something of a bully, something of a blowhard, without friends and always in search of a sympathetic audience for his monologues. Yet, writes John Keegan in this slender but thorough portrait, Winston Churchill was unquestionably the right man for the time.

Few biographers are better equipped than Keegan, the eminent military historian, to write of Churchill as a wartime leader. Indeed, Keegan suggests, Churchill was never more at ease than when confronting some fierce enemy, whether across the English Channel or a range of Afghan hills; it was from the saddle that he developed his "vision of how an enlightened empire might transform the future of mankind." The rise of other, less enlightened empires helped put an end to his own, but Churchill steadfastly insisted on a strong role for Great Britain in the postwar world--in which he succeeded, even if voters turned him out of office almost as soon as the war ended.

Keegan's respectful portrait assesses Churchill's many accomplishments (and a few noteworthy failures) as he sought, in Churchill's ringing words, to "resist oppression, to protect the weak, to vindicate the profound but unwritten Law of Nations." Admirers of Churchill and students of his time will find much of value in these pages. --Gregory McNamee ... Read more

Reviews (17)

A competent short history of World War II's greatest leader.
As a previous reviewer has stated, this is a good short history of Winston Churchill. Keegan does a competent job of giving us the short version on this great man. However it is not really inspired writing, and not a page turner. I found myself plodding through this book and wondering when the tempo would change. It didn't. All of the highlights of Churchill's life are there, it just didn't flow well.
There are many great books about Winston Churchill. Some comprise several volumes. I would rate Manchester the best in terms of biography. Keegan's book is a good first start for those who don't know much of Churchill.

Short, Sweet, and Smart
As with the entire Penguin Lives series, this book was written by an expert who was given the challenge of sharing his knowledge in less than 200 pages. John Keegan succeeds brilliantly. As an expert on World War II, Keegan has written many wonderful and insightful books and this is no exception despite the literary constraints placed upon him. His clear and beautiful prose make the book a quick and enjoyable read, but he does not sacrifice information. I did not know a lot about Churchill before reading this book, but now I feel that I have a good understanding for his achievements and why he was so significant in his own time. It is a fabulous book for an amateur historian who does not want to spend dozens of hours wading t