Amazon.com

The fifth volume of Kenneth S. Davis's magisterial, much-praisedbiography follows FDR from his re-election to an unprecedented third term inNovember 1940 through New Year's Eve, 1942, when he screened a brand-new film,Casablanca, at the WhiteHouse. During the intervening 25 months, President Roosevelt prepared areluctant nation for the war that he knew was coming, then struggled to maintainthe government's commitment to his New Deal social programs, as well as theconflict overseas. Like its predecessors, this installment combines shrewd,intimate psychological insights into Roosevelt's character with a sweepinghistorical narrative of world events and a superbly detailed account ofWashington political maneuvers--all three laid out in grave, elegant prose.Perhaps Davis's most notable achievement lies in tracing the links between FDR'spersonality and his leadership style: the unexpected benefits of his maddeningindecisiveness, his ability to use even his crippling physical handicap topolitical advantage, the way in which the adult president cemented personal andprofessional ties with the evasive charm that he developed in adolescence todefend himself against a smothering mother. Admirers of serious yet accessiblebiography can regret only that the author's death in 1999 means that there willbe no concluding volume to this magnificent series, which has shed so much lighton one of the more complex men ever to inhabit the White House. --WendySmith ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Our Century's Greatest President
This last of five great volumes continues to look at Roosevelt and his times from the progressive Left. Davis was a liberal New Dealer (with the AAA) and he surveys FDR's third term with a view to what might-have-been through the eyes of one of many who welcomed a more fundamental shift from "selfish materialism" to "selfless ideology" in America. What better perspective to measure this century's greatest Democrat?

Ignore Michael Lind's NY Times review -- except to get a taste of the reactionary manifesto FDR was up against; he simply trashes Davis's liberalism with a neo-con, op-ed spin piece on commies and big business, and concludes the book to be historical fiction. And why the accusation of "calumny" when Davis posits psychology as one of several possible explanations for FDR's inaction to the final solution? Only last year did we learn of John McCloy's discussion with an irate President about bombing Auschwitz ("Why, the idea! I won't have anything to do with it. We'll be accused of participating in this horrible business."), which was insight kept secret for forty years. With such precious little information about the motives of an aging, instinctive President who was always reluctant to espouse the ideological over the pragmatic, why is it unethical to suppose that he "may" have felt the politics of rescue to be personally overwhelming?

Don't let one review deter you from a great history and a great story. From the Grand Alliance to Pearl Harbor to Casablanca and the Darlan Deal, the book presents a magnificent frieze. I give it four stars only because, alas, it ends prematurely.

FDR's Sins
Although Davis' book runs 757 pages, it only covers about 4 years real time. If you take the plunge, you will learn much about FDR, the War, and Davis (the author). I have read many books about the military conduct of WWII, from all sides. This was my first book about Great Leaders, Diplomacy, and World War strategy from the "Top." Most of this was new to me and most of the main points in the book don't show Roosevelt in a favorable light. Here are some of the big sins Davis reveals:

1. FDR was clearly deceptive in his 1940 Campaign. He promised American mothers that he would keep us out of the War but he was already anxious to get us into the European War.

2. FDR sold out most of his liberal principles in fighting the War. For instance, he placed industrialists in top positions, he put republicans in the cabinet, looked the other way when large firms ignored labor laws during the war, refused to embrace Henry Wallace's "Century of the Common Man." etc. Worst of all, large firms made money on their contracts! There is a long list
of FDRs actions that show that the FDR's approach to the War effectively ended the New Deal program.

3. There was much more tension between Americans and English than I realized. As far as military strategy, the Americans wanted to attack the Germans directly, ASAP, whereas the English
preferred to attack the Germans indirecty, sometime later....
The English were afraid of the Germans, who had just recently kicked them out of France, Greece, North Africa, etc. At one point in 1942, General Marshall was ready to jettison the English approach, the Torch invasion, and shift US resources to the Pacific. Roosevelt agreed to English strategies....

4. FDR thought he could charm Stalin, "uncle joe." What a colossal miscalculation of Stalin's character.

5. FDR did not worry much about civil liberties, authorizing the "evacuation" of the West Coast Japanese, letting the FBI run rampant with wire-tapping, etc.

6. FDR was an unprincipled man, devious, back-stabbing, disloyal to people who had backed him for decades, such as Hillman, and Farley. Davis claims FDR could turn his emotions on and off to serve practical requirements. He could not be trusted.

7. And the final, greatest sin; FDR knew much about the Holocaust by 1942 and he refused to shout it from the rooftops.
FDR was not anti-semitic, but he did not want his legion of enemies to label it "A War to Save Jews" because FDR knew that many American (voters) were anti-semitic.........

Somehow, Davis is willing to look past all these sins to
claim that FDR still deserves to be classified as a great president. Apparently FDRs unwavering focus on winning the War can offset even the largest sins.I'm not so sure.

As for Davis, his absolute hatred for capitalism and big business is reiterated on every other page. He also puts forth
a vague theory about technology and human welfare that readers can safely ignore. Davis prefers some kind of socialist state.

All in all, it made me curious to read more about FDR.

Thoughtful and provocative
It's a shame that Professor Davis did not live to complete his massive biography of FDR. But what he left is a most thoughtful and provocative account of how Roosevelt steered a reluctant country into a war it had to wage. Davis is skeptical of FDR's management of the war effort -- the president's compulsive manipulation of his staff, his over-reliance on self-interested industrialists for war production, and, above all, the woeful lack of response to the Holocaust. But Professor Davis is not a revisionist -- he makes it clear that the Americans had to fight World War II to stop Nazi-fascism and preserve Western civilization, and that no one else on the American scene could have taken the country in that direction. In "The War President," Professor Davis builds on the strengths of his previous volumes with his enlightening commentary on the impact of modernity and technology on presidential leadership. And he adds to his sketches of the figures who played a role in FDR's life -- Churchill, Harry Hopkins, Wendell Willkie and many others. I hated to see the book end, but the final scene is very poignant, with the President spending a New Year's Eve watching the film Casablanca as he is sending Americans to fight in North Africa.

A good -- if cranky -- biography of FDR
Kenneth Davis (b. 1912) dedicated the last thirty years to his multi-volume biography of FDR. The current volume takes the story up to 1943 and there will be no concluding account, due to the author's death in 1999.

Davis, a skeptical admirer of the elusive FDR, has axes to grind. It is a pet thesis of his throughout the biography that humankind's technical wizardry has run far ahead of his social skills and that the result has been disaster. Humanity creates weaponry (e.g. nuclear weapons), the destructive potential of which exceed its political maturation. This is an historical cliche. Fortunately, such jejune "analysis" does not interfere with the narration: it is just the author's hobby horse.

Davis also believes that the great bane of the 20th century was the growth in private corporate power. He is, in this sense, a real New Dealer. His railings against Big Business would not be out of place at a Ralph Nader rally. He is skeptical of the great industrialists, such as Henry Kaiser, whose organizational skills are often credited with helping to win the war of production. For Davis, the capitalists simply feathered their nests and then extended their stranglehold on the economy into the postwar world. This, too, is pretty much a cliche and one that Davis does little to document.

The author does a good job at catching the president's shifty character and political opportunism. Observers sometimes wondered if there was a real FDR, or if he was all just sleight of hand. Davis also revels in the personal gossip that accompanied FDR's presidency, the most entertaining we ever had except for, perhaps, that of Bill Clinton.

The author grinds a few other axes, as well, in his analysis of Roosevelt's war presidency. He is convinced that the USA could, and should, have intervened earlier in the war. That it did not resulted, he claims, in the extended tragedy of 1939-45. This is unfair. Roosevelt was well-aware of the dangers posed by the Axis. However, he was also well-aware of the fiasco of Woodrow Wilson's postwar leadership and the corrosive skepticism of the public toward European politics. FDR tried, in the famous "Quarantine Speech," to move America toward some sort of collective security -- and the result was a political firestorm. As president of a democracy, FDR held no brief to shoehorn the United States into a war not wanted by its own people. (The subsequent lesson of LBJ should convince us of that.)

But, the Holocaust is the issue on which Davis really gets ahead of his evidence. He is adamant that FDR should have done something about it -- but has no idea what. In fact, the murder of the Jews was a tragedy that the United States was helpless to prevent or even mitigate. Consider, for instance, that nearly half the murdered Jews were killed by roving German killer squads in the vastness of the wartime USSR. What, precisely, could FDR do about that? There are many other such examples. The heart, understandably, cries out against the horror of the crime -- but a cri de coeur is not analysis. Until 1943, the allies were losing the European war. They were not in a position to do much of anything.

Davis has some rare harsh words for George Marshall, whom he accuses at one point of duplicity. Marshall's towering reputation, however, survives intact. Davis is, likewise, hard on Henry Stimson, whose integrity he doubts -- but doesn't tell us why.

The book is extensively detailed and reads well. Some editing would have useful as it simply meanders too much. This, however, may be a function of the writer's death, which may have robbed him of the full editing process.

There is more verve in this extended biography than in the late Frank Freidel's rather wooden account of FDR. There is, as well, less hagiography than in Schlesinger's mutli-volume account of the New Deal. FDR is, perhaps, our most fascinating president and certainly far and away the greatest of the twentieth-century. He is,in fact, the ONLY great one of the past hundred years. And, this is a good account.

Finally, Eleanor recedes somewhat into the shadows here, and that is all to the good. Compassionate, she was. But, FDR was in charge, not Eleanor. She is an icon of the feminist movement and this leads current histories to over-rate her influence. She was an attractive nag -- but not Roosevelt's conscience. He, and he alone, was the soul of the New Deal. The same was true of the war years. Harry Hopkins was the real alter ego. Davis gets this exactly right.

Davis is a biased Historian
I had picked up this book at a local bookstore out of the respect I felt for FDR, but I found this book extremely disappointing, sketchy in facts, and to top it all Davis is an attrocious writer.

But what shattered me the most was page 466 of this book. On this page, the elegant sophisticated westernized and secular Mr Jinnah the founder of Pakistan is portrayed as a fanatical Muslim Leader. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Mr Jinnah was called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by none other Mr Gandhi. Indeed, he had struggled the most to keep religion out of politics. Mr Gandhi's Hindu Revivalism was what forced Mr Jinnah to opt for a seperate homeland. Obstinacy of Mr Nehru, and out and out fanaticism of Veersavarkar didnot help either. Nevertheless point stands, Mr Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was a secular Minded man, and a leader free of communal bias. To read more about this topic, I suggest Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah of Pakistan and Hector Bolitho's Jinnah.

Now here is quote from Mr Jinnah's inaugural speech to Pakistan's constituent assembley. Judge for yourself how stupid Davis's absurd claim is :

You are FREE- You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or anyother place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion caste or creed- That has nothing to do with the business of the state. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This is possibly the single best book available on the Reagan presidency. Lou Cannon began reporting on Ronald Reagan as a journalist when Reagan first ran for governor of California in 1966, and then covered him again in Washington after his 1980 presidential election. In short, there is probably no man or woman who has spent more years writing about the Gipper than Cannon. The result is a magisterial account of Reagan's two terms in the White House. Cannon is broadly sympathetic to his subject, but also coolly detached. President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime pulled off the remarkable feat of winning praise from both Reagan's admirers and detractors when it was first published in 1991. This reissued edition, which includes a new preface describing Reagan's postpresidential descent into the abyss of Alzheimer's disease, must now be considered the standard text on the subject--especially in light of the controversy surrounding the book that aspired to Cannon's mantle, Edmund Morris's quasi biography Dutch.

Cannon's book is full of wise analysis and sound observation. He explains Reagan's success convincingly: "Optimism was not a trivial or peripheral quality. It was the essential ingredient of an approach to life.... [Reagan] had a knack of converting others to his optimism, almost as if he drew upon some private reservoir of self-esteem. People who listened to Reagan tended to feel good about him and better about themselves." Though the book bursts with detail, it's never so cumbersome that it bogs down Cannon's narrative. And these pages give only cursory attention to Reagan's life before the White House; this is more a biography of President Reagan than of Ronald Reagan. Conservatives who are defensive about Reagan's legacy may bristle at certain points; Cannon's portrait is not always a flattering one. Yet it's a compelling biography of a compelling man's most important years. It's possible to imagine that a fuller biography of Reagan will be written some day. Right now, however, this is the best there is--and it's very, very good. --John J. Miller ... Read more

Reviews (29)

Forget Morris...this is the way a Reagan Biography should be
After being severely disappointed by the work Morris spent a decade working on--I re-read this book. It is very well written, and unbiased account of the Reagan Presidency and Reagan the man. Lou Cannon didn't need to insert himself into the story to make this book work. History will point to this as the definitive Reagan Presidency biography and Morris may be relegated the ash-heap of poor authorship. As a journalist who covered Reagan as governor of California and as President, Cannon has some interesting insights on a complex Presidency.

Inside Ronald Reagan and his White House
The quest to understand the presidency of Ronald Reagan is one best undertaken by someone without a stake in the outcome. This is true of most political figures and it is true of Reagan as well. In general, I dislike books written by sycophants and I can't stand attack books written by partisan political opponents. It is for this reason that Lou Cannon's dense history of the Reagan White House is such a pleasure. Originally written in 1990, the book was revised in 2000. This is good because the ensuing decade lends some historical perspective to Reagan's years in Washington. In 1990, Gorbachev was still running the Soviet Union, nobody knew who Bill Clinton was and the economic expansion of the 90's was well in the future.

Cannon, a veteran journalist spent years covering Reagan and is clearly fascinated by him. The book is not a biography of Reagan. His years prior to 1980 are only briefly touched on. It is a history of Reagan's presidency. As such Canon provides detailed portraits, not just of Reagan but of most of the important players such as James Baker, Mike Deaver, Edwin Meese, Donald Regan, William Casey, Casper Weinberger, George Schultz and others. Reagan is shown to have been neither the detached idiot savant that his detractors like to portray nor the shrewd movement conservative that his loving fans on the political right recall. Reagan was above all a simple man with a good deal of common sense who believed in a few core principals. One of those principals and the key to his presidency was his relentless optimism. At a time when the United States seemed to be running out of gas, when the communism appeared to be here to stay, when Americans were losing hope in their future, Reagan never wavered in his belief that the future was bright and that the Soviet Union was doomed. This "vision" was Reagan's greatest attribute and the reason why he was adored by so much of America in spite of all his other flaws.

Cannon of course documents Reagan's shortcomings, which were considerable. Reagan was unable to even comprehend many of the intricacies of public policy and was thus dependent to a huge extent on his advisors and subordinates. Yet he was curiously unable to effectively manage his cabinet and White House staff. When policy advisors disagreed, Reagan often proved unable to reconcile the differences. And yet raw intelligence or book smarts are not the key to a successful presidency as Jimmy Carter learned. Reagan's dream of a better future, his instinctive fear and hatred of nuclear weapons, his relentless belief in the economic strength of American industry helped drive an administration that tried to put his vision into action as policy.

The scandals are covered as well, in particular the Iran-Contra affair and, as Cannon demonstrates, these scandals were an inevitable outcome of Reagan's remarkably detached management style as subordinates were allowed to run amok. In the final chapter, Cannon concludes that Reagan "may not have been a great president but he was a great American." I agree with this assessment. The ability to manage staff is a key and vital part of being president. Reagan was not the only one to have trouble in this regard. But a key component to greatness is the imagination and vision to see a different and better future. This a trait shared by such diverse figures as Lincoln, both Roosevelts and Churchill. It is sorely lacking in most of our so-called leaders today of both parties. For anyone interested in understanding Ronald Reagan and his eight years in Washington, this book is the standard.

Best Book on Reagan
I have read a 6 books on Reagan and the Reagan presidency for different economics, political science and history classes, and this tome was by far the best. I was absolutely stunned to read that Reagan had described his belief in an invasion of earth by "little green men" to several world leaders, including Gorbachov and Thatcher. Most of the other books were rather boring, but if you are interest in Ronald Reagan, this books is very interesting.

Jimmy Breslin Article Says It Best
This is not Camelot and politically is nothing more than a pile of baloney that never really explores some of Reagans's mistakes as a President from an objective point of view. To have a view contrary to the liberal press coverage of Reagan's funeral and life goes against the grain of the conservative machine. How can they state we have a liberal press... oh that is right Fox, local talk radio, Limbaugh, O'Reilly,Hannity, Reagan, Fox networks etc are fair and balanced!!
Reagan should be on a $3 bill
Jimmy Breslin

June 11, 2004

I offered my small prayer for Ronald Reagan when he was shot by this Hinckley. I said another prayer for him when I read this graceful note that he issued about his Alzheimer's.

Having said this, I now strongly endorse a suitable memorial for him.

Ronald Reagan belongs on a $3-bill.

You are supposed to honor and respect the dead. But you also must respect the truth, and live for the living - and this funeral has gone on for almost a week. I am in a car and I hear the radio announcer, who is supposed to be telling you news, whisper:

"The color guard quietly leaves the casket viewing area and marches with the colors towards the two hearses; they are taking no chances and have a backup ... "

I was waiting for him, or somebody next to him, to let out a sob.

For the funeral of Ronald Reagan, they took the body from Beverly Hills to Simi Valley, the white Los Angeles suburb, where it stayed for a day and a half or so then they drove it in one of these two hearses to the airport and flew it to Washington and then they had a march and afterwards put the casket into the Capitol for crowds to pass by and now there was to be another march and a religous service and then a drive to the airport, where the casket will be shuttled back to the airport south of Los Angeles and in a hearse to the final ceremony at his library on Friday. That is quite a funeral. They buried George Washingon in half the time.

You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral.

This man Reagan was 93 years old and out of it with Alzheimer's for many years and I don't see how anybody can summon grief. They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity.

The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights. And almost all the reporters agreed that Reagan was the man who brought down Russia in the Cold War.

Just saying this is absolutely sinful. The Cold War was won by a long memo written by George Kennan, who worked in the State Department and sent the memo by telegram about the need for a "Policy of Containment" on Russia. Kennan said the contradictions in their system would ruin them. Keep them where they are and they will tear themselves apart. We followed Kennan's policy for over 40 years. The Soviets made it worse on themselves by building a wall in East Berlin. When they had to tear it down and give up their system, Kennan was in Princeton and he sat down to dinner.

I thought that children were taught this. Instead, all week, reporters told us that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Beautiful.

Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was as real as the line he used to keep his fame alive. "Win one for the Gipper."

The line was complete Hollywood, down to agents who fought over it.

In 1938, a radio show, "Cavalcade of America," had a segment about coach Knute Rockne of Notre Dame and his star back, George Gipp, who was dying of pneumonia and supposedly said to Rockne, "Someday, when the team's up against it, the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got! Win one for the Gipper."

Warner Brothers bought the radio segment and assigned screen writer Robert Buckner to put the "Win one" line into his otherwise original screenplay of "Knute Rockne All American."

Pat O'Brien was Rockne and Reagan was George Gipp. Reagan delivered "Win one for the Gipper" extremely well; he was a lot better actor than he was supposed to be.

When the writers of the radio show saw the movie, they realized that this guy was getting their best line. "Win one ... "

"Where is ours?" they asked. Warner Brothers made a quick settlement and the film was released with Reagan's famous speech.

But for a television release, the line was taken out of the film because Warner didn't want to pay any more. It is back in the video, my friend Harry Haun notes in his book, "The Cinematic Century."

In government, he was as real as his trademark line. He was a callous man with a smile who cut taxes in 1981 and left this city and state without funds for such things as help for dependent children. He proudly hurt the boroughs of this city more than anyone before or after him. If you live in Brooklyn, the record shows that Ronald Reagan hated children. The city and state had to raise taxes to make up for money lost because of Reagan's great conservative movement. Reagan then raised taxes six times. He walked off, leaving us an enormous deficit but with a smile on his face that even the Gipper's fakery couldn't help us with.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

This is still the standard ... justly
In this week's observances of the death and burial of Ronald Reagan, the near-invisibility of his official biographer Edmund Morris is only underscored by the near-ubiquity of Lou Cannon. With Morris's disappointing "Dutch" already gathering dust, a decade of effort wasted, Cannon's "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime" is more and more becoming recognized as the best biography yet written of America's fortieth president.

This is as it should be. As Gerald Seib notes in today's Wall Street Journal, Cannon was seen even before the Gipper's election in 1980 as "the journalistic world's foremost authority on Reagan." He was "the only reporter Reagan knew well." In "Role of a Lifetime," Cannon employs this knowledge and access without abusing it. In calling the presidency a "role," Cannon doesn't join the ranks of those who (still) demean Reagan as "just an actor." Instead, he provides a sophisticated look at how Reagan viewed the office: not simply the nation's premier technocrat or legislative whip, but as a position with important symbolic and inspirational functions. After the dismal Carter years, America (and the world) needed a president who understood just what Theodore Roosevelt meant by the office as a "bully pulpit."

In recognizing Reagan's insight -- without either belittling or overpraising it -- Cannon has given himself a solid foundation on which to build a narrative rich in research, story, and understanding. People who come out of this week desiring to know more about this remarkable man and his impact on the world could do much worse than to start by reading Lou Cannon's "Role of a Lifetime." ... Read more

Book Description

"I swing big, with everything I've got. I hit big or I miss big. I like to live as big as I can." -- Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth is without a doubt the most famous character ever produced by the sport of baseball. A legendary player, world-famous for his hitting prowess, he transcended the sport to enter the mainstream of American life as an authentic folk hero.

In this extraordinary biography, noted sportswriter Robert W. Creamer reveals the complex man behind the sports legend. From Ruth's early days in a Baltimore orphanage, to the glory days with the Yankees, to his later years, Creamer has drawn a classic portrait of an American original. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Excellent Biography
An engrossing, informative biography of baseball's greatest player. Some biographers make the mistake of rattling off facts and statistics, as if to impress you with how much research they've done. Creamer wisely focuses on the story, including descriptions of important games that make you feel like you're on the field with the Babe. Comments by Ruth's contemporaries add to the realism. "Babe" gets off to a slow start--a chapter dealing with Creamer's feelings about writing the book, and more details about Ruth's childhood than you probably want to know. But once Ruth starts playing baseball, the book grabs you and won't let go. One caveat: the discussion of Ruth's womanizing, while necessary and not extensive, makes this book inappropriate for young readers. If you like baseball and want to learn more about Babe Ruth, this is the book to get.

A Legendary story by Robert Creamer
Of the 200+ baseball books I've read, "Babe: The Legend Comes to Life" is my favorite. Creamer wrote the book while some of the old-timers were still alive, and this makes his story come to life. If you want to learn about Babe Ruth, this is the definitive book to read.

A Gritty and Detailed Portrayal
This is a comprehensive book on our favorite early 20th century player from Baltimore. 50 years after his death he remains possibly the greatest, and no doubt the most famous, player to have ever entered the major leagues.

This book can best be described as warts and all. It starts with his rough childhood in an orphanage - which was basically a reform school - and how the Babe just excelled and became a natural player and hitter. It goes on and chronicles his rowdy life on and off the field, his indulgences and his mishaps until his premature death. He was not a man of moderation or a person that was able to pace his life. He was the opposite of say the current but now retired " Iron Man" Cal Ripken also from near Baltimore but a person famous for moderation. "The Babe"would often show up with a hangover and little sleep for a game. Then he would stuff himself with hotdogs during a game and still knock the ball out of the park.

He was a fascinating person, bigger than life, and every baseball fan must buy or borrow and read this book.

Five stars.

Jack in Toronto

Superior Babe Ruth Biography
Author Robert Creamer has created one of the finest George Herman "Babe" Ruth biographies. This book incorporates a plurality of fascinatingly engrossing details about the baseball career and non-baseball activities of Babe Ruth.
This portrait describes Babe evolving from his tumultuous life in Baltimore as the delinquent son of a saloonkeeper into whom many people consider as the greatest baseball hitter and baseball player of all time.
Robert Creamer gives the reader an exceptionally in-depth description of Babe Ruth's life activities, attitudes and habits before the beginning of his major league baseball career. Creamer even mentions a few facts about Babe's minor league baseball playing roommate Rodger Pippen who roomed with Ruth during their 1914 International League season. Although not germane to the Babe's career I do wish that Creamer had given a very brief history about Rodger Pippen's history and his later-to-be significance to Baltimore. Pippen's International League statistics for that 1914 season were omitted. After Pippen's baseball career he later became a notable sports editor for the "Baltimore News-Post". Rodger Pippen was the primary individual who convinced Baltimore to create Memorial Stadium n the early 1950's. It is also believed that he may have been the first individual to create the phrase "Believe-It-Or-Not!". Rodger Pippen was a longtime friend of my great-grandfather Boston Fear's family. When Babe Ruth was dying from cancer he decided to make one last trip back to Baltimore to visit Rodger Pippen, other friends and family.
Robert Creamer presents many detailed facets about Babe Ruth's baseball career with the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees and the Boston Braves. It would have been a bit more of an improvement if Creamer had explored the Babe's epic making record breaking 1927 sixty home run season in more exquisitely minute detail. The biography could also have given the reader a more behind-the-scenes explanation of the silent and talking movies the Babe played in. Also, Babe Ruth's life after his major league baseball career ( the retirement years ) and his off-season exhibition baseball performances could have gone into more depth. Perhaps some day a Ruthian baseball scholar will write a book comprising these oft-overlooked topics.
Robert Creamer's book splendidly evokes an appreciation of how highly important Babe Ruth was to revolutionizing and popularizing baseball. This biography is most definitely one of the "must-read" books about Babe Ruth. Every baseball lover should possess a copy of this book on their home bookshelf.
Babe Ruth may very well be the most famous American athlete of all time. No less an authority as baseball hall-of-famer Ted Williams called Babe Ruth "the greatest baseball hitter and baseball player of all time" and that "Babe Ruth was Bunyanesque ( like the mythological folk tale Paul Bunyan ) bigger than life".
For a small state in geographical square mile area Maryland certainly has produced an unusual statistically high proportion of Baseball Hall of Fame players ( e.g. Babe Ruth, Jimmy Foxx, John Franklin "Home Run" Baker, Judy Johnson, Robert Moses "Lefty" Grove, Al Kaline ) or potential-to-be Baseball Hall of Fame inductees ( e.g. Cal Ripken, Jr., Harold Baines, Bill "Swish" Nicholson ). However our state is very proud to state that we produced "The Sultan of Swat" , "The Bambino", "The Maharajah of Maul", etc. who is otherwise known as George Herman "Babe" Ruth! Even some of Babe Ruth's descendants today live around the Baltimore, Hagerstown and Salisbury cities of Maryland.

the Bambino lives!
This a great book for baseball fans . sportslovers of all kinds and anyone interested in American history in the 20th century. Babe Ruth the icon is made human again for all of us who missed him when he played the game. The first sports celebrity in a nation that has gone on to become obsessed with celebrity and sports heroes. Babe paved the way in an era that saw tremendous change in American life. He is portrayed here " warts and all" and emerges as a warm hearted man with a huge appetite for living who was clearly in the right place at the right time.
This is one of the finest sports biographies I've read. ... Read more

Book Description

Few American presidents have exercised their constitutional authority as commander in chief with more determination than Franklin D. Roosevelt. He intervened in military operations more often and to better effect than his contemporaries Churchill and Stalin, and maneuvered events so that the Grand Alliance was directed from Washington. In this expansive history, Eric Larrabee examines the extent and importance of FDR's wartime leadership through his key military leaders-Marshall, King, Arnold, MacArthur, Vandergrift, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Stilwell, and LeMay.

Devoting a chapter to each man, the author studies Roosevelt's impact on their personalities, their battles (sometimes with each other), and the consequences of their decisions. He also addresses such critical subjects as Roosevelt's responsibility for the war and how well it achieved his goals. First published in 1987, this comprehensive portrait of the titans of the American military effort in World War II is available in a new paperback edition for the first time in sixteen years. 735 pages. 6 line drawings. Paperback. 6 x 9 inches. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Well Researched and Highly Regarded
This masterpiece book provides an excellent introduction to the top American military commanders, including the commander in chief, and the great work they did during World War Two. As a military enthusiast I found this to be one of the most well researched and informative books on America's involvement in World War Two.

It won awards for historical scholarship, both for military history and regular history, such as the Francis Parkman Prize given by the American Historican Society for the most outstanding work of history in a given year. This book is required reading for officers, ,military historians and casual readers interested in the war.

You will not find a better one-volume book on the American commanders.

Roosevelt and the American commanders emerged as the most important leaders for the Allies, which is not to suggest that other players were not important and excellent; they were. At first Churchill was the most important player for the Allies - a fine job he did - and the British military leaders were the veterans, while the Americans were still inexperienced and ill-prepared. However, Roosevelt and the American commanders soon earned the command of the Allied war strategy and execution.

What is so remarkable about Roosevelt is that he was magnificent at picking the right people for the right positions. Read the book and you will know what I mean.

A great example is admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was, afterall, the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict. King was a great hero and should receive more recognition for his work.

Another great leader, well known in the military community but less known to the general public, is George Marshall. He was essentially the commander of the United States military leading up to the war, and he maintained his position as chief of staff during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever - maybe of the war. Read about it in the book.

Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt leaned towards Eisenhower (the ideal choice) and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower.

The information on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book.

One last thought. Roosevelt was simply superb as commander in chief. He played a very important role in setting the correct war strategy and balanced the political forces. For example, he ordered the invasion of North Africa over initial objections from his commanders who wanted to concentrate only on an invasion of occupied France. Attacking North Africa turned out to be a brilliant move.

For the first time the American people feel like they were actively involved in the war. Roosevelt was correct to assert that it would be a bad decision to wait years to fight the Germans. The invasion also gave the military invaluable experience managing a military invasion and essential combat experience - they previously had none.

Overall, Roosevelt made all the right moves and surprisingly few mistakes; far fewer than any other world power.

Despite being an active leader, Roosevelt's other strength was that he delegated to his excellent commanders and let them do their work freely. Here is a quote from Admiral King:

"Churchill, fancying himself as a great strategist, and being so powerful personally, ruled his Chiefs of Staff with an iron hand, forcing them at all times to compliance with the policy as he and the War Cabinet laid it down... Roosevelt, on the other hand, trusted his Chiefs of Staff and thus gave them much more personal authority and immeasurably more freedom of action and of speech than was enjoyed by their British opposite numbers."

We all know about the enormous blunders that Hitler made as the dictator general, overruling his generals. He caused Germany to lose the war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was sublime.

My last thought is directed towards the reviewer who clearly is trying to slander Roosevelt by denouncing this excellent, scholarly and highly regarded book. To say that this exceptional book is bad history to attack Roosevelt is simply outrageous.

For the record, nobody with any serious military education believes the charge that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack. He did not. A book came out a few years ago completely lying about several key pieces of evidence, after most of the people originally involved and could speak out were dead. The book blatently misrepresented the MAGIC projects, such as stating that certain messages were encoded by the Japanese in the diplomatic code when they were in fact CLEARLY coded in the naval code, which had not been broken yet.

The Pearl Harbor commission concluded years ago that nobody knew about he Pearl Harbor attack, and EVERY reputable World War Two historian and book agrees. I know. I've almost read them all!

Commander in Chief
This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.

Useful for Personality Gossip, But Not Serious Students
Although I found some of the personality intrigue interesting, the writing was so off-putting at times that it made skimming a virtue. Unfortunately, I cannot take Larrabee seriously as a scholar because of some notable and clearly refutable statements that his admirers are either unaware of, or simply unwilling to acknowledge. A visit to page 83 of the hardcover edition provides ample evidence of sloppiness, untruthfulness, and even vanity -- which of course gets Larrabee into trouble as you will see. When addressing the topic of FDR's foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Larrabee claims "that there is no substantiating evidence whatever." A quick perusal of the reams of interviews with high-level British military and diplomatic sources, agreements between Japan and Germany, intercepted coded messages, and most recently the work of Stinnett (which came after Larrabee's book was published, but which only puts the final dunce cap on Larrabee) make Larrabee's claim absurd. A key objection raised by Larrabee is that Roosevelt, who really would have preferred war with Germany according to Larrabee, would not have provoked Japan into war because there would be no guarantee that Germany would declare war against the U.S. Unfortunately for this argument, Roosevelt was aware of an intercepted diplomatic message between the Japanese ambassador and Von Ribbentrop in which the German foreign minister stated that Germany would join Japan immediately if Japan went to war with the U.S. Furthermore, FDR's cabinet member, Harold Ickes had stated, "For a long time I've believed our best entrance into the war would be [via] Japan...which will inevitably lead to war against Germany." Too many of FDR's defenders raise this same argument -- as if like garlic to a vampire it somehow wards off all questioning of FDR's character or knowledge by means of its devestating effect, which of course is devestating only to those who try to wield it.
Even worse than Larrabee's ignorance is his lack of education -- which, combined with his academic's vanity, deals a serious question mark to his accuracy and perhaps his personal honesty. He resorts to the invalid "argument from authority" or "appealing to the gallery" (choose the fallacy you wish as he seems to rely upon them rather heavily). Again on page 83, after claiming an absolute absense of evidence (and I direct readers to a raft of books on the subject all with plenty of evidence, including Toland, Morgenstern, Beach, and John Denson in addition to Stinnett), he claims that those who claim FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor are reduced to "arguing that its nonexistence proves the existence of a conspiracy to suppress it. Credo quia absurdum." Not only is this stretching the truth (the part in English), but Larrabee's misquoted and re-constructed Latin phrase is a telling reminder of both his vanity and desperation to impress us with what he wishes were his vast compendium of learning. First of all, the early Christian theologian, Tertullian actually wrote, "Certum est quia impossible est." What I believe happened here is that Larrabee, wishing to pepper his text with something learned beyond the usual phrases such as "modus vivendi," pulled out of his imperfect memory a misquote or else relied upon an inferior source of quotations that was published in English. He then found the phrase, "I believe because it is absurd." This is a commonly encountered mis-translation of Tertullian. But providing the English quote was apparently not sufficient for Larrabee. Wishing to stun us with his vast learning, he attempted to rely upon his (probable) high-school Latin -- which turned out to be a very weak reed indeed -- and made a sorry attempt to do some clumsy Latin composition of his own so that he could use italics lettering in his text. Uh-oh. Mistake. Latin composition requires knowledge, not an amateur or diletante such as Mr. Larrabee. The result? A perceptive reader notices such things and realizes he is dealing with an intellectual lightweight, not a scholar. I wonder if the education institutions with which he was affiliated were ever aware of this streak. If he taught at a university, he must have been insufferable. He certainly isn't among the cognoscenti. Needless to say, things like this cast a pall over the remainder of his book. Ciao!

Good Read on the Leadership Behind the War
If you want a good read on the overall strategy and leadership qualities that these men brought to our country in its finest hour, then take off your shoes and settle into your favorite armchair. The referencing that went into the book is impressive. The facts are stunning. The leadership was impressive.

First Rate Sketches of WWII Military Leaders
Larrabee presents a convincing study of FDR as a shrewd strategist. However, I was quite taken by his concise, penetrating pieces on Marshall, Eisenhower, Nimitz, and King all whom came alive to this reader. His treatments of Arnold, Vandergrift, MacArthur, Stillwell, and LeMay are also well done. Never having read much on either Marshall and Eisenhower, I came away from this book with a profound respect for both men.If for some reason you labor under the illusion that Eisenhower is merely a "political general", read this book. Look at this way. George C. Marshall, a man whose strength of character is equalled only by maybe Robert E. Lee, handpicked Eisenhower. That in itself speaks volumes about Ike. King emerges as perhaps the best strategist of this star-studded group. It is indeed a shame that the hard-nosed, brilliant King is virtually forgotten. The author peppers his writing with lively anecdotes that keep the reader alert and provide telling insights to these men who made the decisions that brought us victory in WWII. Read this book if for no other reason than to enjoy Larrabee's wonderfully crafted treatments of these titans of WWII. ... Read more

Book Description

Veteran sports writer Bill Gutman not only chronicles the evolution of the home run, but also deescribes what constitutes a hitter ball park, how the baseball itself has evolved over the years. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Horse of a Different Color
The reviews listed on Amazon don't begin to address the fact that for most historians, and those living during the 1930's and 1940's, Harry Hopkins was Roosevelt's right hand man, and after reading the 1987 biography of Hopkins, it's very easy to come to the unestablished but logical analysis that it was all about Harry from 1935 when Roosevelt was elected until 1946 when Truman came into office. The attempt to discredit Hopkins or write him out of history is a big mistake, and the entire history needs to be done again with a view toward his very large role to prove or disprove the 1987 biography which doesn't say so, but doesn't have to say so, that Roosevelt would have been nowhere without the efforts of this close friend, inhabitant of the White House, negotiator, New Dealer, and operations genius behind the Roosevelt throne.

Harry Hopkins - Hero or Spy
I'm writing this "review" to bring some clarity to the previous reviews. Supposedly, according to the book the "Verona Secrets," Harry Hopkins was a spy. However, please note that this declaration seems to be the opinion of the far right. (Note the reviews on Amazon.com for the "Verona Papers" as well as the conservative internet zine NewsMax.com .) On the other hand, any knee-jerk hero worship is equally suspect. So draw your own view! But not from this book - its emphasis is pre- New Deal!

Response to quack
The reader from PA is a quack. There is no evidence, Venoma included, that proves Hopkins a Soviet spy! There were many in the Roosevelt Administration, especially in the Treasury Department, but among those closest to FDR Hopkins was not a spy.

Hopkins' book is excellent and should be read in conjunction with the works by McJimsey, Tuttle, and Sherwood.

A book tht only a granddaughter could write!!
I felt like I had entered the twilight zone. A fawning tale about the highest ranking foreign spy in American history that fails to even deal with the now universally accepted truth that Hopkins was a Soviet Agent. How this book could have been published subsequent to the release of the Venona documentation is a mystery that can only be explained by the fact that the publisher is The Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute Series on Diplomatic and Economic History. Your grandfather was a traitor, Ms. Hopkins deal with it. ... Read more

Book Description

The extraordinary life of Jackie Robinson is illuminated as never before in this full-scale biography by Arnold Rampersad, who was chosen by Jack's widow, Rachel, to tell her husband's story, and was given unprecedented access to his private papers. We are brought closer than we have ever been to the great ballplayer, a man of courage and quality who became a pivotal figure in the areas of race and civil rights.

Born in the rural South, the son of a sharecropper, Robinson was reared in southern California. We see him blossom there as a student-athlete as he struggled against poverty and racism to uphold the beliefs instilled in him by his mother--faith in family, education, America, and God.

We follow Robinson through World War II, when, in the first wave of racial integration in the armed forces, he was commissioned as an officer, then court-martialed after refusing to move to the back of a bus. After he plays in the Negro National League, we watch the opening of an all-American drama as, late in 1945, Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers recognized Jack as the right player to break baseball's color barrier--and the game was forever changed.

Jack's never-before-published letters open up his relationship with his family, especially his wife, Rachel, whom he married just as his perilous venture of integrating baseball began. Her memories are a major resource of the narrative as we learn about the severe harassment Robinson endured from teammates and opponents alike; about death threats and exclusion; about joy and remarkable success. We watch his courageous response to abuse, first as a stoic endurer, then as a fighter who epitomized courage and defiance.

We see his growing friendship with white players like Pee Wee Reese and the black teammates who followed in his footsteps, and his embrace by Brooklyn's fans. We follow his blazing career: 1947, Rookie of the Year; 1949, Most Valuable Player; six pennants in ten seasons, and 1962, induction into the Hall of Fame.

But sports were merely one aspect of his life. We see his business ventures, his leading role in the community, his early support of Martin Luther King Jr., his commitment to the civil rights movement at a crucial stage in its evolution; his controversial associations with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Humphrey, Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and Malcolm X.

Rampersad's magnificent biography leaves us with an indelible image of a principled man who was passionate in his loyalties and opinions: a baseball player who could focus a crowd's attention as no one before or since; an activist at the crossroads of his people's struggle; a dedicated family man whose last years were plagued by illness and tragedy, and who died prematurely at fifty-two. He was a pathfinder, an American hero, and he now has the biography he deserves. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

This book cooks!
I wasn't a huge baseball fan when I started this book, but I'd heard of Jackie Robinson. I used to think I knew who he was. Well, you don't anything until you read this book! The comforting text inches over every exciting aspect of Jackie Robinson's life. It was written using information that Jackie Robinson's wife provided for the first time. The topics range from rising above racism to sharing personal family experiences. If you love baseball, this book is absolutely for you. However, if you're not really into sports (like me), then you'll still adore this true-life story that seems almost unreal.

Brings the Legend who was Jackie Robinson to life.
In his excellent biography of Brooklyn Dodgers infielder Jackie Robinson, author Arnold Rampersad has painted with a crisp and lively narrative an objective, balanced , and candid portrait of a legend. Here is seen the complex, driven man that was Jackie Robinson, "warts" and all. He was the proud and fiercely determined African American athlete, extraordinarily gifted in at least four sports; a sometimes overly sensitive man who despised racism always fought against it, even in the pre-Civil Rights era of the 1930s and 1940s, and even at the risk of conviction by military court-martial. He used an unconquerable will and ambition to became a football, baseball, basketball and track star at Pasadena Junior College; one of the greatest football running backs in UCLA history, and ultimately, under the guidance of legendary Brooklyn Dodgers General Manager Branch Rickey, the first African American professional baseball player of the modern era. Rampersad traces Robinson's struggle against racism during his early Dodger years; it is a poignant and compelling story.

The book also shows the more human side of Robinson: a quiet and sensitive man, and a political activist whose fight for racial equality was consistent throughout his life; a wonderfully loving husband but sometimes distant father; and a businessman of tremendous integrity. At Rampersad's hands, Jackie Robinson is a genuinely heroic and admirable person. This is a book which allows the reader to really get to know its subject. It is one of the finest biographies I've read in many years. Highly recommended!

Terrific Read
This biography does an outstanding job of giving an overview of Robinson's life and times, from his early, awnry but talented years in Pasadena, through UCLA, then the military, and then the Brooklyn Dodgers and beyond. It paints a picture of a strong willed gentleman with enormous pride, dedicated to his family, and dedicated to the idea of racial integration and equality. The influences of his mother on his early, somewhat (understandably) confrontational character, that allowed him to ultimately be the individual who paired with Branch Rickey to integrate "America's Pastime" are clearly laid out.

Some reviewers have faulted the author for not being more interpretive of Robinson's politics - specifically, that he was a Nixon supporter in 1960 and a Rockefeller supporter in 1968 (while also being a strong supporter of Civil Rights, active in almost every civil rights organization) and Humphrey supporter as well. I think the book lays out all the facts for the reader to see for themselves. Robinson's coming of age - in an era when a Dixiecrat from a Jim Crow state (LBJ) led the passage of the Civil Rights Act - was a time of a shifting political landscape that didn't settle out until near his death (he also broke badly with Nixon later in Nixon's career). The Republican party's mantra of self-reliance, and Robinson's determination to succeed in business in the same way he did in sports, made his attraction to the party not a big leap; the alienation of this country's African American establishment from big business was not a pre-ordained fact in the time Robinson lived.

Finally, Robinson's own family struggles were also a reflection of the confusing and troubling times in which he lived.

Robinson died too young for us all. This is a great book and I would highly recommend it..

an engrossing, human story
i'm not particularly interested in baseball, but i am particularly interested in American history from the human perspective. i could have read a much more dry account of the turmoils that dominated American race relations throughout the middle of the 20th century, but instead i've read this fascinating account of those terrible, backward days from the perspective of a true pioneer, Mr. Jackie Robinson.

of course he is looked back on now as a symbol, a mythological figure. i always knew peripherally of Jackie as the same thing most people do: the first black man to play major league baseball, a step forward & up in the painful struggle of the times. but this book presents him as a human being, a fallible man who lived most of his life not on the baseball field, but in a relentless pursuit of his ideals and desire for a better life for himself and everyone around him.

the reviewer before me questions the biographer's lack of judgement of Robinson. i am curious as to why he feels Rampersad should insert his own analysis; the biography presents analyses of Robinson by many of Robinson's contemporaries, and then presents the recorded facts available to clarify incidents & statements. yes, this is an intensely personal biography, perhaps too personal in places. it is very much centered on Jackie's private correspondences. it is absolutely told from Robinson's persepctive, as best can be reconstructed from his widow Rachel & the papers he left behind, but it feels very honest, not at all like an airbrushed bit of hero-polishing. it is in places very blunt about Jackie's shortcomings as observed by his peers & contemporaries.

before i stretch this out any longer, i'll just say that this is the most engrossing biography i can ever recall having read. it's an account of a fascinating life in an amazingly recent time, in an America that seems so long ago but is still discouragingly recent. readers will learn not just about Jackie Robinson, but about two American eras as well.

Pulls its punch
Professor's Rampersad's biography of Jackie Robinson is a book that's needed now. It's incredibly informative about the man behind the legend. (I think Roger Angell's blurb sums it up: "[the] book arrives just in time to save the man from his own legend.") However, Rampersad doesn't focus much on Robinson's baseball life, and he seems to be holding back judgment on Robinson despite the opportunities to do so.

Before digging in the dirt, I want to say that this book is crisply written and chock full o' facts about Robinson's life. Rampersad obviously had the full support of Robinson's widow, Rachel, and her views are constantly felt throughout the book. It's almost told from her point of view, in fact, and thus feels like a intimate, loving homage to the man.

But there are some issues and character flaws in Robinson that Rampersad shows or hints at, but never fully explores. For example, we never truly felt the force of the hatred leveled against Robinson during his efforts to integrate baseball. There are a few quick references to name-calling, a couple of pitches thrown his way, but what made Robinson so bitter, what filled him with the hatred that so obviously ate at him later in his career? It's implied, rather than shown, as if it were too terrible even to discuss. On the whole, the chapters on Robinson's baseball career are woefully thin. It's clear that Rampersad is not much of a baseball fan - including a few factual errors about the sport's rules and game play - and it's a shame, because baseball is as much about its stories as it is about its action.

And then there's Robinson's role as Civil Rights' leader, which Rampersad describes, but withholds all judgment on. Why exactly did Robinson favor the Republican Party, even long after it was obvious that the GOP proved to be the party of segregation and white privilege? Also Rampersad only hints at the acrimony and in-fighting between Robinson and such organizations as the NAACP and SLCC.

Presented with the facts supplied by Rampersad, it seemed that Robinson was a vain, proud, and sensitive man, who was extremely susceptible to flattery, especially from powerful whites. It also seems that his success in baseball convinced him that he would be successful in other areas, especially politics. But it seemed that he was over his head in that area, always a tool of the professionals, Nixon and Rockerfeller.

Notice I say "seem" a lot! That's because Rampersad never states any of this outright, he only hints at it - enough to acknowledge these characteristics, but fails to explore them. Rampersad never digs into Robinson's psychology, never explains or contemplates motivation, cause, or effect of any of Robinson's endeavors. It's so easy on Robinson that I suspect Rampersad wrote this book for Robinson's widow - or maybe her approval of the book was necessary as part of some deal for use of her letters. Or perhaps Rampersad was too aware of Robinson's near-saint-like stature in our nation's culture to find any fault with the man. In any case, he definitely pulls all punches, and the book, though informative, feels incomplete.

Yes, Robinson was a hero. Yes, he was courageous. But he was also a man, full of frailties and inconsistencies, just like the rest of us. To withhold judgement does him as much diservice as it does us... ... Read more

Book Description

Sharon Robinson shares memories of her famous father in this warm loving biography of the man who broke the color barrier in baseball. Jackie Robinson was an outstanding athlete, a devoted family man and a dedicated civil rights activist. The author explores the fascinating circumstances surrounding Jackie Robinson's breakthrough. She also tells the off-the-field story of Robinson's hard-won victories and the inspiring effect he had on his family, his community. . . his country! Includes never-before-published letters by Jackie Robinson, as well as photos from the Robinson family archives. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Kept Promises and Social Change
Promises to Keep: How Jackie Robinson Changed America

In this wonderful biography,Sharon Robinson shares her father with us as a daughter who held her father in high regard not only for his achievements in breaking the color barrier in baseball, but also for his hard won victories in politics, busines, civil rights and as a family man. Through love letters to his wife Rachel, photos from the family's archive and Sharon's deft writing hand, readers get to spend time with Jackie Robinson and come to understand how he navigated his way through the treachery of racism to become an integral part of creating another important chapter in the social contract with America.

As the Vice President of Educational Programming for Major League Baseball and an author, Sharon Robinson continues to preserve her father's legacy--well. ... Read more

Book Description

Winner of the 1982 National Book Award for Biography, Mornings on Horseback is the brilliant biography of the young Theodore Roosevelt. Hailed as a masterpiece by Newsday, it is the story of a remarkable little boy -- seriously handicapped by recurrent and nearly fatal attacks of asthma -- and his struggle to manhood.

His father -- the first Theodore Roosevelt, "Greatheart," -- is a figure of unbounded energy, enormously attractive and selfless, a god in the eyes of his small, frail namesake. His mother -- Mittie Bulloch Roosevelt -- is a Southerner and celebrated beauty.

Mornings on Horseback spans seventeen years -- from 1869 when little "Teedie" is ten, to 1886 when he returns from the West a "real life cowboy" to pick up the pieces of a shattered life and begin anew, a grown man, whole in body and spirit.

This is a tale about family love and family loyalty...about courtship, childbirth and death, fathers and sons...about gutter politics and the tumultuous Republican Convention of 1884...about grizzly bears, grief and courage, and "blessed" mornings on horseback at Oyster Bay or beneath the limitless skies of the Badlands. ... Read more

Book Description

Jackie Robinson was the first African American to play baseball in the modern major leagues. That may not seem like a big deal today -- but in 1947 it was a very big deal. Until Jackie stepped up to the plate, African Americans couldn't play on most professional sports teams.

TIME For Kids® Biographies help make a connection between the lives of past heroes and the events of today. Because of Jackie's courage and perseverance, people of all colors now participate in America's favorite pastime. Jackie worked hard and proved to the world that it's your character and talent -- not the color of your skin -- that really matters.

Reviews (1)

learned alot
This is a biography for kids on Jackie Robinson.He was a famous African american baseball player.He had to work really hard and ignore rude comment from many fans.Most people in his days did not like black and whites playing together.He took the bad and pushed it aside and became a better person and player!


The book was not too long and not too short. It contained the right amount of information for kids.



I would recommend this book to kids who are learning about the Jackie Robinson. I learned a lot from reading this book.He is a great role model for kids today. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Why did Pulitzer-winning Theodore Roosevelt biographer Edmund Morris controversially choose to write his authorized biography of Ronald Reagan in the form of a historical novel? There's a clue in a quote the book attributes to Jane Wyman, Reagan's first wife. As Ronnie speechified about the Red Menace at a 1940s Hollywood party, Wyman allegedly whispered to a friend, "I'm so bored with him, I'll either kill him or kill myself." This anecdote, if true, is more revealing than Nancy Reagan's charge in the book that Jane had attempted suicide to get Ronnie to marry her in the first place. Jane was no intellectual--Morris cracks that "If Jane had ever heard of Finland, she probably thought it was an aquarium"--but he found to his horror, after years of research, that he felt much the same as Wyman. Reagan was as boring as a box of rocks, as elusive as a ghost.

Decades before Alzheimer's clouded Reagan's mind, he showed a terrifying lack of human presence. "I was real proud when Dad came to my high school commencement," reports his son, Michael Reagan. After posing for photos with Michael and his classmates, the future president came up to him, looked right in his eyes, and said, "Hi, my name's Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" Poor Michael replied, "Dad, it's me. Your son. Mike."

Despite deep research and unprecedented access--no previous biography has ever been authorized by a sitting president--Morris could get no closer to Reagan's elusive soul than Reagan's own kids could. So Morris decided to dramatize Reagan's life with several invented characters--including a fictionalized version of himself and an imaginary gossip columnist who makes wicked comments on Reagan's career. This is one weird tactic, forcing the reader constantly to consult the footnotes at the back of the book to sort things out, and Morris makes it tougher by presenting his invented characters as real, even in the footnotes.

Ultimately, the hubbub over Morris's odd method is beside the point. His speculative entry into Reagan's life and mind is plausible, dramatic, literary, and lit by dazzling flashes of insight. The narrator watches the young Reagan as a lifeguard (years before the real Morris was born):

One tunnels along in a shroud of silvery bubbles, insulated from any sight or sound.... Others may swim alongside for a while, but their individuality tends to refract away, through the bubbles and the blur. Often I have marveled at Reagan's cool, unhurried progress through crises of politics and personnel, and thought to myself, He sees the world as a swimmer sees it.

We cannot verify Morris's notion that Reagan probably approved the illegal Iran-Contra funding without having a clue it was illegal, or that the "Star Wars" program sprang from his love of Edgar Rice Burroughs's first novel, A Princess of Mars, which featured glass-domed cities. But however bizarre and ignorant his thoughts were, however cold his heart, Morris believes, the guy did crush the Evil Empire and achieve greatness. Morris achieves a kind of greatness, too, but one wishes he had written a more straightforward dramatization of history. --Tim Appelo ... Read more

Reviews (279)

Pathetic as History....Poor as Biography!
Morris' literary technique is particularly maddening in the first half of the book (the years when Morris wasn't around and pretends he and other fictional characters were). Much of the information and characterization he intends to convey through this literary device could have been conveyed through the more traditional biographical narrative. In other areas his style is choppy and many ideas are left undeveloped. Events are often left hanging with no conclusion or evaluation. One would expect much better from a historian....Morris is really a disappointment. There is virtually no mention of Reagan's time as governor in California or his network of friends in high places from his California past. The coverage of Reagan's management (or lack of) and infighting within his presidential administration is almost non-existent. There are plenty of memoirs out there from people who worked with Reagan in Washington and Morris has no excuse for this lack of detail. For much keener insights, one should go to works by George Shultz or Frances Fitgerald's "Way Out There in the Blue."

The strength of the book is the portrayal of some of Reagan's personality quirks during the presidential years, the period when Morris was present to witness many of the president's actions and his interactions with those around him. A great deal of first hand information is presented that presents a rather frightening picture at times. Mr. Morris portrays Ronald Reagan with serious flaws, but in the end, admires him...although he has trouble convincing the reader exactly why.

I cannot, in all honesty, say that this book is not worth a try, but it is a big disappointment and clearly much better biographies will be forthcoming.

Flawed approach, but engrossing reading
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say up front that I was a Reagan supporter from his bid against Gerald Ford in 1976 through his presidency. Unlike many of my fellow Reaganites, however, I basically liked this book -- with a caveat.

Edmund Morris' biography of Ronald Reagan is a mixed bag. First, to the controversial "device" employs: His use of fictional characters in a biography. Morris uses these characters (primarily a fictionalized, 30-year older version himself, and a fictional lifelong friend, Paul Rae) to tell Reagan's story from a "we-were-there" perspective. This "device" is used extensively in the narrative of Reagan's childhood through his waning days as a Hollywood heavyweight, as we see the characters coming in peripheral and, occasionally, direct contact with "Dutch." Morris and his publishers aruge that htis is a bold experiment in biographical writing. Not really. It's historical fiction with footnotes.

And footnotes abound. Fully 200 pages of extensive notes (many culled from the author's abundant interviews with Reagan during his presidency and afterward) add considerable heft to the 600+ pages of narrative. Thankfully, the literary "device" mentioned above is not extended to Reagan. Every word he utters in "Dutch" is documented.

Morris' writing is superb. His style in "Dutch" reminded me somewhat of Don DeLilo (see "Libra" and "Underground"), making "Dutch" an engrossing read. In Morris' book, you see not only the historical Reagan, but to the extent it can be done in black and white, you "feel" Dutch in all his complexities, shades and hues.

The bottom line is, Morris did not need to employ fictional devices to tell Ronald Reagan's story. The fictional characters were sometimes annoying and often distracting. But putting them aside, you have a vibrant and sometimes critical portrait of a towering personality.

A disgrace, and a waste: A terrible book, great president
This book is unbelievably bad. The truly sad thing, however, is that Morris had a unique access to Reagan just before he became seriously ill. That is a missed opportunity that will never be repeated. What is stunning is the insistence of the writer that he is more imortant than the subject, and his weird mix of fiction, biography and anecdote. It flops completely - I have perhaps never felt this way about a book before. There are a few reviews here that talk about the book being honest - in fact, it is profoundly dishonest in its mix of truth and lies.

Ronald Reagan was a larger-than-life president who transformed the world. His economic and plitical and dilpomatic legacy lives on. His integrity and vision honesty and honor inspired millions. This book might have captured some of that - or at least tried. Instead, the author creates a book that is not even non-fiction. A disgrace.

A Man Who Likes the Sound of His Own Voice
I was challenged by a friend of mine, that if I really appreciated Ronald Reagan, I would have to prove it by wading through what is arguably the worst book on Reagan. I have to say that he was right. I am about half-way through, and I doubt that I'll be able to finish. It's like being cornered by the most boring person at a party, who likes the sound of his own voice--regardless of whether he is saying anything interesting or not. The way that he has hijacked a biography on Reagan, and placed his own history like a leach on the primary story, leaves me gasping for air. This is only surpassed by his repetitive and abusive use of foreign clichés, as if he was looking down his nose at the poor, illiterate peasant who has scraped together enough money to pay homage to Lord Morris by purchasing his magnificent tome. Save your money, and read a good biography on Reagan instead. Even for free, it's not worth the price.

Interesting, worthwhile, a elegant failure worth reading.
Edmund Morris's book is an unusual book. In short, I found it interesting, worthwhile and well documented.

Mr. Morris is apparently the first biographer writer ever to be assigned the task of writing about a sitting President in American history with the approval and access to the POTUS himself while in office.

First, my criticisms: Mr. Morris, despite unprecedented access to POTUS Reagan, was unable to get inside the man. Mr. Reagan was not an introspective person apparently. Although he was a gifted writer, Reagan was not possessed by great philosophical fervent. Simply, he believed what he believed. And, let's face it, his own children and advisers never go to know the entire men either!!! Thus, Mr. Morris was left with the choice of inserting fictional characters into the book as a sort of doppelganger device to move the narrative along. These characters observe Reagan during his college days, and go on through his presidency. An interesting choice, to say the least.

Does this device work? To a certain extent, yes. The device allows Morris to explain Reagan in an interesting manner. However, it becomes irritating because as fictional character, Morris must breathe life into people, whether based on real life people (for example Morris's own relatives) or not. At first, it is unintelligible to understand what is occurring. I asked myself many times whether Morris had lost his mind. By 150 pages into the book, I began to think Morris was some kind of genius. After all the insertion of the characters allows Morris to explore themes occurring in America that Reagan was either immune from, or unable to explain himself. Also, it allows Morris to explain things about Reagan that may not have worked in a conventional biography. For example, Morris uses people to explore the counter-establishment movement of the 1960's, the years of Reagan in Hollywood, and than Morris discusses himself during Reagan's presidency itself, and his reactions to some the key moments. While there is a correct viewpoint to arguing that Morris violates the wall of separation between scribe and subject, Morris was there, he saw these events and can react to them as an actor in the vast drama.

Morris also uses mock film scripts to play out scenes. A writer and another character mock Reagan in Hollywood and his films. It is a worthwhile device that gets muddled at times, irrelevant at other moments, and altogether weird at further moments.

Another criticism is how the book seems to gloss over periods of Reagan's life. Most of the book is about how Reagan came to the presidency itself, not the events of his presidency in a blow-by-blow account. This is both irritating and interesting, as Morris apparently seems to hint that Reagan the president was formed by his previous experience, and that the best clues about the man are his formative years, not the moments we all associate with Reagan, such as the Bitburg 'fiasco,' Normandy - 'The Boys of Pont du Hoc,' the Soviet summits, and the like.

To me the worst part of this book is the intellectual tripe Morris uses. As a writer myself, I have learned that the quickest way to turn off an audience is to insult them, talk above them, and to utilize foreign languages. Here Morris constantly uses French that is beyond my comprehension. I think Morris has a point to this, perhaps, but his use of the device is profoundly aggravating!

Also, I will say that Morris does use language that many readers of the book will find offensive considering that Reagan himself rarely used profanity.

The positive: The book is very well documented. The footnotes are very well-done. Morris is an excellent writer (who came the Reagan's attention for Morris' Pulitzer Prize winning biog