Ken Howard Books

Really, really boring. A novel about lawyers talking to lawyers about bribing a judge. No suspense, no character development, no story. I've liked everything Turow has written, up until this. What would motivate Turow to produce something like this?

I listened to this book on tape. The book is forgetable. The bad guy turned 'mole' because of wife's deadly illness felt like an contrived 8th grade plot. The story is narrated through the bad guy's lawyer but is confusing since the lawyer is such a minor, minor character. The story is mostly 3rd person narrative based on the lawyer's ideas of what happened.

I really tried to enjoy this book, but it just couldn't catch my interest. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, and except for a brief period towards the end, it never did. There was an extra aspect of emotion for me because my father died of ALS when he was 59 and I was 24. So those parts were a bit difficult to read. But overall the story didn't enthrall me. I usually read novels in a weekend, and this one took over a month.

Scott Turow is a magnificent writer, one of the great living American writers now that George V. Higgins is no longer in our midst.I won't say too much about it except to heartily recommend it to any serious reader who seeks eloquence and brilliance in the stories they read. There could be some readers who find this book tedious (those who seek a brisker pace like the works of John Grisham).
This book is brilliantly detailed and has endless substance.
Read it, you won't be disappointed. Those who haven't read his prior works will be introduced to a literary icon !! Jay Wickramasinghe, Citrus Heights, California

Robbie Feaver is a successful personal injury lawyer in Turow's Kindle County, and he plays the part to the hilt. He's a flashy dresser, plays women, drives an expensive car, the whole nine yards. Underneath the slick exterior, however, lurk some surprises. One of the surprises is that he has been bribing judges. It's not that he's a bad guy, it's just that he's a victim of the system. Now he's been discovered and must wear a wire to expose the corrupt judges.

PERSONAL INJURIES is, in many ways, a pretty good book. The characters are well-drawn, complex, and believable. The plot has some surprises in store for the reader, and the legal manuvering is interesting and clear. What's missing is a sense of urgency. The story meanders along and, while the problems confronted have some intensity, they aren't really compelling. This isn't one of those books where you just want to keep turning the page to see what will happen next.

Promotional blurbs on the back cover describe PERSONAL INJURIES as "smashing...absorbing" and describe a legal "thriller". Unfortunately, it falls a little short of theose adjectives. Well-written and possessing great chacterization it is, but there's not much action and it lacks the pace of a first-rate thriller.

Ken Howard (most famous for his TV show "The White Shadow") narrates this 6 hour abridgment of a below par political thriller.

Filled with undeveloped story threads that promise something interesting but rarely deliver (the VP has alzheimers, militias are out to assassinate the candidate, the candidate's wife is a bigwig in the CIA, there's dirt on the candidate - all for naught) "The Run" is a great example of a political thriller for people who do not really follow politics. Lots of things won't sit right with folks who watch politics -primaries are still happening in July and August, there is at least one brokered convention (another one is hinted at but it may have been abridged out of my version), the amounts of money spent are tiny, even by year 2000 standards.

Perhaps strangest of all, Bill Clinton is referenced several times throughout this book which purports to be about the year 2000 election. Strangely, Clinton is not the president at the time of the 2000 election, nor had he been removed by impeachment in the story (Woods would have been writing this at the time of Clinton's impeachment). Why not make the election the 2004 or 2008 election? Not a big deal, but it bothered me throughout.

Skip this one. If you want to read a good Stuart Woods thriller, read Chiefs: A Novel (25th Anniversary Edition) or White Cargo.

4 hours of my life I will never get back. I wish I was the type that could stop reading garbage once I start a book because it was quite obvious early on.

The Margin
Congressman Will Lee has decided to run for President of the U.S., the story develops around the campaign. Herein lies the good and the bad of this Stuart Woods novel. There is an enormous amount of information about campaigning that is very interesting since this (2008) is an election year. That part is interesting just from an educational point of view, however it crowds out the action normally seen in a Woods mystery. Throughout The Run there are a few assassination attempts and there is some action/excitment around these events. The ending is action filled, if you can wait that long.
As far as my recommendation, it's an okay novel, but far from his best.

I just read this book and it was absolutely wonderful from the beginning to the end. Non-stop action, surprises through out and just enough sex to make it interesting without over-doing it. A great read. Especially as we enter another season of presidential elections, this book is very timely and very entertaining.

Will Lee, Senator from Georgia, is given disturbing news by his friend and Vice President Joe Adams. Joe will not be running for President in the 2000 election because he was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Will must not only keep Joe's secret, but make decisions regarding his own political future and presidential campaign. But Will soon learns that a presidential campaign is harder than he could have ever predicted complicated by both the political wranglings of enemies and opponents, and by the threats posed by those enemies outside political circles, but equally motivated by political agendas. The question remains - which of these enemies is more dangerous and Will survive them both in his bid to become the next President of the United States?

The Run trots along at a decent pace but is not the fastest paced thriller around. The plot is decent and brings back memories of the extremely close presidential election that did, in fact, take place in 2000. But overall it is just average. The story is predictable and hardly more original than other political thrillers of it's caliber or similarly inspired TV shows. However, politial thrillers will always please a certain type of reader and for those readers this will be a fairly quick, easy, and generally entertaining read.

Chasing Cezanne by Peter Mayle is enjoyable for the same reasons his memoirs recounting his life living in Provence are so pleasurable to read: namely, his rich and colorful descriptions of this gorgeous area. Mr. Mayle is not as deft at spinning a smart and suspenseful mystery. He never quite manages to create that suspenseful charge that true mystery authors know how generate. However, I would definitely and without hesitation recommend Chasing Cezanne to everyone who counts themselves a fan of his Provence books. Mayle's writing is fluid and descriptive. He is adept at spinning a colorful yarn featuring his expertise in all things relating to travel and gastronomic pleasure. While reading this novel, I wished that I was sipping champagne in Paris or shopping for a baguette in Aix. He is truly without parallel in his ability to convey the essence of France.

Although this novelette by Peter Mayle does not have as much of the "good life" of Provence we soak up from his other books, it's still as fun and capricious as his other novels and worth the short bit of time it takes to read it! Recommended for anyone who has enjoyed Mayle's other novels, arm-chair travelers, and people looking for a beach read!

I've been "hooked" on Peter Mayle since I read Hotel Pastis, and Chasing Cezanne is another rare treat. I can't resist the combination of French scenery, French food, a little intrigue, and lighthearted fun that Mayle combines in his works of fiction. And of course, for those who prefer nonfiction, all of his Provence books (A year in...; Toujours ...; Encore...etc.) are also delightful.

This rather light book is a decent beach read or a companion on a plane flight, but little more. The plot centers on a stolen work of art, and in typical Mayle style includes a romp through France, with many stops at fine restaurants and brasseries. Mayle has a wonderful way of describing the French joie de vivre, with heavy emphasis on their culinary prowess, and this work is no exception. Unfortunately, there is little more to this novel. The plot is not all that plausible, the characters uninteresting, the story not well fleshed out, and the ending is simply stupid. Peter Mayle has written some wonderful novels, but this isn't one of them. I can't even recommend this to someone who liked his other works, it is really without interest or merit. Overall, a disappointing effort, and worthy only to pass the time on vacation or while travelling.

"Chasing Cezanne" was a little disappointing...I'm not a big reader of fiction outside the sci-fi/fantasy genre, but this book was recommended by a French teacher (herself from Belgium, actually) since I'll be studying in Provence for 9 weeks in the fall. I was expecting more of a "travelogue" (the title and the teacher's description sort of implied a narrative of the author's research on writing a biography of Cezanne.) Needless to say, I was a little skeptical as soon as I discovered it was a novel, but I gave it a try anyway.

Expectations aside, the novel is still rather flat. The protaganists spend most of the story flying from one spot to another, with editorial observations injected by Mayle frequently and randomly. They toss money around like water yet constantly seem desperate for more. The characters, especially the bad guys, are remarkably cliché. The problems faced by the main characters never really seemed to catch my interest, and even a couple times when their lives where in danger, the descriptions of their situation didn't even raise a mild anxiety in me.

I just finished a survey course of Western art from the 15th to 20th centuries, so all the art references piqued my interest, but they still felt like a sophomoric attempt to make an "in-joke" with part of his audience and leave the rest scratching their heads. It was an easy read, though, and still managed to (mostly) hold my attention throughout (I finished it in one sitting.)

Overall, a pleasant but forgettable experience that, in the hands of a competent screenwriter and director, might make a good film. I think I'll try Mayle's "A Year in Provence" which, from what I've read, seems closer to what I was looking for.

I read Evergreen many years ago (and thoroughly enjoyed it), this was the first Belva Plain book I had picked up since - what a mistake! It was the worst book I have read in a long time. The characters were unlikeable, no worthy traits whatsoever and the character development was very poor. The timeline of the story didn't hold any meaning either - it was set in the 1970's to late 1990's, there was no evidence of this at all, it could have been 1870's with the way Robb expressed himself. Old fashioned, questionable sentiments and POOR story! Don't bother picking this one up!

I liked the story for the first 50 pages, but after that it kept getting boring. I have read other books by Belva Plain and I have to say that this was the one that I liked the least. Her stories begin to develop a pattern and her style of writing is no longer exciting. I wouldn't suggest reading this book unless there isn't another one within 10 miles.

This was a very easy and fast read. It's the story of a small town boy who's life is changed when his parents die in a car crash. He is then given the chance to become a lawyer with his parent's life insurance money, and he takes it.
After graduating college, he gets a job in a prominent law firm and ends up marrying the bosses daughter. They have two children, and over the years he becomes richer and richer.
As the years go by, he becomes more and more richer and finally gets himself into a large debt.

Well, as I said the book was really good. I didn't really like the ending, but I was expecting what had happened for a long time.

Belva Plain has made another story worthy of being made into a mini series. I can only hope it happens someday! In this one, Robb MacDaniel's life changes when he goes to law school. He leaves behind his home town, as well as, "the girl next door". He marries another generous woman named Ellie. As time goes by, Robb's career bring enormous successes and money is no longer a concern. However, soon money is all that matters. Robb never understands that cash in the bank is not the same as owning as much as possible.

Belva Plain also shows the effects all this has on Ellie, his two children, as well as the the girl he left behind all those years ago. Surprise ending! The thing I love best about Belva Plain's writing is that she can create a wonderful and realistic story, without using all the harsh language so many other authors use. Highly recommended reading!

Robb MacDaniel has his life all planned when a tragic accident changes everything. His parents are killed and he inherits enough money to go to law school instead of becoming a teacher as he intended. He puts off his marriage to his high school sweetheart and his entire life takes a different turn. The author makes it very plain (no pun intended) that Robb's pursuit of money and prestige inevitably leads to his downfall. The characters in this book are not as finely drawn or as sympathetic as many in Plain's other books and her message is pretty obviously made, but it's not a bad read.

This book is a decent summary of the Battle of Monte Cassino -- actually a campaign of four battles, whose strategy interlocked with the landings at Anzio to seize the defensive approaches to Rome. Monte Cassino is where the Germans under the command of Kesselring chose to make a defensive stand, recognizing the defensive advantages given by the ancient monastery. The Allies weren't able to capitalize on the Anzio beachhead to break out behind the German lines - the Allied commanding generals made timid by high initial losses did not press the Germans enough to worry Kesselring into retreating from the Cassino position.

On the Allied side, twelve nationalities fought including Moroccans, French, Algerians, Ghurkas, New Zealanders, and Australians. The Polish II Corps was the unit eventually capturing the monastery proper. The book does a good job covering the efforts of all nationalities, and implies that on occasions the contributions by smaller nations were not only downplayed, but their successes not properly taken advantage of by American and British commanders.

Other than the Anzio landing, there was not much strategy to speak of in this campaign beyond seizing the high ground. The battles were dominated by the defensive advantages given to the Germans by the topography - particularly the high ground of the Monastery (although the Germans were to use rivers defensively as well).

The biggest limitation of the book shows up in the discussion (or lack of it) of the destruction of the monastery. Monte Cassino was a monastery with a rich cultural heritage, having been built in the 8th century AD. Not only was it an important architectural monument, but most critically it housed a library of priceless, unique Latin and medieval manuscripts. The decision by the Germans to defend it places the blame for the loss of this cultural treasure squarely on them. However, the idea that there were other options available to the allies other than saturation bombing of the monastery (for example, bypassing the route by expanding the Anzio beachhead) is what of the great what ifs of the war. It is also unclear that the Allied bombing of the monastery didn't actually make their task far more difficult by turning the building into highly defensible rubble. That this book bears this central question only a passing mention is, I would have to think, a great fault.

Having walked the battlefield twice this book is something that I will carry with me on my future, third sojourn. The maps in the book, while less numerous than others, are certainly more than you get while reading a general overview of the battle. This book should be read, or consulted when reading some of the old classics of this battle such as Madjalay's, "Cassino."
I had been to the village of Cairo (where the American's successfully crossed the Rapido) and saw the bullet-pocked houses but had no real idea of scale until I read this book.

The fighting was confused to say the least, but with the high ground commanded by the Germans and the allies need to capture it, the strategy is quite straightforward.

The outlines of the four major battles fought here (two on the ridge, the one in the town, and the final crushing overwhelming offensive are outlined and should serve as a jumping off point for later reading.

The one thing that this book does well is to set the battle in its general strategic setting. It well describes Cassino and its relation to Anzio. It also describes the composition of forces for the last offensive.

I think it is balanced with an appreciation of the fighting capabilities of the French and Morrocans, and also details the forces following up the offensive such as the Canadian Armoured Corps, and the Gurhkas -- all of whom are hardly mentioned in the main histories concentrating only on the three forlorn battles to crack the line.

A useful reference for future reading.

Ken Ford's Cassino 1944: Breaking the Gustav Line, which is Number 137 in the Osprey campaign series, probably attempts to bite off more than can be reasonably summarized in a 96-page format. The author's decision to include a substantial amount of coverage on the Anzio landing - certainly worthy of its own Osprey title - detracts from space available to cover the Cassino battles. Furthermore, the author fails to provide the kind of critical analysis or detail that would enable serious military readers to evaluate a lengthy and controversial campaign; for example, important details on troop strengths involved and casualties are often omitted. Overall, this Osprey volume on Cassino falls short of the type of summary that a reader might reasonably expect from such a well-known battle.

Ford begins the volume in the standard fashion, with an introduction that sets the strategic background to the Cassino campaign and the operational background, sketching the Allied advance to the German Gustav Line. The chronology that follows is inadequate, since it only mentions "start dates" for Allied offensives at Cassino, with little mention of actions on specific days. The section on opposing leaders is threadbare, listing only operational level commanders (theater, army and corps), showing only photos of two German division-level commanders. Ford also slights French General Juin who played a critical role in the first and fourth battles of Cassino, but gets only a nod here. This section is unfortunate, because Cassino was a very tactical battle and the division-level leadership counted far more than remote operational commanders. The section on opposing armies is inadequate. First, Ford should have mentioned that there were over 700,000 Allied troops in Italy facing about 412,000 German troops, giving the Allies an almost 2-1 edge in manpower. Second, Ford spends little effort mentioning important differences, such as the fact that the 2nd New Zealand Division was an over-size unit with almost 25,000 troops but most of the German divisions had only about 6-7,000 men. The order of battle appears to be a complete muddle, and Ford lists most Allied and German brigade and higher units that were involved in the Cassino battles at various times, but it also includes Darby's Rangers who did not fight at Cassino but omits the entire Polish II Corps which actually seized Cassino Monastery (whoops!). No artillery units are mentioned - like the German 71st Nebelwerfer Brigade that so ably supported the 1st Parachute Division or the US 240mm batteries. Ford's section on opposing plans fails to note that the first Allied offensive against the Gustav Line in January 1944 failed to actually designate any specific units to seize the critical Monastery position, nor was any special air or artillery support arranged to breach a known fortified line. Nor does Ford note the operational-level incoherence introduced by the Anzio landing: which was the Allied main effort in Italy - 6th Corps at Anzio or US 5th Army on the Gustav Line?

The maps are also a bit skimpy in this volume, with only five 2-D Maps: advance to the Gustav Line; US 5th Army's attack on the Gustav Line; US VI Corps landing at Anzio; New Zealand II Corps attack; Operation Diadem. Unfortunately, there is no map depicting the link-up between the Allied forces that broke through the Gustav Line and the Anzio beachhead - a crucial omission. The three 3-D "Bird's Eye View" maps depict: the US II Corps attack north of Cassino; the third battle of Cassino and the Polish II Corps captures the monastery. The three battlescenes by Howard Gerrard depict: the American attack across the Rapido river; German paratroopers defending Cassino town and Polish infantry advancing on Snakeshead Ridge. The bibliography provided is modest and the notes on the battlefield today are rather terse.

Ford's description of the US 36th Infantry Division attack across the Rapido river on 20-21 January 1944 is decent and this was one of the most botched US military actions of the entire war, on a par with the action at Sidi bou Zid in February 1943. The attack was an incredibly bad plan that was made in the style of Passchendaele in 1917 - without regard to terrain, weather or the enemy - and it failed miserably. The awful plan was also made worse by faulty execution due to very poor coordination between infantry, artillery and engineers. However, there is a tendency to exaggerate the significance of the 36th Division's defeat, which incurred 1,681 casualties in a 48-hour period. While this attack failed, the adjacent 34th Infantry Division successfully carved out a bridgehead on the western side of the Rapido and captured terrain that provided the vital jumping off positions needed to encircle Cassino. Furthermore, while these two US divisions suffered about 4,500 casualties in this first battle, the French Expeditionary Corps (FEC) also seized vital terrain north of Cassino but at the cost of 7,800 casualties (facts omitted by Ford). Put in proper perspective, the 36th Division failure to cross the Rapido was a tactical setback, but the success of the 34th Division and FEC attacks more than outweighed that defeat.

Ford's description of the second and third battles for Cassino has odd omissions, like he fails to note that the third battle was known as Operation Dickens. Readers might also miss the fact from Ford's description that the New Zealanders committed only a handful of their battalions to this set-piece battle and thereby eschewed any kind of numerical advantage over a dug-in defender. Oftentimes, Cassino is presented as an "Italian Stalingrad" but this is just not apt. If Ford had provided casualty figures for the actions around Cassino, they would have been surprised to see that the Allies suffered only 287 killed in action in the third battle, versus 315 German KIA. All told, the Cassino fighting cost the Allies about 25,000 casualties in five months of fighting; significant, but certainly not crippling.

In Osprey's Campaign #149, Falaise 1944: Death of an Army, veteran Osprey contributor Ken Ford (not Gordon Rottman, as mistakenly shown on jacket photo) continues his survey of the major phases of the 1944 Normandy campaign. As usual, Ford's narration is clear and succinct; he has done a superb job of synthesizing the various existing secondary sources on this subject - although it is less clear if the author has actually incorporated any primary research information. The Battle of Falaise was one of the more controversial phases of the battle of Normandy and Field Marshal Montgomery was forced to relieve a number of subordinates, and the failure to close the "Falaise pocket" led to recriminations in the Allied command.

The standard sections on the origins of the campaign, opposing commanders, plans and forces are informative and useful. However, there are two points in the opposing forces section that the author fails to address. First, at the start of the Normandy breakout battles in July, there were about 1.4 million Allied troops in Normandy versus fewer than 400,000 Germans, giving the Allies an overall 3-1 or better numerical superiority in personnel. In terms of tanks and artillery, the Allied superiority was even more pronounced. Second, Ford makes little or no effort to discuss the heterogeneous composition of the Commonwealth forces, particularly the Canadians and the Poles. On the face of it, the Canadian units tended to be larger but less experienced than the British units, and Ford doesn't mention that Canadian commanders were sometimes leery about being used as "cannon fodder" by the British (remember Dieppe and Hong Kong 1941?). As for the Poles, I had to cringe when Ford described the Falaise campaign as "their first battle." Major General Maczek and his men were based on the original 10th Mechanized Brigade and had been killing Germans since 1939; these men were all veterans by 1944, even if the "Polish 1st Armored Division" had not fought previously as a unit.

Falaise 1944 includes five 2-D maps: the Allied frontline before the breakout battles; the breakout; Operation Bluecoat; forming the Falaise pocket; the German collapse. The three 3-D Maps are: Capture of Mount Pincon; Operation Totalise and Tractable; sealing the pocket. It seems to me that Osprey's 3-D maps from 5-6 years ago were more detailed than the new format, although the organization of the text has gotton better. The three battle scenes by Howard Gerrard are: American tanks and infantry overrunning a German 75mm anti-tank gun, July 1944; counterattack by SS `Das Reich' division against Poles on Mount Ormel; escaping troops from German 7th Army under attack from RAF typhoons.

Although Ford's narrative is sound, the vital question of why the pocket was not closed more promptly is explained only in general terms. American General Bradley did not request a boundary adjustment that might have allowed US troops to close the gap and Montgomery perhaps did not instill the Canadians with a sense of urgency in closing the pocket. These explanations certainly contain elements of truth, but do not necessarily explain what happened. Ford fails to mention that the operation was a "converging attack" where US, Canadian, British and Polish forces were to meet in the center - this is a very difficult mission for a Coalition to execute, based on differences in communications, doctrine and willingness to accept risks (a perfect scenario for fratricide). I think that the nature of the pocket and the importance of closing the gap - so clear on maps today - was less clear to tired commanders on smoke obscured battlefields in 1944. The Canadian commanders had seen numerous British attacks repulsed at great cost for little gain, and they chose to fight a methodical battle that was slow but sure.

The real significance of the Falaise campaign is the entire issue of whether or not the Allies were able to "destroy" the bulk of German forces in Normandy - the 5th Panzer and 7th Armies. Ford makes no effort to answer this question, but merely provides the standard Allied "guestimate" that about 90-115,000 German troops were caught in the Falaise pocket, of whom 10-15,000 were killed, 50,000 captured and the rest escaped. Based on these numbers, Ford concurs with the Allied assessment that the German forces in Normandy were more or less destroyed. However, if Ford had taken a look at some of the information now available on German casualties, he might be less certain of this conclusion. If the Allies trapped about 100,000 Germans in the Falaise pocket, that means that about 280,000 German troops then in the Normandy area were not in the pocket and that there were another 200,000 or so other Germans in the rest of France. Apparently, by the time the net started to close at Falaise only about 25% of the German troops in Normandy were trapped. Furthermore, it is also clear from German records that even most units trapped inside the pocket were able to save 40-50% of their personnel, which gave them a cadre to rebuild. German sources indicate that those armor units that escaped from Falaise still had about 80 tanks left operational after the battle, and while this is not a large number, Ford mentions that the Germans had held up the Canadian 2nd Corps for over a week with only 35 tanks. Ford makes no mention of the "September Miracle" but it is clear that the Germans were able to salvage enough from Normandy to stop the Allies on three weeks after Falaise on the German-Dutch borders. I'm sure the British 1st Airborne troops didn't think that the German 2nd SS Panzer Corps was "destroyed" when they met them at Arnhem. Falaise was an Allied victory, but it was not decisive.

As a brief "masterclass", Ken Howards's book is useful as a simple demonstration. However, Howard, is one of those watercolorists who do not exploit the natural white of the paper (the "classic" and best technique), preferring instead to "touch up" finished paintings with chinese white. Thus, some of his pictures have a pasty look that is closer to gouache than to watercolor.

Also, the book is relatively short, so it was frustrating to find that many pages were devoted, not to Howard's watercolors, but to oil and mixed media paintings. The text seems like a direct transcription of the video class which is also available. Hence, the conversational style seems misplaced in a text book. For those looking to be see watercolor pictures of Venice, there are many better books out there. That being said, there is always something to be learned from other painters so I've given it a few stars.

This is a case where the reader can make or break a book. Paul Shay conveys no emotion or definition of character. It was so painful I barely got through the first cassette before I finally decided I couldn't listen to the book. I recently enjoyed McBain's Big, Bad, City so I like the author.

The book begins with Otto's suspicions towards somebody following him.He is a private detective who spies upon people if he gets hired for that.We find out that Otto gets shot from a person who had been following him on a Toyata.The news of Otto's death shocks Matthew Hope (The Main Character) and he tries to get into the reason he was murdered. The first suspicion goes to Carla Nettington's husband Dan because he was being followed by Otto.Otto even managed to place a voice activated microphone in Dan's girlfriend's house.But the story goes on and shifts towards two spics who had been trying to find the Cinderella.Here she is called the Cinderella because she uses a lot of different names so it is difficult to track her down and in the process killing her two step sisters.She is being hunted for having stolen a gold Rolex watch and four keys of Coke(DRUGS). She has an interesting character in the book.And all the stories end up with her. The book is really worth reading and is quite interesting. Happy Reading!

Tackling a well-known subject like the Battle of El Alamein in 1942 and reducing it to a 96-page summary would be a daunting task for most military historians. Unfortunately, the task was clearly beyond author Ken Ford in Osprey Campaign #158, El Alamein 1942, which adds virtually nothing new on the subject and displays a clear lack of any attempt to provide original research or fresh perspectives. Throughout this volume, the author appears content to merely synthesize and summarize material provided by familiar accounts written 20-30 years ago, often incorporating some of the same errors from those older sources that newer research has uncovered.

The author's introductory sections are essentially boilerplate material, particularly in regard to his handling of the reputation of General Montgomery. It is interesting that the author's bibliography does not list Correlli Barnett's The Desert Generals, which while dated, gives a much better insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Montgomery and the other British senior commanders. The section on opposing armies is similar in its skimming the subject, particularly in its superficial coverage of the importance of logistics and air power (note, Martin van Creveld's Supply War is also not in the bibliography, despite his excellent material on the role of logistics in this campaign). Furthermore, given the importance of mines in the campaign, it is odd that the author never discusses the British introduction of flail tanks and new minesweepers, or the German introduction of a new type of mine. Nor does the author make any effort to describe Allied breaching tactics down at the brigade-division level. The author provides order of battles for both sides which appears based upon rather dated and misleading information, as well as omitting any data on air units in the campaign (the strength of opposing air power is never specified). An exhaustive Allied OB for El Alamein done by Dr. Graham Watson a few years ago - and freely available on the internet - reveals significant differences in the assignment of Allied units, particularly armored brigades. The volume includes four 2-D maps (8th Army retreat; First Alamein; Alam Halfa - Rommel's final offensive; Operations Lightfoot and Supercharge; 8th Army drive) and three 3-D BEV maps (Alam El Halfa; the Dog Fight; Operation Supercharge). Given the flat, featureless terrain, the BEVs really don't add anything over a conventional 2-D map, unless they had been "zoomed in" to cover only a very small area.

The volume includes three battle scenes: tanks and anti-tank guns of the Italian Ariete Division attacking south of Ruweisat Ridge; 15th Panzer attacking toward Alam Halfa; the action fought by the 3rd King's Hussars near the Rahman track. It is apparent from these battle scenes that the author has little knowledge of tanks or the specifics of Second World War armor tactics. Two of the battle scenes erroneously depict tanks firing on the move, when in fact the lack of stabilization made this a waste of ammunition. Until the advent of third generation main battle tanks in the 1980s, shoot-on-the-move was not an effective tactic. One battle scene depicts German Pz IV tanks firing both main gun and coax machineguns simultaneously, although usually gunners have a selector switch that only allows them to fire one or the other and these weapons use different sight reticules in any case. As for tactics, all three scenes depict tank charges, which by 1942 both sides had learned were virtually suicidal in the desert (although the British still tried it). One scene depicts Pz IV tanks up front, with Pz IIIs behind, in a loose gaggle; the Germans used wedge formations, with the Pz IIIs up front, and the Pz IVs in back. In the 3rd Hussars scene, three different types of tank are depicted and the text implies that the unit had all three types, but the unit was a Sherman-equipped unit, while the Grant/Lee and Crusader belonged to other battalions in the brigade (thus, they were involved in the attack, but not all in the same battalion).

The lack of original research is apparent throughout this volume. After reading Ken Ford's narrative, I went back and re-read several older accounts by Michael Carver and others and found essentially the same information presented. For example, there is no specific information about either sides' overall casualties at either First El Alamein or Alam Halfa, nor is there any effort to break down the standard Second El Alamein casualty figures by unit. A modest research effort would reveal that the Australian, New Zealand and South Africans have pretty detailed lists of their casualties in the battle. Indeed, the author does not even mention Allied tank losses at El Alamein or that about 30,000 Axis prisoners were taken. Amazingly, this author does not even bother to include that General von Thoma, the Afrika Korps commander, was captured on 4 November.

While the British should be justifiably proud of their victory at El Alamein, this author also tends to avoid some of the criticism that appears in other, better books on the subject. British tank tactics at El Alamein were generally awfully - which is not surprising given that many crews and small unit leaders were only partly trained (most of the trained British tankers having been lost at Gazala). British armor officer and author K. Macksey described the costly British tank attacks at First Alamein as "characterized by supreme gallantry and utter stupidity." Most of all, Montgomery's failure to aggressively pursue and exterminate the remnants of Rommel's forces limited the British victory to an operational, rather than strategic success. Given that the Germans were extremely short of fuel and had only one escape route, Montgomery's failure to coordinate air, land and sea (would have been a good time to land a brigade by sea behind Rommel to cut his escape) forces indicates a lack of both imagination and "killer instinct." Lacking analysis, fresh research or insights, it is hard to view El Alamein 1942 as anything but inadequate.

Ken Howard (most famous for his TV show "The White Shadow") narrates this 6 hour abridgment of a below par political thriller.

Filled with undeveloped story threads that promise something interesting but rarely deliver (the VP has alzheimers, militias are out to assassinate the candidate, the candidate's wife is a bigwig in the CIA, there's dirt on the candidate - all for naught) "The Run" is a great example of a political thriller for people who do not really follow politics. Lots of things won't sit right with folks who watch politics -primaries are still happening in July and August, there is at least one brokered convention (another one is hinted at but it may have been abridged out of my version), the amounts of money spent are tiny, even by year 2000 standards.

Perhaps strangest of all, Bill Clinton is referenced several times throughout this book which purports to be about the year 2000 election. Strangely, Clinton is not the president at the time of the 2000 election, nor had he been removed by impeachment in the story (Woods would have been writing this at the time of Clinton's impeachment). Why not make the election the 2004 or 2008 election? Not a big deal, but it bothered me throughout.

Skip this one. If you want to read a good Stuart Woods thriller, read Chiefs or White Cargo.