The Empire Books

Donna Gillespie's The Light Bearer is an entertaining, substantive work, made even more impressive by being the author's first novel. She cares for her characters, especially her two leads, Auriane and Marcus Julianus, who are likable, soulful, and passionate heroes. It is impossible not to root for them to overcome their enemies and come together as allies. Her research is evident in the amount of historical detail, particularly in her description of Chattian customs and rituals. Since many of the facts about the culture of Germanic tribes have been lost, she relies on educated speculation to authenticate her portrayal.

As a character, Auriane is appealing in that she straddles the limbo between Germanic tribalism and Roman civilization. While she firmly subscribes to her tribal customs, she is amazed and impressed by Roman advancements. Her tolerance of Rome and Romans distinguishes her from the Boudica, a British warrior maiden who is her closest real-life composite. I like how Auriane's quasi-Romanization provides conflict between her and her kinsmen.

The novel is more fiction than history. Auriane and Marcus Julianus are entirely fictional, although I am sure they inspired by true people and events. While it is possible that people like them existed, I do not believe it to be likely. Marcus Julianus's role in monumental events is too significant; anyone who would have effected such dramatic change would have been remembered. I think that the author could have learned from Gore Vidal (in Creation or the Narratives of Empire series) or Mary Renault (in The Praise Singer or The Mask of Apollo) who create memorable fictional characters who witness historical events but rarely incite them.

In my opinion, the novel's main weakness is the lack of complexity in the characters. On one hand, the heroes are unquestionably good and capable. They rarely make mistakes, and when they do, they turn out to be fortunate errors which lead to greater understanding of events or acceptance by others. On the other hand, the villains are monstrously evil, which is the novel's biggest failing. The author never attempts to humanize Domitian, Junilla, or Odberht, all of whom may have compelling causes for their villainy: Domitian and Junilla were persecuted under the Nero regime, and Odberht was disowned by his father. The author did not have to elicit sympathy for them, but she could have made an effort to make them more understanding. In particular, her depiction of Domitian is heavy-handed, lacking the realism or intricacy of Robert Graves's Claudius or Colleen McCullough's Caesar or Augustus. While history is sketchy about him, there is some consensus that he was an able administrator, which the author omits. I think that Gillespie could have done more with him by weighing his reign against Nero's and using the similarities and differences to pin down his character.

I also think that the novel would have been more digestible as two or three midsized novels than one colossal epic. The plot has numerous places where one storyline ends and another begins. These ending and beginnings might have better handled in separate works than in one book. The novel sprawls at times; as a series of novels, it might have been tauter and more focused. She could learn narrative control from Gillian Bradshaw, whose Roman novels are consistently engaging due to their economy of words and plots.

The fact that I am comparing Gillespie to accomplished, praised writers in the genre indicates her talent and potential. Mentioning a first-time novelist alongside Vidal, Renault, Graves, and McCullough is an accolade.

The Lightbearer is truly an amazing read. Once I began it, I couldn't pull myself away from the spell of Auriane, woman warrior, fighting for the survival of her embattled Germanic tribe against the all powerful Roman army. The characters are so richly drawn, I had an immediate sense of our shared humanity, despite the remoteness of their times. I was captivated by the vivid descriptions of these two worlds, sometimes hauntingly beautiful, sometimes disturbingly barbarous, always artfully rendered through Gillespie's exquisite prose. This is definitely a page turner filled with passion, struggle, heroism, and intriguing myth. With this carefully crafted tale Gillespie enters the arena of master storyteller.

I'll never completely comprehend the fact that this is her first book!
Beautiful prose, characters that spring to life and roam in your mind, surprisingly insightful details of the ancient days, plots refreshingly free of cliche, battle & gladiatorial scenes that take your breath away and bring you to the spot, as if you are watching the whole event close-up, seeing, hearing and feeling each exciting, gory moves on the battlefields and arena yourself...

And then, of course, there's the breathtaking love story.
Though Marcus and Auriane meet face-to-face over half into the book,
this particular sub-plot of the story does not lag along the way, as they--at least in their subconscious--constantly reach for each other. Their initial meeting sparks passion, not necessarily of love but of renewed zeal for life; their bone-tired minds and bodies understand each other better than they consciously understand, therefore lending them incentives for their despaired souls.

Auriane's uncommon courage and strive for life and the ultimate happiness--both of hers and the others--combined with Marcus Julianus's wisdom and wit come in beautiful harmony in their endeavor to solace each other's lifelong pain; they are both fighters in their own ways.

Despite the length of the book, I believe it'd be a rather fast read for everyone, not because it's easy to read, but solely because you won't be able to put it down and not think about it all the while.
And I sincerely regret that the Light Bearer hadn't received a brighter spotlight as it so much deserves; the publisher should have promoted it on a grander scale.
It is truly an incomparable epic that, in some ways, reminds me of Pressfield's Gates of Fire.

This is a big book by any standards, 800 pages and is the result of years of research and study by the author into the culture, and history of Rome and the Germanic tribes. I found it fascinating, exciting and thought provoking. In fact everything that a good book should be.

The year is AD 83 and the Emperor Domitian has crossed the Rhine with four legions, approximately 24,000 men and they have not marched that far for the exercise. The German tribes have tried to maintain their independence for as long as they can, but against such might their resistance is futile. Thus begins this mammoth book that takes us from the heartlands of the Rhine back to the decadence and temptations of ancient Rome.

A young woman Auriane, daughter of a chieftain who was to become the most revered prophetess of the tribes is captured and taken to Rome as a slave. There her life is changed completely and everything that she stands for is brushed away like so much rubbish. But having known her destiny from being a child Auriane is not about to bow to the yoke of Rome without a fight . . .

There is much I could say about "The Light Bearer" which has already been said, but as I don't review all the books in McCullough's Masters of Rome series (of which I've ready each book), I don't feel I can properly do justice to the greatness of this sweeping epic, which unlike McCullough's work, spans not just from Rome, but from a not well known Germanic tribe called the Chattians.

Gillespie does an amazing job of keeping Rome and Germania separate in writing details, with an inevitable connection between the two. Much is equally known about both the Chattians and the Romans as if written by two authors with the same writing style.

Some high points I point out are the very subtle rise of Domitianus's deranged paranoia and Caligulan/Neronian style reign, though the foreshadowing was a bit too obvious for my tastes.

Other interesting bits are the use and apparent source of commonly known modern things among the Chattians, such as the Goddess of the underworld, Hel, and the Eastre celebration, involving children dressed as rabbits and the hiding of colored eggs.

Because the flaws are so few and insignificant in the face of the greater elements, I think it's easier to point them out:

The writing is very sumptuous, but often at times it can get too dense and bogged down in details. This occurs mostly the first time Auriane enters the Colisseum.

Also, the sex. I've become used to ancient historical novels writing sex scenes very metaphorically and obtusely, without using direct wording. Gillespie appears to take it to such an extreme, with the vividly flowery writing between Marcus and Auriane's lovemaking that it becomes like a dense poem jackknifing from the wonders of nature and life and the gods in an obtuse manner, you nearly forget that the two characters are having sex. So over the top is the writing, that the way Gillespie describes it, you'd think Auriane was having blinding orgasms at just Marcus's touch on her arm or chest.


With the state of Rome at this point, and the main character being a foreigner and enemy to Rome, it's inevitable that a bias against Rome would be drawn, but the male character of Marcus Arrius Julianus is so much the outcast that there is little distinction between how Auriane and Marcus view the Roman world despite their differences. Auriane views Rome as savage and barbaric, and a plague on Fria's realm, whereas Marcus views it in somewhat the same fashion, but figures it's all he has, so he may as well love it.

Aside from Julianus and some of the senators friendly to him, you'd think Rome was a festering pot of corruption, barbarity, and bloodlust the epitome of the Roman view of the barbarians, while the Chattians are viewed as pure, natural, children of the earth that can do no wrong and are victimized by everyone from Rome to their neighboring tribes. Any opposition to Baldemar, Auriane's father and chieftain of the Chattians, is viewed as petty greed and personal problems on the part of the dissenter.

Some forgiveable offenses include loose ends, which may be tied up in the sequel "Lady of the Light", or the as of yet unnamed second sequel, including both Marcus and Auriane having amulets of earth from their childhood, duplicates of one another, and Auriane's seeming mystical foresight.


All these flaws are minimal, in my view, and not much to drag the otherwise epic tale down a full star in rating.

There is one issue with both Auriane and Marcus Julianus which may detract some readers, though is apparently done in such a way that broad interpretation can explain it away as easily as it couldn't: Gillespie may be guilty of "Mary-Sue"ing with Auriane and Marcus Julianus. Both seem to be greater than their surroundings, meant for greater things not yet known to either, and with little to no flaws beyond what their separate societies have naturally imbued in them (stubborn traditionalism in Auriane, cynic realism in Marcus), and beautiful physiques. From a certain point of view, many of their actions or words appear to be Mary Sue-ish reflections of the author's own point of view (determined by the narrative) or of a sense of moral or social well-being beyond that of someone from ancient times.

Or this could simply be the tired ramblings of a fussy reader.

Either way, the over 1000 page epic was a great read, and a highly insightful view into how the Germanic tribes of the early Roman Empire, and the early Roman Empire itself may have been.

Although a bit confusing in his presentation of dozens of key characters unfamiliar to the reader, Lawrence paints an extraordinary sketch of a time and people otherwise just a footnote to World history. The richness of the text and word pictures were worth the time spent laboring through massive amounts of detailed narrative.

This is one of the great books of the 20th century. That it could be written at all is almost a miracle in itself. Take a brilliant Oxford student trained in the old classical tradition, place him in the Arabian desert as advisor to the wild Bedouin tribesmen during their revolt against the Turks and have him write with an acute sensitivity and unparalleld insight into what was transpiring before him and you may have some notion of what the book is like.
It's a long book. You will learn a great deal about blowing up a railroad bridge in the desert, about camel rides, thirst, and hunger and the heroism and brutality of war. The portraits of Sheik Auda, Sherrif Ali and Prince Faisal of the two Arab boys who Lawrence takes under his wing are masterpieces in and of themselves. The nobility and savagery of the desert tribesmen contrasted with the cold stoicism of the British and the inculcated cruelty of the Turks are just some of themes addressed during the course of the work. There are brilliant passing insights as to the Semitic inspiration for all the revealed religions and their relation to the desert beautiful descripitions of the terrain the weather and the obstacles encountered. When Lawrence says that from the beginning he believed the Arab revolt would succeed because it grew out of a sympathetic population was opposed by a modern army that could not garrison the territory occupied one wishes that President Bush had read it instead of just seeing the movie. Read it yourself.

Rightfully regarded as a modern classic, this book is nevertheless not light reading. This is a result of the density of information, as well as Lawrence's writing style, which often makes a re-reading of passages necessary to fully grasp them, besides his use of some unusual vocabulary. But by the time one has completed the journey to Damascus with Lawrence and his Arabs, one has almost got a taste for his own peculiar style, even if one cannot always agree with his views, which however, were pretty progressive for a man who grow up at the height of imperialism.

There are, however, many contradictions in the man. At the start of the book, for example, he sympathizes with the unwilling Turkish conscipts, illiterate Anatolian peasants who really wished to be back home, led by a militaristic officer caste fresh from the Armenian genocide. Later in the book though, little sympathy is shown, and on one occasion when Lawrence was angered by the Turks, he did nothing to stop their massacre on their defeat, and left all their wounded where they fell - every one of hundreds froze to death in the cold winter night...

But when one considers that he lost both brothers in 1915 in France, his father in 1919 of the Spanish influenza, and his closest friend, and probably boyfriend, Salim Ahmed, shortly before his entry into Damascus, one can be more forgiving of his attitude. And who can forget his botched execution of Hamed, who'd killed another man? To avoid a blood feud, Lawrence suggested that he execute the man, which was insisted on by the Arabs. 3 shots with his pistol, one of which hit the man on his wrist. No wonder he said he couldn't sleep that night. Or his having to shoot long-time compatriot Farrah in the head as he was too seriously injured to move, and wanted to avoid the inevitable torturing to death of Arab prisoners. Enver Pasha, the Turkish commander, had thrown so many men live into his furnace that he knew just how long it took before you heard the sound of their heads popping. Considering this background of brutality, Lawrence comes across as positively humane.

The book has it's lighter moments though. Who can forget the tribe of the Ageyl, who were so poor they used to go into battle stripped to their loin cloths, both in the belief that it reduced their chances of infection if they were hit, as well as to protect their clothing from bullet holes or blood stains...the young Arabs urinating on others' wounds as the only antiseptic treatment in the desert...the Howeitat treatment of snake-bites - bind up the part with snake-skin plaster, and read chapters of the Koran to the sufferer until he died. Life was hard, and luxuries were few, something which seemed to attract Lawrence even more towards his mission of reaching Damascus and driving out the Turks, even if his conscience continued to bother him that the British Govt's promises to the Arabs were unlikely to be fulfilled.

Finally, Lawrence claimed he left the original manuscript on the train, and had to rewrite the entire book from memory, an amazing feat considering the wealth of detail here. Actually, it would be a superhuman task, and Robert Graves, one of his best friends, believes the story was a lie. The implication is that Lawrence made out that he'd had to rewrite the book by recalling his memories as a cover for the fact that parts of the book are invented, and many facts changed, and that this would be the perfect excuse should his information later be found to be inaccurate. But why claim to have blown up over 70 bridges when the real number was around 20 or so?

The answer is that this is a work of literature, and not a military textbook. We'll never be really sure of which parts are exactly true, and which merely invented as representing what typically happened. It's not always light reading, so set some time aside for this one, but when you get to the end, you'll be glad of having made the effort.

TE Lawrence (1888-1935) the British soldier, poet and scholar wrote this insightful personal account of the Arab Revolt based on his war journals which is as confronting as it is poetic and beautiful. How could one not be enthralled by the writings and perspectives of a fine intellectual mind tormented by the reality of war and hypocrisy? What makes this book unique and powerful is Lawrence's sensibility as a poet and a soldier. Even if you are not into war history, this is a riveting book you can't afford to miss.

The Hejaz War of 1917 was written by Colonel T.E. Lawrence at the Paris peace talks in 1920 -21. Lawrence understood the Arabs thay did not conquer territory but they brought the Arab tribes together to conquer the Ottoman Turkish Army whom they considered poor soldiers. The Hejaz is the Red Sea coast parallel to the extinct lava fields of the 3,000m high Hejaz mountains. The Hejaz railway, linking Damascus with Medina, was attacked by Lawrence's Hejaz army until the Turks could no longer repair it. The Seven Pillars of Wisdom is the bible of Guerilla Warfare and should be read by General Petraeus US Armed Forces Commander, Iraq.
The taking of Damascus intact in 1918 by the arab army before General Allenby's allied army at least ensured Sheikh Feisal became King of Iraq. The Sykes -Picot treaty of 1916 ensured the Middle East was divided up by Britain and France directly leading to the present Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I think it's the best srategy guide made for OoT. It tells you EVERYTHING you need to collect in the game (except for the sinking lure). And for those who admire OoT art and love the characters -- it has it all!

I'm not a kid, I just didn't want to reveal my account. Anyway, this is a very thorough guide and includes everything but the sinking lure, but the author uses the words d**n, cr*p, a**, and p*ssed throughout the book. This may not be a good choice for younger children.

This is the world's greatest strategy guide! It is so detailed and interesting that you could read it for pleasure (I did). With pictures and step by step instructions, any kid who can read could beat the Ocarina Of Time with it. I am almost thirteen and I've loved it since I was 9.

Many people say that this guide has too much language, it IS an E rated game but I say who gives a sh*t! HAHAHA! Also it doesn't tell about the best kept secret in the game the sinking fish lure. Go to the fishing pond in lake hylia as an adult ONLY, and search the perimeter of the pond, then go to the small stream in the back (that flows into the pond) and look in the rocks, if it's not there then go to then log in the middle of the pond, it'll be there and you'll know it when you get it. You can cetch the loach which is 36? pounds. The biggest i've caught is 20, with a regular hook the biggest was 19. Thank me later

This Book has got to be the best guide book ever written for a game. It has detailed maps, but they are not so detailed that it gives you a headache or anything. It tells you how to do everything, including how to get Epona the horse. It also doesn't leave gaps like other guide books that tell you about one room, then just skip to the next one, without telling you how to get there. It also feels like the writer is talking to you, and makes it enjoyable to read.

This is a good book on how Bill Gates and his business team built the Microsoft empire.

The good aspects of this book include the following:

* The emphasis on how Microsoft was not built in a day but with many, many long days and lots of innovative thinking. This book offers an excellent portrayal of how hard Gates worked.

* The portrayal of how relentlessly competitive and ambitious Gates is, be it at efficient programming, dominating the various software markets, studying higher mathematics or playing poker with his buddies.

* The many specific details of the growth of Microsoft, as a company, up until the time of the book's publication.

* The implicit theme of how a productive genius such as Gates never stops thinking.

Unfortunately, there are several aspects of this book that I disliked. These include the following:

* The writing is repetitive and sometimes is very stream-of-conscious. Moreover, this book reads like a 250-300 page book diluted, with uninteresting information, into a 400 page book.

* There is a lot of negative commentary about Gates' personality. First, this negative illustration seems to be done without providing the proper context. Gates is often portrayed as very immature. In this book, Gates is described as frequently issuing direct attacks on the intelligence of his employees during meetings and in private communication. He is also portrayed as immature through negligence, such as when he, presumably inadvertently, left his dirty laundry thrown about on a hotel floor for a top executive of his company to collect.

Although these incidents may be true, the authors could have made the context clearer: Gates is an enormously successful executive in his early twenties. While this does not excuse the described behavior, it does provide context for it. Needless to say, these immature outbursts would be more shocking if they were committed by a seasoned executive in his early sixties.

More generally, this image of Gates conflicts with the image I gathered of him through other means. A friend of mine who worked at Microsoft described Gates as routinely hosting interns in his mansion for dinner, magnanimously forgiving a new employee who accidentally dented his car and graciously answering a personal e-mail concerning the artwork in his home. The Gates I have heard of through my friend, and the one who runs the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does not fit the mold of the Gates described in this book.

I am not challenging the veracity of the information contained within, I am just surmising that it sounds atypical of Gates, if not just descriptions of a few bad habits that he may have grew out of.

Overall, this is a pretty good, but not amazing, slightly outdated book on Bill Gates' impact on turning Microsoft into a giant.

This book "flows" easily and it does a great job covering the meteoric rise of both Bill Gates and Microsoft. The narrative is never dull and both, the man and his company, are given a fair treatment. This book was published in 1993 and a lot of interesting stuff remains to be told. Wish the authors would team up for a sequel. This is a well written and authoritative account of Microsoft and its founder.

Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire

This book is a must-read for people who consider themselves ambitious and driven. It taught me the importance of single-minded drive and determination, coupled with a passion for the line of work one is in. IT is a tough line of work to be in - jobs could be outsourced anytime, skills become redundant quickly and there isn't the glamor or get-fabulously-rich possibility of finance or investment banking... but this book demonstrates that as long as you are passionate about what you do, there is always room at the top. Take heart from it!

This is the definitive Book about Bill Gates (and the history of Windows). It covers all the management aspects of how he drove Microsoft and how the work became his life. The man doesn't do business... He LIVES it. And this book describes it in very much detail.

The details includes how Bill "turned over" IBM... Promissing them the OS/2 under the "NT Technology" flag and how he realeased Windows 95 and killed IBM forever from the Desktop business. It also shows Gates apreciation for Older woman (and many that took him to bed). As part of this "private" package, it also explains the problems that He had with Steve Ballmer. How Ballmer was showing poor management and leadership under Gates perspective and how Ballmer got over it and made his loyalty to Gates forever.

I was more interested on the part that explains how Microsoft Windows 1.0 was developed. How disastrous the first Office was compared to the competition and how they managed to "work around" and fix it, by "coping" the competition and improving it "the Microsoft way".

Buy this if you want to know how business can be done... or be "copied".

Delightful book. Its one flaw is its addictiveness, I couldn't put it down which did cost me sleep (I'm an IT professional with an entrepreneur spirit- your results may vary).

The Microsoft/Gates biography is impeccable in its wealth of interesting details and engaging story-telling.

Bill Gates is a fantastic decision maker. He would be as successful selling water or space suits, he just happened to be at the right time in the right booming industry and pushed with his business-business mentality to the limit. Right decision after right decision, the Microsoft journey is a story that any entrepreneur should nitpick and absorb as much as possible.

Of course, his terrible capitalistic drive is a perfect subject for a discussion on morals, social responsibility and related matters, but without a doubt when it comes to maximizing outcome while playing by our economic rules, Hard Drive tells a tale of epic proportions featuring a superhero / villain that rivals the best of science fiction.

I was moved to reread this fine book by Richard Frank by the allegation by Presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama's former preacher and confidant Jeremiah Wright's that one of America's supposed "sins" that he was cursing it for was the use of the Atomic Bombs on Japan at the end of the Second World War. I was in High School during the Vietnam War period and I recall my teachers telling us that that use of the Bomb was unnecessary and was carried out merely to scare the Communist Soviets and didn't matter anyway since the Japanese were supposedly viewed as "racially inferior". We were taught that the United State government is inherently dishonest, so any such decision to use the bomb must have had "tainted" motiviations. Such cynicism is potentially destructive, as Frank shows in his book.
Attitudes like these have unfortunately become common in the United States over the years, and as Frank points out, are based on ignorance and self-righteousness. President Truman's aide, Admiral Leahy claimed after the war that the use of the bomb was "unnecessary" (Frank points out that there is no record of his opposition at the time the decision was made). This is, of course, true. The Japanese would have eventually surrendered even without the use of the bomb. The question, though, remains "at what cost"? There are two possible scenarios, (1) American and Allied forces invade the Japanes Home Islands in order to force a decision, or (2) no invasion is mounted, but a tight blockade and heavy air bombing keep up the pressure.
Frank shows that although a two-phase invasion was planned, Operation Olympic in Kyushu, followed by Operation Coronet on Honshu near Tokyo, as time passed, American interception and decryption of Japanese messages showed that powerful forces were being brought up to the planned invasion zones along with thousands of aircraft designed for Kamikaze attacks. The civilian population was also being trained to carry out suicide attacks (the government's slogan was "100 Million Die Together"). As a result, American enthusiasm for the invasion scheme waned and, instead, a plan to destroy Japan's railroad system to prevent the distribution of food was developed, which, along with the naval blockade, would bring starvation to the population, forcing the Japanese government to eventually capitulate. The question remained "how long would it take to reach this situation"? Frank points out that over 100,000 Chinese were dying every month during the war, in addition to large numbers of Allied prisoners and forced Asian laborers in southeast Asia. If the war dragged on longer, hundreds of thousands of these people would have died. Had the blockade "succeeded" in bring famine in addition to plague and civil disorder to Japan, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese would have died.
Frank also points out that something like 350,000 Japanese died in the Soviet campaign to conquer Manchuria, many of them civilians. In addition there were still large Japanese forces in China , the Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) and southeast Asia. Without the shock of a surrender brought about by the use of the Atomic bombs it is conceivable that these forces would have continued to fight on (the Japanese Army in China had a history of subordination). There was also a Soviet plan to invade the Japanese home island of Hokkaido. One can only specularte on how many deaths would this have caused, in addition to the possibility that the USSR would have set up a "Japanese Peoples' Republic" in their zone, just like they did in Korea, for which the world is still paying to this day. It is odd that those who show "compassion" for the Japanese people in saying that the bomb shouldn't have been used, seem to lack the same compassion for the oppressed thousands who were dying every day in the Japanese-occupied territories.
Frank also shows that the popular "deus-ex-machina" scenario that supposedly the Japanese government had really made a decision to surrender and were in contact with the USSR government is false. It is true that there were contacts with the Soviets, but they were on a low diplomatic level, and no decision to surrender had been made before the first use of the bomb. In addition, no contacts were made during the three days that passed before the use of the second bomb. It turns out that some Japanese leaders thought the bomb was merely a one-shot affair which the Americans couldn't repeat. Frank shows clearly that America's leaders had no choice but to make the decision they did and that this decision saved untold number of lives, both Allied and Japanese. Anybody who saw the horrific casualties at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa in addition to the mass suicides of Japanese civilians at Saipana and Okinawa would reach the same conclusion.
Richard Frank is performing an invaluable service in destroying the "politically correct" myths demagogues like Wright are propagating and showing that a clear, open mind leads one to the truth.

Frank has done an excellent job of dispassionately presenting the facts about the endgame of the Pacific War. I appreciate that Frank laid out the evidence and left it to the reader to judge where it pointed.

What is clear from the evidence is that neither the Japanese nor American leadership had adequate information to judge the other's intentions during 1945. In fact, there is some evidence that the Japaneese High Command was being mislead by underlings regarding the state of American morale. Thus the War Council believed that they were just one decisive battle away from being able to negotiate with the Americans for softer terms than Unconditional Surrender. On the other hand, American intelligence community were not adept enough to draw out from the vast array of intercepted cable traffic a clear picture. Thus they did not provide Truman information that was 'actionable'.

As for the bomb, the preponderance of evidence amassed by Frank points to the conclusion that once the decision to build the atomic bomb was made, the Manhattan project took on its own momentum and thus made the bombs use inevitable.

All-in-all a terrific book. Since I finished it on September 30th, it makes it onto my Summer Reading Favorites of 2007 :-)

Richard Frank conclusively shatters a number of myths about the end of the Pacific side of World War II.

First, Japan was NOT ready to accept unconditional surrender, even with the caveat of the preservation of the Japanese throne, until after both bombs were dropped. Frank uses extensive declassified transcripts of Ultra (military) and Magic (diplomatic) U.S. codebreaking to get members of the Japanese war cabinet's own words, or lack thereof, on this issue. Within that is the fact that Japan's attempt to use Russia as an intermediary-ally in negotiations was totally out of tune with reality, so much out of tune that Tokyo actually expected Moscow to honor the full one year's "down time" after abrogating the two countries' neutrality agreement.

Second, the Japanese Army was ramping UP the plans for Keisu-Go, the all-out defense of the Japanese homeland, after the spring firebombings of Tokyo and elsewhere. Top Army brass considered that the U.S. might well try blockade, and thought it had enough kamikazes, midget submarines, etc., to make the U.S pay enough a price for even the blockade that it would settle for a negotiated peace. Again, Frank looks in-depth at Magic and Ultra transcripts to show how much support there was for this.

Third, Frank demonstrates that U.S. casualty fears of an invasion of Kyushu were well-warranted and may even have been understated in some cases.

The determination of the Japanese Empire to resist was well-known by American troops in the Pacific who had seen the Japanese, on average, take 97 percent casualties in many of their defensive actions. A militaristic government was ready to exploit this to the death.

The atomic bomb was therefore used for reasons of the highest seriousness. It was NOT dropped on Hiroshima as a demonstration for Stalin. And, speaking of demonstrations, the fact that it took two atomic bombs on Japan to get it to surrender puts the lie to the idea that a "demonstration" bomb would have been enough to get the Japanese to a non-negotiated surrender with them attempting to hold on to territory.

I was so fascinated by this book that I read all the previous reviews. I only want to add my unlimited praise and to add a few thoughts and stories...
I was as unaware as anybody of the details of the end of the Pacific war until I met a fellow (Bill Lear, son of "the" Bill Lear) who was on a troop ship to Olympic. He said the officers told them that they all were going to die. After that the book was a natural, and I couldn`t have chosen better.
In my present line, I am in Japan a lot. If there is any one thing that makes Frank`s book fascinating, it is the detailed look at the inner workings of that eastern mind in the government and military leaders, and the resulting confusion for their hapless diplomats. In some cases it is not so radical - we Americans still get huffy about Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese were following a pretty basic tenet of war. Frank didn`t really go to a lot of trouble to remind us that the "unfathonable" Asian way of seeing things is normal to them. Perhaps it isn`t necessary. Any Japanese soldier who sees dying for his emperor/country as his highest honor will tend to see anyone who surrenders or is beaten before he can sacrifice himself, as the lowest sort of worm, not worthy of bayonet practice let alone a bowl of rice. Just an example, but with a point. Frank managed to state facts, back them up with numbers and intel documents and let it go at that. The case builds easily in the reader`s mind that this was a terrible war and that the allies/Americans were in a real conundrum about how to end it. Which brings up the sadly fascinating fact that the very thing that the allies demanded, as a way of keeping "these fascist and militarist governments from starting a world war every few years", was unconditional surrender, the very thing the Japanese couldn`t accept.
One thing which makes a really great book is that it opens discussion on the topic rather than, say, on the writer`s vocabulary. By that measure, this is one of the best. Please indulge me...
I have been to the peace museum in Hiroshima. It is very moving and also very evenhanded. It shows the little uniforms of the school kids killed - they were in town that day to help build firebreaks. It also has the army order on the wall which commanded that when the invasion came, all subjects were to show up on the beaches with pitchforks, sticks or any other weapon that came to hand. Hiroshima, by the way (to answer a previous comment) was the headquarters of the 5th Japanese Army, in charge of Japan and Korea (where they'd been since 1920, only getting to Manchuria in 1931, re another comment)It was also a recruit center, and a navy shipyard, in other words not exactly non-military.
My Dad flew in B-29s. He was a tough old farm boy, but once he met an army buddy who had also `been there` That`s the only time I saw him cry. I don`t think it`s wrong to lament the terrible things humans are capable of doing to each other and to make them stop; a basic about war, by the way. The fact that millions of innocents had died and were likely to keep dying in this war would make any way of stopping it look pretty good, ie, "moral". I personally would say, you can`t argue with success. The Japanese had been fighting since at least 1920. Days after the bomb, it was over. I`m in the camp of "the Russians had nothing to do with it." I want to thank Mr. Frank for explaning readably and in detail, how that came about.
Finally a note from my Mom... The war council was correct in believing that Americans were sick of the war (Incorrect in their eastern way in seeing Potsdam as weakness). They were beaten but wouldn`t quit. If you had a family member in the service, you put a red star in your window, and if they were killed, you changed it to a gold star. There were plenty of houses with two gold stars in the window. People in 1945 wanted the war to end and wanted the boys home. Imagine you are Truman, and a wife/mother says to you, "You mean to tell me you had the means to end this war the day before my boy was killed, and you didn`t do it?"
Read this book.

It is easy today, with so much information out there about the horrors of atomic warfare, and so little remembrance of the actual history of the final stages of WWII, to be critical of the U.S. decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.

Sadly, as a result, most Japanese are taught today that they were merely the victims of overwhelming American might, rather than the aggressors and instigators of war, and even more sadly, we are confronted with the shameful specter of anti-nuke, anti-war, anti-history Americans pathetically apologizing to the Japanese, misquoting history, and blindly ignoring the real facts behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

In this book, Richard Franks sets about methodically re-creating the historical context of the end stages of WWII. He addresses virtually every controversial claim, every possible scenario, in the decision process that led to the atomic bombing. Other reviewers have mentioned several points already, and so I present only a summary of the major controversies dealt with in this book:

1. Why was it necessary to drop two atomic bombs or to use them on civilians? - The U.S. was afraid that Japan would think that its supply of atomic bombs was limited (and in fact, production was limited, but was steadily growing), and wanted to demonstrate to Japan that it had the ability and willpower to completely annihilate Japan with a series of atomic bombs. As it turns out, the U.S. calculations were correct. After Hiroshima was bombed, Franks points out that there was a faction in the Japanese military that had enough knowledge of the difficulty of uranium separation to deny the possibility that the U.S. could have developed such a bomb or claimed that the U.S. would not be able to keep up the atomic bombing, and used these arguments to continue to hold out against surrender. Other Japanese military leaders hoped that world opinion would bar the U.S. from further use of the atomic bombs on civilians. That the Japanese military doubted the willpower of the U.S. to use atomic bombs against civilians is proof that a mere demonstration on some unpopulated target would have been useless. Dropping two atomic bombs thus served to vaporize all of the final delusions of these fanatic military leaders.

2. Wasn't Japan close to surrender already because of the massive firebombing of its cities? The U.S. had destroyed over 60 Japanese cities already, killing over 100,000 in one raid on Tokyo alone. However, while this caused enormous suffering for Japanese civilians, the military elite ruling Japan couldn't care less, and continued to hold out for a final land battle, intending to inflict enormous casualties on any U.S. invasion. Their calculation was that the U.S., a democracy with freedom of the press and freedom of speech that even then was extremely sensitive to casualties, could be forced to offer a negotiated surrender with better terms (see no. 5 below for more on this) instead of unconditional surrender. One thing that Franks does not emphasize enough is that subsequent firebombings after Tokyo killed far fewer people per raid, as the Japanese learned how to deal with the firebombing better. A significant factor in the success of the firebombing was the nature of the highly flammable wooden cities of Japan. However, neither firebombing nor the inaccurate conventional bombing of that era would have had much impact on the dispersed and hidden armed forces of the Ketsu-Go operation (the Japanese plan for a massive suicidal countering of an American invasion on the island of Kyushu). Ketsu-Go versus the atomic bomb would have been a completely different story. The general in charge of Ketsu-Go happened to have his headquarters in Hiroshima, and after surviving the atomic bombing and seeing its effects, he bluntly told Hirohito that he could not be sure anymore that his forces would be able to fend off an invasion. IMHO, it was this realization by the military that Ketsu-Go would fail in the face of the atomic bomb that was the key in forcing the military to accept defeat without an invasion. And it was this realization by Hirohito that the military would accept his "command" to accept unconditional surrender that encouraged this timid personality to finally step in and "command" surrender (Franks gives some more convoluted reasons that I think are less convincing. He does not emphasize enough that Hirohito had no legal authority at the time to force the military to do anything - Hirohito's power was entirely based on tradition, respect, and superstitious symbolism - and in fact the military fanatics had a history of assassinating advisors to Hirohito whenever it seemed that he was favoring a course of action that they did not like).

3. Weren't the estimated potential U.S. casualties in an invasion grossly inflated? Perhaps they were, but first of all, if you are an American and think that ANY number of dead American soldiers in an invasion of Japan would have been worth trading in return for not using the atomic bomb, then you need to have your citizenship revoked. And if you are Japanese, and believe that a U.S. invasion would have been preferable to atomic bombing, then you really don't understand the fanaticism of the military elite that was in control at the end of the war. At Saipan and Okinawa, the local Japanese citizenry had been recruited into the battles and had suffered enormous casualties. Even worse was being planned for an invasion of the Japanese homeland, with the entire civilian population given bamboo sticks and suicide bombs which they were expected to use against U.S. soldiers. Franks calculates that the civilian casualties in an invasion of Japan would have far exceeded what was suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, U.S. intelligence eventually revealed that preparations for Ketsu-Go were so extensive that chances for a successful invasion were becoming increasingly uncertain. American casualties would have almost certainly been enormous. While General MacArthur blithely swept all of that intelligence under the rug, and continued to insist on the original invasion plans, Admiral Nimitz was on the verge of going on the record opposing the invasion when the atomic bombs were dropped. This book makes clear that a U.S. invasion of Kyushu, led by the over-confident MacArthur, could have well been a complete disaster.

4. Wouldn't a blockade and continued bombing of Japan have forced a surrender? - Yes, but it would have taken a much longer period of time, at a minimum of several more months, and resulted in enormously greater loss of life to others besides U.S. soldiers. Franks points out that by attacking Japan's railway systems and vital coastal shipping, the U.S. could have easily shut down all food distribution in the country. However, again, because the Japanese warlords did not care about the suffering of the civilian population, it is likely in such a scenario that they would have held out for so long that Japanese deaths from starvation would have easily exceeded the deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus there were also the vastly greater numbers of deaths that would have occurred in the countries that had been invaded by Japan, people who would have continued to die under a brutal occupation. There would also have been much greater numbers of deaths amongst Allied POWs. The numbers calculated by Franks are truly staggering, and make clear that atomic bombing to force a surrender was by far the least of all evils in terms of total numbers of dead people. Franks also recounts the massive atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII. Yep, after you read these sections (the atrocities mentioned included dissecting and drilling holes into the brains of captured, living American airmen, among other niceties), you might also look more favorably upon atomic bombing Japan. Let's face it, this was a war without mercy, and the Japanese, who were merciless in their treatment of their enemies, had no right to expect any. Nevertheless, after the surrender, Japan did receive mercy, in the form of massive shipments of food from America to their starving civilians.

5. Wouldn't a negotiated surrender, as demanded by the military warlords, have been preferable to atomic bombing? No, first and foremost, up until the atomic bombings, the Japanese militarist faction simply refused to consider surrender under any conditions. They wanted an invasion and a chance at redemption of national honor with their Ketsu-Go operation. The peace faction's best efforts consisted of delusional hopes that Russia could somehow broker a negotiated settlement. Even AFTER both atomic bombs had been dropped, and Russia had declared war on Japan, the militarist faction continued to hold out briefly for a negotiated surrender with three additional terms besides maintenance of the emperor (which the peace faction also wanted): a short occupation by a minimal force, demobilization of Japanese troops by Japanese officers, and trying of war criminals by Japanese courts (Franks does not mention these details in his book - they are contained in another book "The Day Man Lost Hiroshima"). Acceptance of such conditions would have resulted in only a temporary cease-fire, much like the treaty of Versailles had been for WWI. It would not have removed the basic root causes that led Japan to attack East Asia and America - the institutions and ideology of an intensely nationalistic and fanatic military elite that put national honor and pride above everything else, including common sense. This bitter lesson from WWI, that the military elites and institutions of Germany and Japan needed to be completely eradicated in order to ensure lasting peace with those nations, was what caused Roosevelt to demand unconditional surrender. Roosevelt did not want the sacrifice of the lives of so many soldiers to be in vain, as it had been for WWI.

In summary, people critical of the atomic bombing of Japan simply fail to grasp just how difficult it was at that time for the U.S. and the peace faction in Japan to force an increasingly delusional military elite that was fanatically committed to national honor and pride to give up all of their institutions of power without first completely immolating their country. Read this book, read it carefully, and you WILL understand.

This is a very informative book and a must read for anyone interested in understanding why the Bush administration is so prone to launching wars in the oil-rich Middle East region. The author, a renowned economist, is very knowledgeable about the economics and domestic politics that support such warmongering efforts. He identifies the pro-Israel Neocon movement and its alliance with the lunatics of the religious Right as important forces in the push toward involving the U.S. in wars abroad. The military-industrial complex and the strategic importance of Middle East oil are represented by Vice President Dick Cheney in the Bush administration, and are also prime movers of war.

Probably the most original part of this book is its chronology of empires and how Western civilization started its ascendency after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This chapter (chap. 16) is worth buying the book in itself. The author's style is direct and pulls no punches. An excellent book.

As an amateur student of American foreign policy, I am appalled by the wave of anti-americanism it has generated over the last few years. The policy of systematically meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, especially in the Middle East, has been most counter-productive.

There is no doubt that unbridled interventionism, often done illegally and under murky influences, is the root cause of why there is so much anti-americanism around the world. And case in point is the gratuitous violence imposed on some Muslim countries, i.e. Iraq and Palestine. This is creating tons of resentment all over the Muslim world, turning many to hatred and some to terrorism.

Tremblay's book offers a way out of this circular dilemma: Apply to the Muslim world the same treatment given to the Communist world with the 1975 Helsinki Accords. As he puts it (p. 152-53), the Helsinki Accords, signed by 33 Eastern and Western European countries, the United States, and Canada, played a fundamental role in opening up the communist bloc to liberty, freedom and reforms. I doubt that bombs would have brought the same result.

Former President Mikhail Gorbachev has said that the Helsinki Accords opened the door to reforms that would not have taken place otherwise. Why can we not adopt a similar approach with the Muslim world, instead of jumping all the time on the war wagon? This is a well-written and well-researched book. It is highly recommended.

People who want a condensed introduction on how the Bush administration walked into a quagmire in Iraq should read "The New American Empire". I don't agree with all of Tremblay's arguments, but in my opinion he hits the nail on the head when he identifies the real reasons why Bush II invaded Iraq, i.e oil, Israel, military bases and domestic politics. By the way, the same scenario seems to be repeating itself with Iran, with the same deception about the real reasons for intimidating Iran.

So, even if you do not agree with everything the author has to say, this book is worth a ton of newspapers articles or hours of TV reporting. The chapters on `Oil' and on the `History of Empires' are worth buying this book.

Among the many books written on the Iraq war and the Bush administration's fixation with militarism, this book by economist Tremblay is one of the most readable and most informative.

The fact that George W. Bush was planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' in that country, even before he took power in January 2001, should make people pause and think. So should the Neocon blueprint for a complete American take-over of the Middle East ("Rebuilding America's Defenses"), drafted in Sept. 2001, by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby.

Now that Iraq is a mess, that thousands and thousands of people have been killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, the American people are entitled to know the real reasons why the Bush administration launched an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, with no provocation but with a lot of bad faith. All the official reasons have been proven false. After reading this book, one knows the real reasons behind one of the most foolish enterprises ever undertaken by a U.S. government abroad. I have learned a lot also from prof.
Tremblay's new blog: http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/blog.

The truth shall set you free!

Dr. Tremblay is right on target with his assessment of the direction the U.S. is heading, along with his critiques of the politicians we have in this country. It is amazing that more people don't "see through" the false facades these people present to the public, and that so many people believe the lies doled out to unsuspecting voters! I would recommend this book as a very timely read....particularly in view of the upcoming 2008 Presidential Elections

This is a re-read from my youth and I am glad that it has been reissued. I love all of Engdahl's work and I only wish that she would write more after her long dry period. A well-writte intelligent and charming female protagonist learns and grows within a setting much like early (good) Andre Norton- reminiscent of Ice Crown, in fact.

This is an interesting book. I like the three different voices she uses to narrate the three different worlds, and the way the most advanced world, being the most self-aware, is done in first person.

Interesting questions are raised and about truth, right/wrong, etc. I do not agree with everything the author seems to believe, but this book would be a good springboard for discussion of questions like, "What is truth?" and "What/who is God?" and "Is there anything beyond what we can see and study with traditional science?"

There are a lot of other interesting questions that can be pondered that the book raises but does not answer. For instance, was Alana's father exploiting her young heart and propensity to fall in love in order to save the world of Andrecia and, if so, is that a morally defensible thing?

Not the absolute best book I have ever read, but worth reading, and probably worth reading more than once.

Having read Sylvia Engdahl's excellent novel, The Far Side of Evil, several years ago, I approached this book with a positive outlook that it would be just as thought-provoking and well told. I wasn't disappointed, though this novel is indeed different in tone.

The Enchantress of the title is Elana, whose exact age is never given but can be assumed to be in her late teens or early twenties. Elana, looking for adventure and real life experience, stows away on board a starship that is sent to Andrecia, a medieval planet that is currently being colonized by a more advanced society. Once her presence is known, her father and boyfriend decide that Elana can indeed help with the plan to oust the invaders, which will allow Andrecia to continue to develop at its own pace. Elana becomes the "Enchantress"; she befriends two locals who are off to fight the "Dragon" (a massive rock-chewing machine), and helps them by awakening their own skills so that their quest will be successful. In the process, Elana finds herself falling for the local known as Georgyn, and in her inexperience, putting them both in grave danger.

This book moves seamlessly between points of view, which gives it a much more universal feel than had we only known Elana's side of the story. When Georyn's voice takes over, the story almost becomes a fairy tale; indeed, that is how he sees Elana and the invaders who have come to his world. Elana is, of course, young and inexperienced but desperate to do the right thing; and Jarel is the lone voice of the invaders, unsure of his world's plans but unable to do anything to stop them.

I enjoyed this novel but did feel that at times it was a bit on the fantastic side. I felt the plans Elana's father made to dupe the invaders weren't necessarily believable, but I was able to keep in mind that this is indeed a fantasy. Elana could be infuriating in her lack of knowledge and her headstrong ways, and her poor boyfriend Evrek is relegated to the background while Elana forges ahead with a relationship with Georyn. Overall, however, this is a well-written novel and Engdahl has a gift for telling a tale that will pull you in from the first pages. Over thirty years since its debut, this thought-provoking novel holds up well and is just as relevant today. Recommended for lovers of fantasy.

When Elana's mission gets put in jeopardy she faces a lifetime of torture and imprisonment. Will she be able to save herself and the mission? Elana, the Enchantress, and her father were agents of the Federations Anthropological Center and it was their assignment to stop the Imperials from taking over the planet Andrecia. They led Georyn, a woodcutter's son, to believe that a stone was the source of his new magical powers; however, the truth was that they had taught him telekinesis and he wasn't even aware of it. Georyn was supposed to use his "magic" to defeat the dragon (a mechanical weapon used the Imperials). Elana and Georyn were on their way to the Imperials camp when natives captured them. The natives took them to the Imperials camp where they were locked in barracks. The Imperials planned to send them to a research center to be studied. Elana persuaded one of the guards, Jarel, to help them and he let Georyn out of his cell when no one was paying attention. When it appeared that the dragon was going to defeat Georyn, Elana decided to sacrifice herself to try to end the whole ordeal. As she ran and laid in front of the dragon, a flood of courage surged through Georyn. He used his magic powers to save her, stop the dragon, and scare away the Imperials. Georyn went to the king to announce that the dragon had been killed and to get his reward. He decided to explore the rest of the planet he lived on while he had the chance. Elana left Andrecia after accomplishing her goal and traveled back to her own planet. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone and everyone who enjoys reading a great book.
This book is written with loads of details. Georyn was the youngest of four sons born to a poor woodcutter, who lived on the planet Andrecia. Elana was a young woman in the First Phase of her training to be an agent. Jarel was an Imperial medic who was determined to prove that his civilization was not right in trying to colonize Andrecia.
Even though this is a science fiction book some of the things in it are realistic to our own world. The cool, green, peaceful planet, Andrecia is the third planet of a medium sized yellow sun. The Federation tried to prevent weaker nations from being taken over by stronger nations. Some types of people tend to be better at some things than others.
This book will stretch the reader's imagination. The Imperials used a huge machine that resembled a dragon to clear an area on Andrecia for the colony they were planning to establish. Georyn was taught telekinesis on a subconscious level, therefore he didn't even know about it. The Federation was an organization meant to save weak planets from the more powerful ones trying to colonize.
I recommend this book to everyone. It is a great read. It is very imaginative but some of the elements of the book seem somewhat realistic. Even if you are not a big fan of science fiction books this is a story that everyone should read.
~V. Newberry

Please keep in mind that I really liked this book. "Enchantress" is well written and enjoyable. That being said, I could not entirely enjoy the story because I had a problem with the heroine. I know this probably says more about me than her but...

The heroine, as thoughtful and insightful as she is, is a bit of a hypocrite. She "suffers" enormously with guilt about even the smallest of lies she is forced to tell her "poor primitive" lover.

On the other hand she only feels a twinge of condescending pity for her fiancé whom she has been more-or-less betraying by concealing her "forbidden love" for the "primitive" for most the book.

And when it comes to lying to her father and sneaking around behind his back; forget about it! She doesn't even hesitate a second and even takes a certain pleasure in it, even when, inevitably, her "disobedience" endangers entire civilizations.

There are only four main characters in this book. The heroine, her male father, her male fiancé, and her male lover. I found myself many times wishing she had a mother, sister, or best friend to whack her upside the head and tell her to stop acting so ridiculous.

The one woman who COULD and WOULD have set her straight was killed as the book opened. (Actually there WAS one other female in the book; a practically-unconscious sacrifice victim being "delivered to the dragon.")

Anyway enough about my problems. If you didn't even notice the things I had issues with, (and you probably didn't) "Enchantress" is a good read.

I don't own this book, but I just checked out from local library. He has got such a great imagination. Another great book he created. Awesome!

There is really no reason for me to review this book with 30 other reviews already here. I will just state that I loved it. I "read" it to my 4 year old and he wanted to read it again right away. If you look at each picture carefully and discuss with a young child what is going on before you turn the page, they will love it. And if they are like my boy, they will then read it when they are alone. I went to see him that night up in his room and he wanted to read it to me. We sat there while he described each picture and the story in surprising detail. I really think this is a great book with fantastic illustrations and a wonderful story. The author is brilliant.

If you like incredible artwork with an amazing story line than you will love Sector 7 by David Wiesner. Each of his books is absolutely incredible and this is no exception. I bought this(and others of his) for my daughter who is about to become an art teacher to use in her classes and she was thrilled! Enjoy!

This item was exactly as described in the item description. It was in the original packaging and is in excellent condition. I am very satisfied and I highly recommend this seller and product to everyone. This is an excellent book by an excellent author!

Flotsam and Freefall were the first two books I explored by David Wiesner. Sector 7 is not to be missed either. Wiesner's style and creativity are wonderful explorations for all humans(and especially children). M.C. Escher has an honored presence in this book, as he does in Freefall. The theme of flying is present here, as in all of Wiesner's books, and the fanciful creative nature of Wiesner's story and illustrations (paintings?) are not to be missed. Second language learners will immediately have something to say (in their own language) about this book. So will everyone else who reads it. Anyone who has taken the time to sit back and enjoy the show clouds put on will appreciate the ideas within this book. Don't hesitate!

MacQuarrie delivers one of the best Historical Narratives you will read. The subject matter is very interesting: the Incan Empire 10 million strong being conquered by a Spanish force of less than 200 men - albeit men on horses with superior military technology. But, the thing that sets this book appart is the way the story is told. That's what I mean about this book being a great historical narrative. The author does a masterful job at just telling the story of the Spanish conquest over the Incan empire. MacQuarrie is a masterful story teller!

Kim MacQuarrie has created a vivid and fascinating portrayal of the well-known historical events that followed Francisco Pizarro's fateful arrival in Peru. The retelling is even-handed and well-researched, drawing upon a wide variety of sources from both Inca and Spaniard alike.

Impressively, MacQuarrie successfully makes the book accessible and entertaining, without sacrificing accuracy in scholarship. The details that greatly enrich the drama of the story are judiciously chosen, and it is clear that MacQuarrie goes to great lengths to strike an appropriate balance between historical fidelity and compelling storytelling.

I strongly recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the tumultuous history of Peru. However, I especially encourage once and future visitors of Cusco and the Sacred Valley to read it. The book provides a fascinating back story that greatly deepens one's appreciation for the magnificent and mysterious ruins of Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, and other Incan sites.

Although I had read several other accounts of the conquest of the Incas, this one is probably the best. It is hard to put down. Starting with Hiram Bingham and ending with him and the several other explorers of the Antisuyu, the author weaves his account of the downfall of the Incas with skill. I had not realized that so many historical records from that time period were available. Evidently much more is available on Pizarro and his conquest than on Cortez and his. Some of the 16th century documents were discovered only relatively recently and were not available to chroniclers such as William Prescott. If you have already read the story of the Incas, you will not be disappointed in reading about them again. One wonders what might have been if Pizarro's small band had been wiped out before capturing Atahualpa.

As a fan of John Hemming's The Conquest of Incas I was dubious that Kim MacQuarrie's work could begin to approach the level of Hemming's classic. Notwithstanding, I opened The Last Days of the Incas hoping I might glean an interesting insight or two. MacQuarrie's work quickly sent me shooting the rapids of Inca history. It is a breathtaking ride into the rich fabric of past events that make Peru such an enchanting venue today. Read this book and experience the sights, sounds and colors of Incas and Spaniards colliding on the stage that is Peru. Take the trip and you may be as pleasantly surprised as I was. I suspect that even John Hemming would enjoy the show.

I love this book!! could not put it down,it went everywhere i go,well written(i kept my dictionary close by)love the language,the playing with words,how the author made the characters come alive and made u feel like you were a part of the struggle,i went through different emotions reading this book and had to remind myself that this is modern time and what in the past is in the past.Now i am in the research phase buying products from amazon,and investigation how i can visit.
I raise my hat to you Kim,well done.
Montgomery Croker

i found all three books in this trilogy fascinating. it was a painless way to learn about the french revolution, napolean and josephine's lives, and a multitude of other historical facts. the books moved very quickly and from the time i picked up the first one i was hooked!

I don't need to repeat what eveyone else seems to be stating in their reviews of this book and the entire Josephine trilogy; the story flows from start to finish.

I very highly recommend this book!

A perfect ending to a wonderful trilogy. Gulland has clearly done her research and France comes alive through the eyes of Josephine Bonaparte. Compassionate, kind and well-loved in France, Josephine also gives us a very intimate and sympathetic insight to Napoleon Bonaparte. I enjoyed this whole series and would heartily recommend it to anyone interested in the French Revolution, the French Republic and the rise of Napoleon. It is engrossing, humorous and heart-rending. Highly recommended.

While this book stands out on it's own merits, you would be doing yourself a huge disservice if you didn't read the first two books in the trilogy first ('The Many Lives and Secret Sorrows of Josephine B.' and 'Tales of Passion, Tales of Woe'). This is probably my favorite group of books and everyone I have let borrow them feels the same. All are well-written and easy reading (as well as interesting history). I am only sorry that Sandra Gulland hasn't written any other books...yet. I keep hoping.

I can't express how much I loved this wonderful novel. The most accurate adjective I can think of would be 'interesting'. This book was soooo interesting. Gulland's attention to detail is absolutely meticulous. She used over 400 sources in the writing of this trilogy. I learned so much--not only about Napoleon and Josephine, but also of other historical figures of that time. I also found the daily life of the aristocracy not only fascinating but also exhausting.

Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine Beauharnais are some of the most intriguing characters in history. Their story is so compelling and Gulland does a wonderful job of presenting it. Her 'Josephine' trilogy tells the story of Marie-Josephe-Rose Tascher (Beauharnais Bonaparte) who was born on the French Caribbean island of Martinique in 1763. She died, as she was still known, as the Empress Josephine at her beloved Malmaison in Paris in 1814. THE LAST GREAT DANCE ON EARTH begins in March 1800 at the Tuileries Palace in Paris and ends at her death. But, Gulland has a special treat for her readers. She ties up all the loose ends by telling us what happens to all the characters in her novel. I loved that! In fact, I was taking a tour a couple of weeks ago in St. Augustine, Florida and the guide told us that this is where Napoleon Bonaparte's brother came to....I now know that it was Jerome. The author also has a chronology with detailed accounts and dates of events in the last fourteen years of Josephine's life. Gulland also used actual letters of the pair in this book. And again, the pages are peppered with footnotes that add credence to this story.

In book three we're treated to more of the deep and abiding friendship of Josephine and Napoleon. The love they had for each other is legendary. Napoleon was a wonderful father to Hortense and Eugene and they also adored him. But Josephine had to put up with her horrid in-laws, their jealousy and constant designs of destroying her marriage, their lies and the constant undermining--geesh, she was more patient than I could have been. They eventually succeeded. Despite going through horrible and archaic treatments for infertility, Josephine could not conceive. As we all know, Napoleon divorced her in order to gain an heir. Even then, they continued their friendship and love.

I have been mesmerized with Napoleon and Josephine since visiting the Lourve for the first time as a college freshman and falling in love with David's "The Coronation of Napoleon." Then, after visiting the famous, albeit headless statue of the former Empress at her birthplace in Martinique, my curiosity became insatiable. We learned that Josephine's head was cut off because she influenced her husband to reinstate slavery. I was hoping to read an explanation in these novels but it was never mentioned (although Martinico is mentioned quite often). Which comes to another point: Gulland mentions that researching the lives of Napoleon and Josephine is addictive; I've already bought two more books, maybe I'll find the answer to my question!