U Books

I concur with most of the points addressed by earlier reviewers, and found this book to be one of the best about history that I've read. Many of the letters were eye-opening, detailing facets of America's history of which I was unaware. As an example, I found the letter detailing the My Lai Massacre both illuminating and horrifying. The letter from Roosevelt to 'The President of The United States in 1956' honoring the first American soldier to give his life in WWII is one of my favorites, along with the letter to the Warner Brothers from Groucho Marx that an earlier reviewer mentioned. A few additional thoughts:

1. The choices of letters from the 1990s were the weakest of any decade. I suppose that's to be expected in the days of e-mail, chatrooms, and the demise of the letter writer, but I'm sure there were better selections than one detailing the results of testing performed on the stained blue dress worn by Monica Lewinsky, or the letter to a Star Trek fan.

2. The majority of the letters related to negative aspects of the century, which while powerful to read made it a bit depressing to read more than 30-50 pages at a sitting. As the various forms of media have always realized, bad news makes for better stories than good news. I wish, however, that there would have been more letters evincing triumphs, humor, and/or optimism. Such letters were in evidence, but not in abundance.

3. I agree with an earlier reviewer that noted the liberal bias of the letters selected. There appeared to be an inordinate amount of 'coming out' selections and letters voicing disapproval of the System. They were important letters, however, that gave me a different view of the country's past.

4. One of my favorite history-related books is A People's History of The United States by Zinn. This book of letters reminded me of that text, required in a college history class.

Overall, I strongly recommend this collection to anyone interested in the history of 20th century America.

This is a collection of over 400 letters that attempts to summarize the century using such. It's a fool's errand, of course, but this is a valiant and fascinating effort.

Some of the letters are famous ones: Einstein alerting Roosevelt to the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb, Martin Luther King writing from the Birmingham jail, and Nixon's terse letter resigning the presidency. Others are less-known but still from famous people: Mark Twain complaining caustically about the inefficiency of telegrams, Charlie Chaplin ecstatic about his first movie contract, Bill Gates trying to discourage early software piracy.

And others are from and to obscure people while still being remarkably telling: an immigrant writing to his relatives about his new life in America, a Jewish woman writing of her experiences being captured and interrogated by the Nazis, a letter left at the Vietnam War Memorial, an erstwhile Compuserve user giving up on his connection problems when confronted with technobabble in response to his request for help. It's really a fascinating read, a hodge-podge of life across the century, from mundane domestic problems to the key issues of the day. My only complaint is that there's a bit of a liberal bias, with plenty of letters describing the hardships of the downtrodden masses and not a whole lot celebrating human ingenuity and accomplishment. But perhaps that is a telling point as well, considering it's a bias that has dominated this century.

This book is a wonderful collection of stories from every year of the 20th century. The authors of the letters are famous people and ordinary citizens. These letters express every human emotion love, loss, triumph, joy, and hope. This book is a pleasure to read.

My favorite story is about a young woman writing to her best friend about her bad marriage. Her husband is physically abusive to her and her son. She yearns for the courage to escape and become an independant woman which she eventually does. Another story by a young man who actually survived the sinking of the Titanic He writes his girlfriend about his experience of getting off the ship and waiting to be rescued.

There is a letter by a woman in Hawaii to her brother in Ohio. She recounted witnessing the bombing of Pearl Harbor during World War 2. She recounts going to a bomb shelter and depicts the commaraderie among the people of the time.

There is a Dear John letter addressed to Ernest Hemmingway from a nurse who cared for him while he was wounded in World War 1 He loved her but their relationship was a mere fling to her. She lets him down gently. This relationship inspired Hemingway to write the novel The Sun Also Rises. There is another letter written by a young unwed pregnant woman in the 1930's seeking advice from a doctor. Her father has no knowledge of the pregnancy and her mother is dead. She has nobody to turn to and her desperate plea for guidance is very touching.

There is another poignant letter written by the sister of a Vietnam Vet who died from lymphnoma as a result of exposure to Agent Orange. She expresses her disbelief, loss and sorrow to an anti war group. There are several stories written by expectant parents to their unborn children. Each letter is filled with anticipation and hope. Buy this book. You will never be able to put it down.

I did not expect to like this book. I had avoided reading it for some time, thinking it would be dull, pedantic, not worth the effort it might take to read it, and generally unpleasant.

I am so glad I found out I was wrong.

It's actually enthralling, well-done, and a worthwhile addition to anyone's library. I am not generally fond of ultra-personal non-fiction, or of the twentieth century in general, but _Letters of the Century_ overcame all of my doubts. The explanatory paragraphs and notes are extremely helpful; the letters are generally of medium length, diverse in subject matter, and uniformly fascinating. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and highly recommend it.

Every library should have this treasure. I can't think of any book that is as immediately accessible or as fascinating to anyone who reads it. It's a fun way for anyone to learn about America's last 100 years. It's a great gift for a teenager who may consider American history a sleeper subject; it can help put all the facts into context. I wish I had this book when I was in high school!

This is a great sampler of all the wonderful poets of all times and represents all the different types of poetry. It is a journey into the past as well as the present. What a pleasure to read and share with others.

I personally prefer poem anthologies where the poetry is from a mix of poets, not just a collection of one poet's work. Americans' Favorite Poems will give you some very famous favorites, and also might surprise you with the works of lesser known (but still wonderful) writers.

What I also loved about this treasure of a book was the comments. Robert Pinsky compiled the poems that people from around the US sent him and printed their comments as to why each poem was their favorite. Reading the comments of all these people - firefighters, students, forest rangers, doctors, homemakers, basically people from all walks of life - is often very moving, entertaining, or surprising (you'll see some of your best loved poems from new and delightful angles). You get a feel for why people love poems as they explain that love, that attachment to a particular poem, in their own words.

Americans' Favorite Poems is an amazing book. It is the result of the "favorite poem project" held across the nation. The poems in the collection are real Americans' favorites along with their own comments on why they chose that poem as their favorite. The compilation is great for the obvious. The poems selected come from everywhere (many different cultures and different styles of poetry are present), and they are outstanding. The thing that sets Americans' Favorite Poems apart from other collections is the commentary from regular people. The comments are at turns hilarious and moving. They are always profound. They show the real greatness of good poetry: it has the ability to relate to a person's life experiences and really touch that person.

I must say that my favorite selection in the book was "I May, I Might, I Must" by Marianne Moore mainly because of the reason behind its selection. The only complaint (it isn't much of one) I have about the book is that my favorite "I Thank You God for Most This Amazing" by ee cummings didn't make it, but hopefully, there will someday be a Americans' Favorite Poems Volume II, and it will.

I wonder. I doubt it since Maya Angelou isn't included. She's one of the most visible poets in America today and very much loved. It's not that she's little known because she was America's Poet Laureate a few years ago -- so why leave her out? And why only one poem by William Stafford? Also, clearly one of the universal favorites of Robert Frost's is "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening" and it's not here, either. (That one shows up in almost any discussion of poetry.)And, only one poem by Robert Penn Warren, another former USA Poet Laureate?
[sigh]

I'm also suspicious of a "project" that doesn't seem to have been announced widely before it began -- it can't be representative of ALL Americans since all Americans obviously didn't know about it.

All that said, it's a great collection. Through it I met several new poets (new to me)and I certainly enjoyed the ones I was already familiar with. It made me curious, too, about just what the American taste in poetry truly would be. I suspect it would include Ogden Nash and Edgar Allen Poe.

No. I don't think it's representative of the poetic taste of the American public and I don't think it should claim to be so, but I do think it's a great overview of popular poets and a superb collection of poems.

Robert Pinsky, the 39th Poet Laureate of the United States, founded the Favorite Poem Project. Since its inception, the Project has been dedicated to celebrating, documenting and promoting poetry's role in Americans' lives. During a one-year open call for submissions, 18,000 Americans wrote to the project volunteering to share their favorite poems - Americans from ages 5 to 97, from every state, of diverse occupations, education and backgrounds. The Project's first anthology, "Americans' Favorite Poems," consists of 200 of the submitted poems, along with readers' comments about their attachments to the poems. The selections are by poets from all over the world, poems written centuries ago alongside contemporary poems, poignantly sad poetry, as well as spiritually uplifting works, and humorous poems. Many are translations.

I found so many of my own favorites in this extraordinary collection. I was also introduced to many wonderful new poems, I might never have read. And some of the comments from the folks who submitted the poems, are as moving as the poetry itself. The book emphasizes the pure joy of reading poetry. And poetry appreciation is alive and well in America!

There is Anna Akhmatova's "The Sentence," submitted by a woman from Georgia who remembers her brother "who returned from Vietnam, a broken man of 21," when reading this poem; and Margaret Atwood's "Variation On The Word Sleep," "the most beautiful love poem I have ever read," writes a woman from Queens, NY; Lewis Carroll's "Jaberwocky" is included, with the comment, "Where else can you find a tale of danger, adventure, triumph, and jubilation - all so utterly wrapped in nonsense?" There are wonders printed here, by Ranier Marie Rilke, Alexander Pope, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sylvia Plath, William Shakespeare, Wallace Stevens, Dylan Thomas and Allan Ginsberg...and so many more. It must have been a difficult task, indeed, to select 200 poems from so many worthy submissions.

I recommend this anthology to poetry lovers everywhere, and also to those who do not care for poetry. This collection may change your mind.

Anybody who ascribes to the idiotic notion that Southern secession was all about states' rights and really had nothing to do with slavery needs to be reminded of two antebellum events: the Fugitive Slave Act, which was legislation that solely benefitted slaveowners while being a complete affront to the notion of states' rights; and the gag rule in Congress from 1836-1844, which essentially stripped citizens & Congressmen of their 1st amendment rights.

The gag rule was focused on the 1st Amendment right of petition, which was frequently utilized by US citizens in the early 19th century. The cause of the furor was a dramatic increase of abolitionist petitions that proposed the abolition of the slave trade within the District of Columbia, which was under the direct jurisdiction of the US Congress (DC was chosen because most people believed that the Constitution did not give the Congress jurisdiction in the individual states --- DC was another matter).

The Congress of that period was dominated by pro-slavery Southerners and sympathetic Northerners who would rather not stir up too much trouble. However, a small group of Congressmen, led by John Quincy Adams, waged an 8-year against the gag rule. Along the way, Adams & his cohorts, along with an increasingly organized & vocal abolitionist movement, undermined the neutral attitude most Americans had towards the issue of slavery.

Former president John Quincy Adams is clearly the central figure of the story, and it is pretty obvious that Miller likes the crochety old statesman. One cannot read this book and not come away with an increased respect for Adams, who has unfairly been relegated to historical obscurity. It is remarkable to think that through most of the gag rule battle, Adams was in his mid to late 70's, and almost never missed a day in Congress. The story also displays abundantly Adams' formidable intellect and parliamentary skills.

On the other side of the aisle were the Southern fire-eaters, who were capable of great oratorical flourishes but who possessed precious little strategic skill. Miller recounts how, time again, the pro-slavery forces miscalculated with their tactics. Instead of squelching debate about slavery, hotheads like Henry Wise & Waddy Thompson Jr succeeded only in inflaming the controversy. After 8 years, the leaders of the pro-gag forces were realizing that they might have unleashed forces beyond their control, and abandoned the fight to maintain the gag.

The story is presented in an entertainingly narrative style which I found to be quite enjoyable. Some reviewers have found the author's asides to be a distraction, but I found that they contributed well to the story for the most part. Indeed, some sections of the book (such as when Adams is facing down his opponents who are attempting to censure him) are real page-turners.

While the book was very entertaining, it is also quite sobering. One becomes aware of the appalling nature of the slave-owning bloc. So dedicated were they to preserving their own interests that they repeatedly violated the 1st Amendment & trampled on civil rights of WHITE citizens in general, through the censoring of private mail, violating the writ of habeas corpus (South Carolina had a law on the books for almost 40 years, allowing free black sailors to arrested & imprisoned for duration of their ship's stay in port, simply because they were free blacks and MIGHT incite the local slave population to rebel) and (ironically) violating the doctrine of states' rights --- as the right to due process was systematically denied to the citizens of other states (a free enfranchised citizen of Massachusetts, for example, was not due any rights at all under the constitution of Missouri if he happened not to be white). Eventually, the encroachment by the South on the civil rights of the rest of the nation's citizens became ominous enough for the average citizen in the North to become aware of the genuine threat that the expansion of slavery posed. Almost all of this starts with the fight over the gag rule in Congress.

Miller also examines how Southern politicians tried, with increasing difficulty, to reconcile their claims to being good republicans with their obvious anti-republican actions. Miller argues that the politicians of the South fought to prevent the mere discussion of slavery because they knew better than anyone that the institution & way of life they were defending could not be defended in the playing field was level. If violating the principles of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence is what it took to defend the peculiar institution, then they would do it, but not without a great deal of moral & intellectual discomfort. It is amazing to read some of the tortured rationalizations of Southern statesmen during this period.

This should be required reading for the student of this period. It is not a dry subject, and fortunately the author writes with plenty of flair. If some devotee of the Lost Cause mythos starts blathering on about how the Confederacy was only about the defense of states' rights & tries to use the Constitution as a rationalization for secession, this book should provide you with plenty of ammunition for your debate.

An absolutely brilliant book. Incredibly moving: the only book I've ever read that literally brought me to tears while reading it. But at the same time, wonderfully informative and evocative of the amazing historical events of the day. If you liked the movie "Amistad," you will love this second look at John Quincy Adams' incredibly brave stand during what William Freehling has called the "Pearl Harbor of the Civil War." I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Long before Sen. Charles Sumner spoke about Bleeding Kansas and was soon thereafter caned on the floor of the Senate by Congressman Preston Brooks, the Congressional waters had ben moving to an ever-higher boil on the slavery issue.

One of the leaders in the battle against slavery was Massachusetts Congressman and former President John Quincy Adams. Earning the sobriquet "Old Man Eloquent" on this issue, in this ever-heating contest, Adams finally got a House gag rule overturned that had prohibited antislavery petitions from the general public from even being discussed.

Adams had been a free-soiler, opposed to the expansion of slavery for many years. But his well-known legal defense of the Amistad defendants moved him beyond free-soiler to abolitionist.

Miller makes Adams fire on the floor Congress come alive, and puts into context.

Much of that context carries through to the 1860s and beyond.

For example, Miller points out that two decades before Lincoln thought of it, Adams opined that Presidentail war powers might be used to abolish slavery during a civil war.

At the same time, Miller reaches further back into history, to point out the early history of slavery in the North. (In the middle 1700s, New York's population may have been as high as 14 percent slave.) That's important to show how Southern arguments and fears that they A. could not do without slavery and B. would not know how to let such a large population go free, were groundless.

Here's a few more fascinating and important historical tidbits from the book.

Page 17 - Jefferson, while a member of the Confederation Congress in 1784, authored a provision to exclude slavery not just from the Old Northwest, but ALL Western territory on the far side of the Appalachians. It failed by one state's vote, which he claimed in turn was lost due to the illness of one delegate.

Page 349 - Showing a fine-tuned sense of satire, even sarcasm, during gag rule debate in the 25th Congress, Adams proposed Congress form a "Committee of Color," specifically designed to investigate Congressional bloodlines, with the "impure" to be summarily expelled.

Page 478 - A fine illustration of the morals of the white knights of the patrician South: Henry Hammond, southern ultra already at this time, in the House, and as Senator, deliverer of the "Cotton is King" speech, was a rou? first class. He took an 18-year-old slave with 1-year-old child as a mistress, then when the child turned 12 took her as mistress too. He also had some degree of attachment to the four teenage daughters of Wade Hampton II, father of the Civil War general.

Read this book, and find out just how entrenched Southern recalcitrance was 20, 30, 40 years before the shots at Fort Sumter.

The other reviewers have it right. I first read this superb book when it was first published in 1995. I picked it up thinking the subject seemed a little dry, but found I couldn't put it down. Now, eight years later, I have reread it. Again I couldn't put it down.

John Quincy Adams is not on Mount Rushmore; he is not trumpeted in high school history textbooks as a messianic figure, a beacon of freedom and liberty.

Quite rightly so; he would probably have found that amusing.

Adams is subject to an almost criminal lack of coverage in history courses--he does not fit the traditional model of the good American politician, and teachers often don't like to introduce amniguity into their courses by suggesting that an 'elitist' can be a great public figure, and that greatness is distinct from political success. Washington was great because he "created the country." Lincoln was great because he "ended slavery." Adams was simply an extremely good Secretary of State, brilliant Represenative in the House, and--god forbid--knew what he was doing while he was President.

The problem really is that Adams, with all his abilities, was not a politician in the American sense: he was educated, cultured, and actually knew what he was doing. His successor, Andrew Jackson--a boorish man who disobeyed the law, helped wipe out a race of people, and pandered to the whims of "the masses"--is often hailed as a great figure in American politics, apparently because of said boorishness, refusal to obey the Constitution, and genocidal tendencies.

In Adams is a figure that really ought to be respected and aimed for in American politics: a man with a strongly defined sense of morality, well-developed mind and good education, vast experience, and ability to govern. The traits that made Adams such a great man--his refusal to do anything simply because "the people" wanted it, coupled with his disturbing tendency to pursue policies that were intelligent, necessary, beneficial, and incredibly foresighted--seem to doom him to obscurity.

Miller takes on the unenviable task of arguing in favor of Adams as a great man, although he limits himself to his time in the House; in doing so, he provides an accesible and much-needed glimpse into the life of a man by far one of the greatest public figures America has seen.

This book has a lot of interesting information and tons of pictures. If you want to know anything about Bonnie and Clyde, it's all in this book.

Other than the books written by John Neal Phillips, this is the best of the Bonnie and Clyde books. Well researched, balanced viewpoint, great photos. A superb read.

I first became aware of Bonnie and Clyde after a frigid night's motorcycle ride to see Arthur Penn's 1967 movie. Except for buying a DVD thirty years later, I seldom thought of them. Then, last November, my wife and I visited Dexter and Stuart, Iowa. In April of 1934, a month before their deaths, Bonnie and Clyde, along with Henry Methvin, robbed the bank in Stuart. Ten months before, the Barrows had shot it out with a posse at Dexfield Park, north of Dexter. The site of an abandoned amusement park, Dexfield offered Bonnie and Clyde, along with the severely wounded Buck Barrow and his wife Blanche, temporary sanctuary following a shootout in Platte City, Missouri. Penn's movie placed the shootout in Platte City, Iowa, which doesn't exist, ignoring the long ride from the Kansas City area to western Iowa. It also ignored the fact that Buck lived several days after his head wound and actually died of pneumonia. Penn's characterization of Blanche as a screaming ninny isn't accurate, either, and it got him sued.

Penn wasn't after history, but sensationalism. James R. Knight is after history. He is one of those wonderful people who recognize that everything is coming together and seizes the moment. Penn's movie was only the latest in a thirty-year sequence of stylized and mostly inaccurate portrayals of the lovers and their companions. It perhaps began with Jan Fortune's Fugitives, published a scant few months after the fatal ambush in Louisiana. It continued through books by several members of the posse who killed Bonnie and Clyde, and by former criminal companions. As many of the principals, including members of the Barrow and Parker families, aged, other writers began to interview them before it was too late. Given the opportunity to pull together their work with original research, James Knight acted.

This book is the result.

Perhaps only a person who doesn't depend on writing for his income could have done it. Knight, after all, is a pilot for Federal Express who just happens to be an excellent historian. His book shows meticulous patience, coupled with a desire to be what Fox news isn't, fair and balanced. For instance, he gives Fortune's oft-maligned piece credit for what it got right. Though he depends heavily (for the first few chapters) on the recollections of Marie Barrow Scoma, a teenager at the time of her brother's death, Knight sometimes argues, appropriately, with her recollections. After all, she could not have known all that her adult brother was up to. Knight understands that the Barrow and Parker families were far more complex, and far more involved in supporting their wayward kin, than has heretofore been obvious. The evidence has always been there, but Knight uses it broadly and well.

The author is so careful to remain balanced, and to avoid the hysterical tone of previous books, that his prose sometimes seems bloodless. Nowhere is this more evident than in chapters 36 and 37. There, he recounts events around the May, 1934, ambush that killed Bonnie and Clyde. He is meticulous in describing the location and sequence of the wounds each received, the damage to their stolen Ford, and the behavior of members of the posse. It's important, though, because the ambush has so often been misinterpreted. I hope that in a future work Knight will greatly expand these chapters, taking a closer look at everything and everyone who contributed to the ambush and at the questions that still remain. Still, Knight corrects several misconceptions and downright errors fostered by the movie and by previous books. You won't know it, though, unless you read the extensive footnotes.

Which brings me to the subject of how most to benefit from reading this 2003 work. I read it twice. The first time, I had a bookmark in the footnotes and flipped back and forth frequently. The second time, the bookmark was located in the first appendix. This allowed me to review a full history of each character as s/he surfaced in the text. As a result, I have a far better idea of "the story of Bonnie and Clyde" (to borrow the popular title of Bonnie's second poem) than I received on that winter night in 1967.

For all of that, Knight neither whitewashes nor condemns Bonnie and Clyde. Rather, he recognizes the essential tragedy of their story. They lived on their own terms, but everyone paid a price. That they paid with their lives does not obscure the suffering inflicted on their families and on families left fatherless. At the same time, Clyde might have remained a relatively small-time crook (or made changes in his life similar to those accomplished by Ralph Fults) were it not for the brutality he experienced in the Texas prison system. The story of Bonnie and Clyde, then, is in some sense the story of human beings interacting with our surroundings--for good and for ill. I am writing this review two days after a confused and angry teenager murdered people in an Omaha mall. He did it with an assault rifle, at a time when gross inequalities again exist between Americans. Clyde used a 1930's version of that rifle, at a similar time. When will the American people demand gun control? And when will we insist on an end to national policies that lead to the creation of millions of poor people?

"Here they come down that dusty road, and muddy bend; Man and woman welded in crime, together they lived and together...they died. Who else could it be?; But good ol' Bonnie and Clyde!"

The book entitled, "Bonnie and Clyde A Twenty-First-Century Update" by James R.Knight (with Jonahtan Davis )is... "A killer of a book!"

This is a superbly written and researched book. James R. Knight is too young to have ridden along with them, at least in this life. However, his knowledge and interest in this gun toting couple makes me wonder, where he may have been in his last life time?

His writing is informative, easy to read and follow, and...extremely descriptive. In addition, the book is a photographic library in itself!

Sometimes, I could almost hear the heavy "barking" of Clyde's "BAR" and watch the black exhaust clouds rise from the tail pipe of his get-away, 1934 Ford sedan.

Frank Hamer does not appear to be as powerful a figure as he was portrayed in the 1967 movie with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. Although, a central figure in orchestrating the couple's final demise, the initial credit seems to flow toward a little known figure of the ambush group listed as, Officer Prentis Oakley.

Author, James Knight also gives the reader what Paul Harvey used to say on his radio program: "and now you know ... the rest of the story."
Knight follows through with information on the fate of each actor who ever played any part on the stage of "Bonnie and Clyde."

A great job Mr. Knight(and Mr. Davis)! When can we expect another publication???

I've read many good books on the subject of Bonnie & Clyde, and even though the 1967 movie was far from accurate historically, it is one of my all time favorite movies. This book does the best job I've found of setting some of the inaccurate facts straight. I live less than 30 miles from Dexter Park, where the gang was ambushed, and I find it fascinating to finally read so many details of what transpired during those events. If this subject interests you at all, then this book is an absolute must read.

I have not even finished reading this book yet, but I am blown away by the extraordinary story this man has to tell, and told with such heart. This is a major contribution to the history of 9/11.

Excellent read. Heartbreaking at times, but well written of the trials and
tribulations of the Ground Zero Recovery mission
This book honors the months day after day the recovery workers devoted to trying to find bodies. Some of the rescue workers suffered emotionally and physically, yet others kept going to the end.
I recommend highly

It was an incredible and accurate account of the heroics and emotions involved in the months of recovery at ground zero. A must read.

This is the story that needed to be told of the many courageous, heroic men and women involved in this search and recovery effort. It is also the story of the courageous, heroic families who lived through this effort with their loved ones. It is a must read.

So often we wonder what happens after all of the media coverage ends and life goes on for everyone else - this book opened by eyes to all that went on "after". It really is a tribute to all those that worked on the clean up of the World Trade towers. It was more than just a job - it was an opportunity to bring home more of those lost on that terrible day.

This first volume is written in a compeling style and is well researched. Catton makes the political manuevering come alive and deftly explains key facets of the war's basis and beginning. I am just beginning volume two, and based on how good the first is, I am looking forward to it.
Another reviewer labeled Catton as the poet of history, and I could not agree more. Highly recommended.

"The Coming Fury" is the first volume of Bruce Catton's centennial history of the Civil War. First published in 1961, some of its details are inevitably dated. Later historians have advanced different interpretations of some events. However, Catton's trilogy on the Civil War endures as a classic on the basis of his superb narrative, history as dramatic literature. Catton's gift is to capture the individuals at the center of events both in their essential, even prosaic humanity and as part of the seemingly relentless and tragic march of larger events.

"The Coming Fury" documents the onset of the Civil War, beginning with the Democratic Convention in Charlestown, South Carolina in April 1860 and ending with the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. In that relatively short span of time, the ability of the United States to maintain the unhappy national political compromise over the divisive issue of slavery rapidly eroded into open warfare. Catton adroitly captures the stumbling efforts of different leaders to defer or avoid the horror of civil war while attempting to resolve what had become an unresolvable political issue. His account of the dilemma of Major Robert Anderson, trapped at Fort Sumpter in Charlestown by men who had lately been his fellow citizens, is especially poignant. Anderson is trapped also between the Union and Confederate Governments, each pursuing its own political goals through the fate of Anderson's small garrison, now the last symbol of Federal authority in South Carolina. The shelling of Fort Sumpter will trigger open warfare, culminating in this volume with First Bull Run, where a Union loss will put paid to the notion of a quick end to the war.

This book is highly recommended to students of the Civil War and to the interested reader seeking an enthralling account of the beginning of that war.

When my husband wanted a good book on the Civil War, a friend recommended Bruce Catton's American Civil War Trilogy. My husband thought it was a fabulous series, so I was determined to read it as well. After finishing the first book, The Coming Fury, I have to agree. Even though The Coming Fury was first published in 1961, it remains one of the definitive books written about the Civil War.

The Coming Fury actually starts before the Civil War with the Democratic Convention of April 1860 in Charleston, South Carolina. Here, the Democratic Party will splinter over choosing a presidential candidate because of the slavery issue. Catton painstakingly provides us with this political background leading up to the war, but in a very readable manner. "The story of 1860 is the story of a great nation, marching to the wild music of bands, with flaring torches and with banners and with enthusiastic shouts, moving down a steep place into the sea." The election of Abraham Lincoln will set the southern states on the path to secession.

Catton details the setting up of the Confederate government, the scramble for bases and forts, and the creation of the CSA military machine. He also spends much time on the opening shots on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. At first, it was like a war between friends. "The Federal soldiers in the fort and the South Carolina soldiers who encircled it maintained polite relations while they got ready to kill each other." If guns "were fired in the wrong direction, letters of apology were quickly sent and gracefully acknowledged."

The end of The Coming Fury takes us to the first major battle of the war--Bull Run. Considered a "battle of amateurs," it made both sides realize that this war wasn't going to be over anytime soon.

Catton seamlessly weaves the political and military aspects of the Civil War in a way that keeps this series extremely popular almost 50 years after it was first published. Having just read The Civil War by Geoffrey Ward, Ric Burns and Ken Burns, I was surprised to see how much of Catton's work found its way into their book. I have already started Volume Two, Terrible Swift Sword and it promises to be just as good as The Coming Fury.

The first of this three volume series takes us from the 1860 Democratic National Convention to Bull Run and is an absolute treasure. It is simply the most precise and informative narrative of this period I've read. After reading this you will understand how we got from a bunch of swelled-up aristocrats to a shooting war and you'll see how sad and pathetic the whole affair really was. You'll ask yourself a dozen times while reading why didn't somebody stop this madness?

The other two volumes provide a readable but brief history of the war. But as historical literature often does the story bogs down in dates and names and places and provides an accurate but rather generic list of events for the remainder of the war. For those wanting a get in and get out quickly version of the Civil War this is it.

For those wanting more detail and have the time I recommend Shelby Foote's trilogy. For those wanting a primer of the events leading up to the Democratic National Convention I recommend "Jefferson Davis, The Man and His Hour" by William C. Davis. Not in itself a great book but it does provide interesting insight into the politics, pride and stupidity in the years leading up to our country's darkest hour.

For anyone, like I once was, who needs an education on the causes of the Civil War, this book is indespensable. Growing up in the South, I was taught in public schools that slavery had very little to do with the Civil War. Catton not only obliterates this theory, he goes in to much detail about the various conflicts and rivalries (including slavery) which caused an unbridgeable chasm between North and South in the decade leading up to the firing upon Fort Sumter in April, 1861. He clearly demonstrates why these differences in philosophy would erupt into war, which in retrospect was probably the only way America could ever be united in our collective belief system, which we now take for granted. I would recommend this book (and Catton's entire Civil War Trilogy series for that matter) to both casual reader and Civil War buff alike. In fact, it should be required reading for ALL americans.

This is an EXCELLENT book about the inner workings and decision makeing process of the Bush Administration during Panama and Desert Shield/Storm.

It is easy to become jaded today about what our government is doing and why, but The Commanders, is one of the most engaging looks at your government coming together. For better or for worse, it is even more engaging since so many of the "players" in this book are in the forefront of our news today. One of Woodwards' best.

I bought this book on a Friday night and compulsively read the book until Sunday morning. The read is quick, and the parts about Panama are very fascinating. It's nice to read about something that doesn't involve the Middle East....oh wait a minute, the middle east is covered as is the military history of this period. Colin Powell is a hero and a great pragmatic man, which mkes me long for the pre-Clinton days. History would be much different if Goerge the 1st stayed in power just 4 more years. The bravery and pragmatism of the 1st Bush administration makes you wonder about this Bush administration.

Bob Woodword seems to have become the reporter of authority when it comes to writing what I have heard called "instant histories", that is, histories that will surely be expanded as perspective is gained on a given event, but ones that accurately record how people saw things at the time. In "The Commanders" Woodword gives blow by blow accounts of two major foreign policy crisis' which ultimately led to military action: the removal of Manuel Noriega from Panama and Operation Desert Storm. The book is a quick and absorbing read, focusing almost entirely on the relationhip between the military (Pentagon) and civilian (White House) leaderships, and how that relationship operates during a crisis.

I assume that many who read this book now look to widen their view of some of the key players in the current administration, namely Cheney, Powell, and Wolfowitz (though in much lesser role here) and now is as good a time as any to do so. My impression of Powell, while widened, remains consistent. He comes off as more hesitant to use force than others, very conscious of organization, very thorough, and very aware that words have power. Cheney, however, doesn't at all resemble his sinister caricature. He, too, is careful and analytical, often concerned with Bush "ratcheting up the rhetoric way too much," and, at one point, even recomending that Bush slow down and "wait for the UN." Whereas these two figures are painted as rivals within the "W" administration, they pictured as allies in the first Bush Administration.

Our problems with diplomacy are also present, though they are not the focus of the book. The presumed reaction from Latin America contrained our ability to craft a war plan in Panama, even though it was "anticipated that privately most of these governments would send back-channel word that they were nuetral or even pleased" that Noriega was removed, and it was certain that the Panamanian people hated their leadership (92% were ultimately in favor of Noriega's removal, according to Woodword). Also, many instances show Arab regimes begging for protection, though not wanting their populations to know about the American presence. At one point, the exiled Emir of Kuwait even refuses to meet with members of the US Senate. And of course, "The French were a problem and required a major effort". We will continue to have problems if governments, particualrly democratic ones, refuse to reveal to their publics what they see as in their own national interest. Ahh, the trials of a superpower!

If you are looking for an account of the diplomatic manuevering, the assembling of the coalition, or the national political debate preceeding either conflict; or you want an account of Gulf I itself, this is not your book. Taken for what it is, however, "The Commanders" is an excellent. There are a number of times where statements from this book could fit perfectly into the latest foray in Iraq, but I'll let you hunt for those.

Lastly, funniest line in the book: "the secure internal electronic-mail system, called E-mail, provided a means of quick nearly instantaneous communications by computer with the boss." Who knew only a decade ago that you needed someone to explain what an E-mail is?

This book starts at the beginning of the GHW Bush Administration and goes through to the very beginning of the Gulf War.
It's always a little difficult to know how accurate Woodward's recountings are of conversations and inner-thoughts of the most important people, but there are rarely serious complaints about the accuracy of his books - at least as far as I am aware. For the most part, the book comes from the perspective of Powell and Cheney, with important additions from other key folks at the Pentagon and White House.
The beauty of reading about the GHW Bush Administration is that one also learns about the GW Bush Administration, for many of the key players came back for an encore.

Woodward did a top notch job of discussing important issues in a way that appeals to the general reader. I hope he continues to do so with the GW Bush Administration; both "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" are fine books, but "The Commanders" is much better.

This book is packed with ideas on winning back customers. It takes CRM to a new level. The authors have a great understanding of what motivates the customers' decisions.

We have utilized Customer Winback as a tool in taking our organization to the next level of service recovery. As a healthcare organization renowned for service excellence, we found that this book assisted us in developing new approaches through the case studies and examples offered by the authors. The information provided is clear, straightforward and easy to translate to any industry. It is refreshing to read a book that focuses of the value of keeping existing customers rather than constant recruitment of new customers. I would highly recommend Customer Winback.

This book deals with the often neglected area of bringing customers back once you have lost them. Griffin and Lowenstein give the reader numerouse specific strategies and tools for winning back lost customers, saving customer before they defect and "making your company defection-proof."

As I have stated in my review for "The Journal of Consumer Marketing",each chapter summarizes the points succinctly in a method that allows the reader to digest the material for long-term memory.

This book is right for people who have,had, or hope to have customers. It is one of the most comprehensive books on getting,keeping and getting back customers that I have encountered. It is for people who teach marketing and for people who do marketing.

Customer Winback has great information and wonderful examples (presented in depth) of what companies can do to address a much-neglected area of customer service--winning back lost customers. It shows how this concept is just as important as emphasizing customer loyalty and customer satisfaction in not only maintaining customers, but keeping them delighted and coming back to buy more.

It is very well organized, well-written and covers a wide range of material. It also gives you many ideas to implement at your own company. Just one chapter provides you with more substance than many entire books. This is an excellent customer service book and a must for customer service managers. I recommend it highly.

Customer Winback has great information and wonderful examples (presented in depth) of what companies can do to address a much-neglected area of customer service--winning back lost customers. It shows how this concept is just as important as emphasizing customer loyalty and customer satisfaction in not only maintaining customers, but keeping them delighted and coming back to buy more.

It is very well organized, well-written and covers a wide range of material. It also gives you many ideas to implement at your own company. Just one chapter provides you with more substance than many entire books. This is an excellent customer service book and a must for customer service managers. I recommend it highly.

The photographer has really captured the feel of Ellis Island. A visit to the island is a must for people visiting New York. Whether this was the first stop for your ancestors on their arrival to the new world, or they came through other ports of entry, I think the general experiences were the same. All the feelings of expectation, fear, joy or the disappointment of making such a long journey only to be detained or turned back while in sight of the "promised land" are tangible in Stephen Wilkes' images.

As an artist, I purchased this after my artist friend showed it to me, to use as a guide for selecting particular colors and/or color combinations in abstract paintings. It is amazing that the light in the photos has been captured as it truly was--not altered or enhanced with SW to convey a particular mood. Everyone I have showed this to has been propelled to stop and look through every image in the book--it draws you in as you flip through the pages. The colors portray emotion. Content is one of a kind. Highly recommended.

I found this book to be stunning and thought provoking-I wondered about how frightened and angry immigrants must have been to be treated in such a way after what they went through before.

The pictures speak of the passing of time with such a quietness. One can only imagine the complete opposite when Ellis Island was a sea of humanity speaking and crying and hoping while glimpsing NY's famed skyline so nearby. So many hopes realized, so many unfulfilled.

I Love this book, the pictures are beautiful, the design and layout make the pictures and quotes very moving. As a photographer I admire the quality of the work, and the bright vivid prints. I love that most of the images are full pages, sometimes spread across two pages, with small text labeling the room, or part of the property. There are no frames, page designs, or paragraphs to take away from the imagery. For more information and details the photographer includes a section of thumbnails with descriptions, stories about the room, or the shooting conditions, or even bitd of history. The thumbnails and text are at the back of the book with an arial shot and map showing the layout of the buildings. It really helps to peice together the history of Ellis Island. The quotes including add to the emotion behind the images, and I like that they were on parchment paper, so that you can see the pictures behind it. The books are being enjoyed by me and my mother, who is very interested in the hostory of Ellis Island, while I enjoy it for the photography. Great book to own, everyone should have a copy.

This review mostly concerns the Enquiry. The Letter is primarily a defense of Hume's earlier Treatise of Human Nature, while his Abstract is an anonymous review of the Treatise. It strikes me as very funny, though not surprising, that Hume would review his own work. Funny because any author would give his right arm to get at least one favorable review when all the other critics are completely missing its point. Unsurprising because Hume was probably one of the only people alive at that time who could truly grasp all the facets of his radical philosophical claims.

The Enquiry was written after the Treatise. Hume, though he claimed the opposite, seems never to have really recovered from the blow he took from seeing his Treatise "fall dead born from the press." As a result, his Enquiry is far more cautious in the steps it takes. (For those of you who have read both, yes, I swear, Hume IS more cautious. Compare the claims.) A more robust philosophical stance is taken in his Treatise, while a more focused stance is taken in his Enquiry.

The Enquiry is mainly a work of epistemology and as such, scrutinizes our methods of acquiring knowledge. Making perhaps the most radical (and poignant) claim in all of modern philosophy, it posits, and supports, that there is NO causation, only conjunction. That, for example, when we see a glass drop and break, we cannot say we know gravity caused this (in the way we know two plus two equals four). All we see is constant conjunction. The connection is lacking, i.e., it is not inconceivable that the glass wouldn't bounce, turn to ash, or dissolve into sand (the way it is inconceivable that two plus two equals five). This, in effect, nullifies all the so called "laws" of nature that are formed by science. (Note that this does not state that there are no laws of nature, just that we really can never make the claim that we ever really know there are laws of nature.)

This could be thought of as the philosophical shot heard round the world. Agree or disagree, Hume must be answered. Hume has historically been charged with creating an intellectual and philosophical cul-de-sac with his skepticism. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Hume makes a claim which none can refute, but at the same time one which none can accept. In effect, Hume's philosophy seems to bind the human mind, stopping its journey of discovery and ultimately accomplishing what his predecessor, John Locke, set out to do, i.e., map the extent of human knowledge.

However, where one may see Hume's philosophy as shackles and fetters in the search for truth, one could also equally see his philosophy as liberation. Implicit in his philosophy is the idea that ANYTHING is possible. There are no shackles, no fetters, no limits; only those that we create for ourselves. Our limits are self-imposed, constructs of our observance (and inference) of connection. In this way Hume appears in the same light as the Eastern masters seeing that reality is not what we have (through experiential knowledge) believed it to be. It is something much more wondrous. In Zen, our causal thinking is the only barrier between the person and enlightenment. Hume could be seen as implying that when the idea of causality is removed, with only conjunction remaining in its place, the state of true knowledge and wisdom (true zen) is achieved.

This, of course, is only idle speculation. But it is stated so as to demonstrate the richness and immense possibility Hume's philosophy possesses when seen in the correct light. Instead of saying, "Nothing is certain," after reading Hume, one can say, with equal validity, "Anything is possible." The first statement approaches philosophy with despair. The second approaches it with a sense of childlike wonder and hope at the immense possibilities of reality. It approaches life as a beginning, not an ending. It approaches life as the philosopher approaches it.

If one accepts the methodology of Descartes in applying scepticism to reason and the senses, in effect denying the existence of all things but a "thinking thing," two entailments are logically consequent: Either Berkeley's idealism or Hume's scepticism. I don't accept Descartes' starting point, so I find the entailments confused and incoherent. But if one does accept Descartes' starting point, then the two extremes must be heeded. If for no other reason than observing the absurdity of either man's conclusions, it is valuable to read both entailments. But in their confused process, both men bring certain salient features to light.

Hume accepts Descartes starting point, making it his own. But to Descartes method, he adds Pyrrhonist scepticism: That all reason leads to infinite regress, and that all sensations (or impressions) can not be trusted.

Hume begins with the conclusion that all sense perception is either an impression or idea. Even memory and imagination, two other faculties of the mind, are conflated into these two species of perceptions, as impressions. Their difference is one of degree (vivacity), not of kind. Hence, Hume is the author of what is known as the "Copy Principle." Instead of unmediated, direct perception through the ordinary senses, all perception is mediated by the imagination into impressions and ideas. From this follows certain resemblances, contiguity, and causal associations between impressions or ideas, and from this association we develop a sense of self. But even the notion of causality here is one of implied inference, not of actual inductive reason. Hume denies there is any real causality that can be known, although we operate "as if" we infer cause from effect. Even probability is reduced to a mere association of ideas and/or impressions; because neither reason (which always leads to infinite regress) or senses (which can always be deceived) can actually be true. The Enquiry also treats of miracles and the testimony of others derisively; but don't we rely on the testimony of others who claim the earth is round rather than flat, just as we rely on others who testify to miracles in a byegone era? After all, few of us have direct experience with a spherical earth (Popper makes this observation).

Hume's method incorporates five kinds of scepticism: (i) methodological, (ii) conceptual, (ii) nomological, (iv) explanatory, and (v) reductive empiricism. His commitment to scepticism is not without some capitulation. While he denies absolute causality and inductive inference and probability in an actual senses, he relies on them for practical purposes. One can't remain a pyrrhonist for long; some elements of reason and some degree of confidence in impressions is necessary for ordinary life. But if one starts with Descartes' starting point, extreme scepticism is a necessary entailment. Which, after seeing Hume deny so much intuition, is it really worth starting with Descartes' scepticism? Answering that question is what makes Hume interesting.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

Hume, I and many others think, was the greatest philosopher to have written in English, and this is the book to pick up if you want to introduce yourself to Saint David's distinctive brand of classical empiricism. This is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy, and it's hard for me to see how anyone interested in the history of modern thought can avoid reading this book or the corresponding sections of Hume's Treatise.

As is well-known, the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was intended as an encapsulation and popularization of the views Hume defended in Book I of his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume assumed that book's commercial failure could be accounted for by its length, difficulty, and lack of accessibility, and so, being a man who desired literary fame, he hoped to acquire commercial success by presenting the same ideas in a more appealing and accessible manner. Unfortunately, it seems Hume misunderstood what the literati of his day were looking for in a philosophical treatise. For the Enquiry, like the Treatise before it, didn't bring him the fame he sought. Still, Hume did understand what goes into writing excellent philosophical prose, and consequently this book is a much easier read than Book I of the Treatise. Indeed, this book constitutes an excellent introduction to Hume's thought, and, except for maybe Berkeley's Three Dialogues, I can't think of another primary source that would serve as a better introduction to classical British empiricism.

Now, let's get to the ideas here. Hume, like the other classical empiricists, was primarily concerned with the psychological question of the origin of our concepts. About the answer to this question, the empiricists were all agreed--our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

The traditional way of placing Hume within the story of empiricism goes something like this. Hume takes up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion. Whereas Locke and Berkeley hadn't been wholly consistent empiricists, Hume, the true believer, demonstrates that classical empiricism leads to a pretty thoroughgoing skepticism. Since he's wholly convinced of the truth of his empiricist premises, Hume is willing to accept the skepticism that goes along with them. However, those who aren't convinced of that his empiricism is obviously correct think that Hume has actually demonstrated the implausibility of his empiricism. If this is where empiricism leads, they think, then it's clear that we need to reject empiricism. Indeed, some, like Thomas Reid, view Hume's arguments as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of his sort of empiricism. On this interpretation, Hume's philosophy essentially presents a dilemma for all future thinkers: abandon empiricism, or accept empiricism along with Humean skepticism.

But a different view of Hume, one of Hume as proposing a wholly naturalistic account of the human mind, has recently emerged as a competitor to the general conception of Hume's place within philosophy sketched in the previous paragraph. This interpretation downplays Hume's skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

If this view is correct, then Hume has abjured many of the normative aims of traditional epistemological inquiry. He isn't attempting to show how we can answer a skeptic or why we have good reason to believe what we think we know. Instead, he wants us to stand back from our everyday beliefs and think about the natural processes that result in them. How, exactly, do our minds operate? How do we come to think what we do about the world? Hume thinks that this sort of inquiry will lead us see that, at some point, the explanation of why we think what we think reaches certain brute facts about the operation of the human mind. When we reach these points, there is nothing more to be said. We simply can't help thinking in these ways, and we lack the resources to demonstrate that these ways of thinking constitute an accurate way to represent the operation of the external world. And, Hume claims, it turns out that many of the fundamental elements of our conception of the world--the belief that things stand in causal relations to one another, the belief that we can know that there is a world outside our minds, the belief the future will resemble the past--end up not being open to ratification by experience. With respect to beliefs of these sorts, we ultimately have to appeal to custom in order to explain their existence and popularity. Hume, then, can be seen as demolishing the pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account of human thinking.

First I would like to commend the excellent review of this book by CT Dreyer in which he correctly shows how Hume extended the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley to the point where skepticism seemed our only honest way of thinking about our knowledge of the world. Hume's questioning of induction, of how we can be sure tomorrow will be like today , his questioning of how we can trust our senses to know the outside world, his questioning of how we can hold our world logically together when analysis reveals that there is no necessary connection between ' cause' and 'effect' in everyday life action means he wakened not only Kant from his dogmatic slumber but Philosophy itself from the sense that it will provide absolute understanding.
Hume is a very clear writer. I remember reading the famous billiard ball account of causality in which our common sense view of ' before' and ' after' is questioned and taken apart. I believe Hume says after this account, something to the effect and ' still when we leave the room we leave by the door and not by the window'. A friend of mine in this class when the class ended opened the window ( on the ground floor ) and went out that way.
This is difficult and great philosophy. I do not pretend to understand it or its implications fully. A test of the mind and a necessary read for anyone who would know Western Philosophy.