Alabama Books

Robinson's book is truly a memoir, and I find this to be both a strength and a weakness. It gives the book strength because it is a complete personal account. Every piece of information is direct from not only a first hand observer, but moreover a participant. However it weakens the book because at points too much information was detailed. Especially information about already well documented events.

This is a great first-hand account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It gives great insight on the emotions of the boycotters, and the determination that kept them going. The book is a little slow at times, but it's well worth it in the end. It really shows the intricate details that made the boycott successful.

I was very disappointed with the pictures in this book. They are not good clear pictures. The description information was helpful but wish I had seen this book in person before I purchased it.

This book covers a number of wildflowers throughout Alabama. The book is filled with wonderful color pictures which aid in identification of species in this area. The descriptions are also very informative! It helped me alot on a collection I was putting together for a Botany class. I loved it so much I had to buy a copy for myself!

I would like to give this 2.5 stars, but 3 is too much.

As a tactical discussion this is probably preferable to Paddy Griffith's work favoring vigorous frontal assault and discounting the new firepower. However, Attack and Die has some glaring omissions that hurt it, and it also makes some assertions that don't help. There are too many technological phases and differing terrain, strategic, and logistical situations in the American Civil War to support the simple tactical absolutes that authors too often apply.

The authors' thesis is two fold: Southern armies were too aggressive; and that this was the result of Celtic heritage. On the first point it is true that the improvements in the rifle and percussion firing systems greatly improved the odds for the force on the tactical defensive. As the war progressed, earthworks further increased lethality of rifles while shielding the defender and concealing his numbers. However, this completely misses the strategic fact that it's rather hard for two opposing armies to simultaneously and indefinitely remain on the defensive since it results in stalemate. Unfortunately, as Joe Johnston proved both at Vicksburg (by failing to support Pemberton) and before Atlanta, if one cannot find an opportunity to repel the invader, the enemy can pin one's force and subdue it through siege operations. So remaining on the defensive can result in an even more demoralizing defeat without ever yielding an opportunity for victory. Preserving one's force is irrelevant if it cannot be fed or equipped because of destruction of one's territory, industry and logistical hubs. Lee, Davis, and even Bragg understood that. "Use it or lose it" applies.

As for blaming the tactical offensive of Southern armies on Celtic roots, it fails on several levels. First, one wonders what that means for Grant's armies who lost far more men in offensives...and in the end captured three separate CSA field armies for their trouble, and broke the siege of Chattanooga. Second the ethnic theory illustrates a huge flaw in the authors' (and many others') approach to comparing North and South, a simplistic New England vs. Old South view. Both North and South were heterogeneous, the North far more so. New England was far different than the Old Northwest, or the western states of the time. The differences can be seen clearly in census data for churches.

The discussion of ancient Celts, the *strategic* reasons for their defeats, the quality of their weapons and battles is very flawed and Telamon in particularly was erroneously interpreted.

Ignoring the speculative ethnic theory, what is missing in the discussion is the recognition of initiative and that when defending one's territory one must either compel the invading army to attack so that it can be defeated, or find a way to gain sufficient advantage to attack and defeat it. This was the impetus behind Lee's actions to repeatedly repel Union armies in Virginia. While the cost was high, it was probably necessary to prevent the immobilization and eventual defeat of his army. When Lee could no longer do this in 1864 he was forced to settle into a prolonged but eventually fatal siege defense.

Another important factor the authors neglected is that armies on the strategic offensive in hostile territory are at a considerable disadvantage in terms of intelligence, communications, and supply. Most of the decisive defeats North and South occurred as much for these strategic considerations as for tactical ones. Often forcing one major battle was sufficient to deplete the enemy's supplies or manpower sufficiently to end the offensive campaign even if victorious tactically.

The authors are careful to point out the general adoption of major entrenchments as a standard practice by 1864, and how this greatly changed Civil War fighting. They also illustrate how these (along with further entrenchments in the rear) became nearly impregnable to assault. Upton and other commanders had partial successes of using heavy assault columns to overwhelm sections, but the inherent resulting disorganization prevented capture of parallels to the rear. Local successes had become too difficult to exploit with large armies.

The best aspect of the book is the continual referencing of Mexican War actions and how these shaped the tactical thinking of the ACW commanders. Also useful is the lengthy discussions of period tactical manuals for the various arms.

The artillery discussion is generally correct, but the authors conspicuously fail to note the *wartime* transition from inaccurate and short ranged 6 pounder smoothbores and 12 pounder howitzers to the more accurate and longer ranged Napoleons and rifled pieces.

I was shocked at the lack of attention paid to Nathan Bedford Forrest's superb tactical skills. In fact the authors go so far as to suggest he added nothing! Perhaps they should have studied Brice's Cross Roads---a very relevant action that they entirely neglected to mention. Forrest understood initiative, momentum and concentration. Initiative and momentum are not things the authors seem to appreciate. With regard to weaponry, Forrest, like Mosby preferred two pistols for his men. This was an acknowledgement of the melee style of combat that frequently occurred in the thicketed country he operated in. He also at times effectively advanced his cannon in a more Napoleonic support because rifle range was not a factor in the dense growth. But perhaps Forrest's effective closer fighting style is in fact why they ignored his contributions.

Another irritating oversight was ignoring the decisive battle of the Vicksburg campaign, Champion Hill, and instead focusing on assaults vs. the entrenchments around the city. Champion Hill was an example of fixing an army in position and then hammering at a wing until it broke. The whole Vicksburg campaign up until the siege is one of continuous motion (initiative and momentum) never allowing the defenders to face the attacker with parity. Furthermore, after Champion Hill, at the Big Black River Grant's forces easily overran the entrenchments and forced Pemberton's army back into the city's works. Other lesser-known examples are Piedmont, Droop Mountain, Cloyd's Mountain.

Where Johnston failed is in giving up all the ground before Atlanta without once finding a point to effectively turn the Federal position or destroy a section of the army when it was most vulnerable. This is something the authors overlooked: the vulnerability of armies on the move to momentum based attacks. The defensive tactical advantage existed when positions were fixed and the defenders forces could support one another. When an army was moving it could be struck without such advantages as interior lines and defensive entrenchments. It also had less sense of where the enemy was and how strong while moving. Some famous examples of striking armies on the move include Brice's Crossroads, Mansfield, New Market, and Olustee. Each of these were Confederate victories seizing the tactical offensive from the enemy and effectively halting a Federal campaign.

Grant and Lee understood the initiative at both strategic and tactical levels. The authors (as well as McClellan and Joe Johnston) apparently do/did not. The tactical offensive could be extremely costly and against entrenched defenders it was nearly suicidal unless there were special considerations. However, it could also achieve the strategic objective and produce outsized results in various other situations. I can't recommend this work to most readers as I think it will lead them to an erroneous view of offensive operations because its conclusions are too broad and absolute.

The authors in this book point out that if the South had focused on defending itself instead of attacking Union troops during battles (not even counting the two failed invasions of the North by Lee) they might have had a chance. Yet the authors also show that the South had no choice - their generals took from West Point (and the Mexican War) all the wrong lessons - that tactical offensive would always win the day. Before rifled weapons, when the musket was the main weapon of the ground forces, men COULD get close enough to use the bayonet and use it well. I have seen studies that showed many battles during the Pre-Rifle period (American Revolution, War of 1812) was decided by the bayonet - those killed were mostly killed by the bayonet. Muskets were too ineffective.
Rifles changed all that. It changed everything but American generals, mostly those of the South, refused to change their ways. But then why didn't the people say something to make them change their ways? The authors suggest that this also had to do with the culture of the South - that they were Celtic in their ways and thoughts. So the people approved of the tactics, even when it meant defeat!
While that part of the book seems weak, most of it I can agree with. This book DOES list a ton of facts and I suggest it only for those who already know a lot about the American Civil War.

Probably better suited for more serious students of the Civil War, "Attack and Die" by Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson, provides an excellent expose' about how the Confederates "bled themselves nearly to death..." by attacking with greater frequency than their Northern counterparts. The book also presents a very compelling argument about how the use of outdated offensive tactics, learned during the Mexican War, and antiquated in the face of major technological improvements to muskets and cannon, had a devastating effect on the South.

Another interesting, and controversial, aspect of the book is the authors' conclusion that the tendency for offensive warfare was deeply rooted in Southern culture, and Celtic heritage. While the authors lacked sufficient evidence to be convincing on this point, they were far more convincing about how the advent of the rifle made bayonet attacks obsolete, the offensive use of cavalry ineffective, and entrenchments and fieldworks highly prized by Northern commanders.

Although, as the authors point out that there were good reasons for the South to adopt a defensive strategy, they elected to pursue the offensive to the detriment of their cause. Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the South lost 175,000 men during the first 27 months of the war due to their propensity for offensive action, or how they lost 97,000 men vs. 77,000 men for the North during the first twelve major battles of the war, or how Pickett's famous charge resulted in the loss of 62% of his command at Gettysburg.

It's no wonder that these tactics prompted D.H. Hill to respond with, "it was not war, it was murder," in reference to the losses the Confederates took after repeated attacks against heavily entrenched Union troops on Malvern Hill on July 1, 1862.

This book is an insightful and worthy addition to the study of Civil War strategy and tactics.

McWhiney and Jamieson argue that the South lost the Civil War because it lost too many men through frontal assaults, and that the frontal assaults were actuated by the South's aggression-prone Celtic culture.

I thought the book established effectively that the defender had the advantage in the Civil War and discussed cogently the role of current tactical thought and Mexican War experience in encouraging offensive tactics despite the changes wrought by the rifled musket.

The authors claim that when Confederate soldiers attacked they suffered more casualties than Federals did when they attacked, but do not seem to give an explanation. If this is true, and the problematic nature of exact numbers and losses in the Civil War should be acknowledged, I suspect it has to do with artillery fuses.

A major claim, that Confederate troops attacked more often than Federals did, is never, in my view, substantiated. The evidence offered, which includes accounts of Grant's attacks in 1864, actually supports the idea that neither side really learned the dangers of the tactical offensive.

I am, in particular, not convinced by any aspect of the "Celtic" theory. The evidence of a Southern preference for the offensive seems shaky, and the evidence for Southern cultural aggressiveness comes mostly from anecdotal and/or unfriendly sources. A newspaper editor ranting about war to the knife, or similar sources, shouldn't be taken as representing a culture as a whole.

Nor am I convinced that the South was "Celtic", and the argument put forward by the authors is circular -- the South fought aggressively and that proves they were Celtic because Celts are aggressive. Actually, a quick look at the surnames of Northern and Southern generals and politicians doesn't give me any sense that the North, with its Sheridan and Grant, was any less Celtic in ancestry than the South with its Davis and Stuart. Irish immigrants were more common in Northern than Southern armies, though both sides had their Irish Brigades.

The idea that the Celts were aggressive convinces me least of all. To support this claim, the authors mix primary sources and literary references, often from unfriendly and not necessarily expert authors (Caesar) and skip wildly from one cultural and historical setting to the next, giving a deep analysis of none and appearing to choose evidence tendentiously. Bannockburn, for example, appears, but Scots defensive schiltron formations do not.

The authors use overgeneralized and stereotypical "racial" arguments -- Romans, Englishmen and Yankees were "practical, materialistic, tenacious, machine-like", and Celts and Confederates were "emotional, foolhardy, romantic, undisciplined". Substitute "white" and "black" for those ethnicities and it becomes clear that this argument is oversimplified at best. The idea that the American Civil War represented "a continuation of the centuries-old conflict between Celts and Englishmen..." not only strikes me as specious, but underemphasizes slavery as a cause to a degree with which I am uncomfortable.

The idea that there's some meaningful tactical or cultural link between Pickett's Charge, say, and Vercingetorix, or for that matter Bonnie Prince Charlie, beggars my belief -- the popularity of Scott's novels notwithstanding. The book descends to its silliest level when it attempts to draw a serious parallel between a Union soldier's quite possibly wild claim of having found Union skulls in a Confederate camp and the beheading activities of the medieval Irish literary/mythological hero Cu Chulainn.

I can't recommend this as serious scholarship.

As many other reviewers have pointed out, the "Celtic" premise is ridiculously overblown. The Army of Northern Virginia can not be compared to the Scots at Culloden in 1745.
Also, as other reviewers have pointed out, the book ignores many "big picture" issues that played into the outcome of the war. Better alternative reading would be "Two Great Rebel Armies" by McMurry or "Why the South Lost" by Hattaway and company.

Nicely written details about small town Alabama. The author's end notes say that she tried to write about the special bonds of friendship between males. Instead, she ended up overshadowing that story with the story of two vile, scheming, and manipulative small-town women doing whatever it took to get their way; the touching, developing, story of Tim and Taylor was kicked aside. The sudden and inexplicable "ending" didn't really resolve anything...I was left feeling cheated out of resolution.

I've heard nice things about Ms. King's writing. This was my first exposure to her work and will try another of her books. Maybe I just started with the wrong one?

I enjoyed this book very well.

Donette Sullivan, the main character in the book is just starting her business as a hairdresser in a home she and her husband inherited from her aunt. The book begins with Auntie Maudie's death. She was the town's schoolteacher, and everyone was grieving terribly over her death. Donnette was asked to do her hair and make-up for the funeral, and very reluctantly after Mary Frances Clark talks her into it, she does thinking it will help her business grow.

Donette's husband Tim, is crippled from a serious accident caused by Taylor. He was formerly an artist and football player until this happened. When they have Aunt Maudie's funeral, Taylor is coming into Alabama-and since the whole town hates his guts-no one wants him there. But he is coming for his Aunt Della, who is becoming much older and decrepit, and needs her nephew there. She raised the boy, as Charlotte, his mother was only a whore who wanted nothing to do with her own son. Taylor wants only to help his aunt, as the Clark family wants only to put her in a nursing hime so that Sonny, (Taylor's brother), and snobby wife Ellis can take over and have Aunt Della's house for themselves, and Ellis wants Glenda her sister to take over there as well.

There is a great big family fight over this matter and as Aunt Della seems to grow weaker, the problems try to work themselves out which isn't easy-and may not. Especially when no one is willing to forgive Taylor for the past and what has happened to Tim because of it.

I really enjoyed the author's style of writing from each character's viewpoint. The style reminds me of Sue Monk Kidd's "The Secret Life of Bees." It held me in its grip until the very end, which was the only disappointing part. I wish the author would have spent more time developing the ending. It all happened too abruptly. I thought this story could have gone on much longer. I'd love to see her write a sequel.

I felt as if I were reading a book for teens - the plot was thin and continued to hold one theme as the central "mystery" or glue to hold the story together. It was tiresome and even the ending was a disappointment. The author wrote in southern cliche's which failed to bring humor to a tiresome, drug out subject.
Unlike the author's book Sunday Wife - it seemed to fail in it's delivery.

I liked the book. I found it to be similar to many small town issues. Small town stuff is really shallow but too many, it's real. I found some of the characters, Ellis her hubby and families to be fillers in the story. Cassandra King writes the story as the present and throughout the story you learn of the past through her characters and that just makes you want to read more! I hated to put the book down!

Hmm...I'm not sure about this one. If you know Bobby Allison's story, you know that it's one of the most heart-wrenching, sad stories in all of sports. The beauty of Bobby Allison is that after all he has been through, he has soldiered on. He has overcome obstacles that would have killed most others, and he has done that with an inner strength that is truly amazing. Most people would be bitter and demoralized, yet Bobby remains positive, spiritually strong, and still a "racer". Racing took so much away from him, yet he still obviously loves the sport. His really is a great, inspirational story. The problem is, that doesn't come through very well in the book. The story of Bobby Allison and the Alabama Gang is a great one, and one that needs to be told... I'm just not sure this is where you want to read about it.

Golenbock can be credited for researching and releasing a book no one else has done; for that we should be thankful. Is the book anywhere close to the "last word" on Bobby Allison?..not by a long shot. I admire Bobby to no end; just a super, decent guy and one of the best American drivers ever, regardless of type of car. But..here's wishing that somehow Bobby and the Allison clan / Alabama gang will pen the perfect memoir. There are obviously holes in the information that might be shared due to Bobby's horendous accident that closed his career, but that must be expected. One thing's for certain, Bobby Allison was as fine as racer as you could find. I'd love to see him do a similar book to his brother Donnie's, one of the best memoirs from a driver I've ever read. Other reviews of Golenbock's book take issue with statements of fact. Hope authors learn from the critique; factual errors easily checked just can't happen, nor should they get by a good publisher / editor.

O.K., granted there are some errors in this book, the most glaring being when it was stated that Dale Earnhardt was killed in the 2002 Daytona 500...! Some of the descriptions of the racing action are also inaccurate, as I learned when I looked up Davey Allison's Pocono crash on Youtube. The contact with Waltrip that caused the wreck was nothing like the book describes.

However, I can look past those errors, because the last third of this book is simply engrossing. The Allisons, and the so-called "Alabama Gang," endured so much tragedy, and it has probably never been more fully chronicled in one book. Also, I found Bobby's crustiness, and his deep-seated enmity toward Waltrip, revealing.

This book is short on primary sources. It's a lot like other Golenbock books, which can at times read like long Q and A sessions where the source just talks on and on in unedited form. This book mainly relies on interviews with Bobby and his brothers, Donnie and Eddie. Eddie is extremely opinionated, and you take what he has to say with a grain of salt. Some of the best interviews come from folks outside the family circle - Humpy Wheeler and Larry McReynolds offer some amusing anecdotes.

Bobby Allison may not get the credit he feels he deserves as one of the best race car drivers in history. After reading this book, one gets a good idea why.

This one's worth a read - errors and all.

I have been a Bobby Allison fan for more than 50 years as I saw him race in his very early years in South Florida, so I was very much looking forward to this book. Sadly the errors that are rampant throughout the book ruined the story. Other reviews here have noted some errors, but the number is truly staggering--and utterly inexplicable in this age of Google and instant info. Here are the errors I found:
Page 30:
Gil Hearn
Correct spelling is Hearne

Page 34:
He started thirty-ninth, and he finished thirty-ninth, still running at the end of the race.
He started thirty-first and finished thirty-sixth.

Page 40:
Deal Ford
Correct spelling is Deel Ford.

Page 66:
(James Hylton) led the 300-lap Islip race from lap 147 to lap 282.
Hylon led from 147 through 292.

Page 68:
a lap after Bobby passed Buddy Baker to take the lead in the race it blew up.
Allison never led a lap in the race--and neither did Buddy Baker.

Page 100:
Donnie entered two superspeedway races, finishing twenty-seventh at Rockingham and ninth, twenty-two laps behind winner Fred Lorenzen, at Charlotte.
Exactly the opposite, Donnie was ninth at Rockingham, twenty-seventh at Charlotte.

Page 102:
What made winning the World 600 even more remarkable was that he also entered the Indianapolis 500 the same weekend. (Donnie was the only driver ever to do that until 1993, when Jeff Gordon did it.)
Jeff Gordon has never raced in the Indianapolis 500.

Page 105:
What made the June 20 1971 Riverside race notable was that Bobby had arranged with Motorola to put a two-way radio in the car so that during the race he could talk directly with Eddie. It was the first time a driver didn't have to rely on a chalkboard, and it wasn't long before all the drivers were doing it.
Though Allison popularized the two-way radio, it was first used in 1952 by Al Stevens in a Modified/Sportsman race on the famed beach/road course.

Page 129:
Describing a test session in an Indy car at Ontario Speedway, one sentence begins "When he arrived at the Ontario track," followed by Allison saying "I arrived at Indy."

Page 130:
Later in the test at the Ontario track, "Bobby went out on the famed Indianapolis track."

Page 133:
Driver Art Pollard had gotten killed on the first day of practice at the Brickyard
Pollard was killed during the first day of qualifying on May 12, after more than a week of practice.

Page 140:
His Champ car team has won a hundred races with driver Gils deFerran
Penske Racing has won more than a hundred Indy-car races, but Gil deFerran won just seven of them for the team.

Page 148:
After Donnie finished fifth in the Firecracker 500
There has never been a Firecracker 500, it is the Firecracker 400

Page 160:
When Smokey Yunick had a fallout with the France family in 1976, Smokey decided to quit NASCAR and run at Indianapolis.
The fallout was in 1970. Yunick's cars raced at Indianapolis from 1958 to 1975, and one driven by Jim Rathmann won in 1960.

Page 164: Eddie Allison was watching the race on television.
Page 166: I was watching TV and Dave Despain was interviewing Ryan Newman
It's doubtful Dave Despain was interviewing Ryan Newman on race day. Newman was not yet two years old at the time.

Page 191:
Bobby and Gary Nelson put the Monte Carlo on the wind tunnel skid, and after they cranked the fan up, the wind started to blow the car off the skid pad. It was clear to everyone that the Buick was not going to be able to perform.
Of course Monte Carlo is a Chevrolet model.

Page 193:
On May 17 at Dover
The race was May 15

Page 194:
At Richmond, Waltrip was second, Bobby third.
It was at Long Pond. Tim Richmond won the race.

At Richmond, Bobby won his second race in a row. Ricky Rudd was second,
Waltrip fourth.
Waltrip was third.

Page 202:
Terry Labonte didn't win a single race but became the new racing champion.
That season Labonte won on June 3, 1984 at Riverside and August 25, 1984 at Bristol.

Page 204:
After two top ten finishers at Pocono and Michigan, the team went to Daytona for the Firecracker 500.
There has never been a Firecracker 500, it is the Firecracker 400

Page 205:
A couple of other things happened in the Firecracker 500
There has never been a Firecracker 500, it is the Firecracker 400

Page 206:
Bobby finished twenty-first.
He finished twenty-seventh.

Page 223:
Neil Bonnett had raced in 1972 but it took another three years for him to take a crack at Grand National racing.
Bonnett's first season was 1974, when he appeared in two races.

Page 230:
Hillin himself had begun his driving career in 1982 at age sixteen
Bobby Hillin holds the NASCAR record as young competitor at 17, just 48 days shy of his eighteenth birthday.

Page 257:
"Because of Butch Lynley."
Correct spelling is Lindley

Page 280:
Ken Squire
Correct spelling is Ken Squier

Page 282:
"I passed him clean on the outfield"
Since they weren't racing in a baseball stadium, I'm pretty sure he was on the outside

Page 304:
Robert Yates's and McReynolds s scenario, which had the blessing of NASCAR...
(next paragraph) Yates and McReynolds objected.
It was Yates' and McReynolds' scenario--but they objected?

Page 313:
He kicked a record 89 PATs in a row, a Memphis State record.
Joe Allison kicked a then-record 81 PATs in a row


Page 328:
Red, whose whole life revolved around arcing, had traveled to Hueytown to race against Bobby and Donnie thirty years earlier and had become family.
As has been well-documented in the preceding 328 pages, the Allisons knew Farmer from their days in South Florida where he had mentored both Donnie and Bobby.

Page 333:
Just after seven o'clock on the morning of July 12, 1993, Davy was pronounced dead.
Allison died on July 13, the day after the accident.

Page 355:
Bonnett first announced his return to racing at a press conference at Talladega the morning of July 13, 1993. Later that afternoon, Davey Allison crashed his jet helicopter at the track and died.
Allison crashed on July 12.

Page 360:
On Monday, February 13, 1994
Monday was February 14, 1994

Page 369:
When the team arrived for the inaugural NASCAR Indianapolis 500
The NASCAR race at Indianapolis is the Brickyard 400

In addition, there is a great deal of careless editing--if indeed there is ANY editing.

The interviews are compelling, but you really have to wonder about how accurate even they are considering the glaring errors in this book:

Greg Sacks won the Firecracker 500. There has never been a Firecracker 500; it's the Firecracker 400.

Gary Bettenhausen injured in a "spring car" race. Should be Sprint Car.

Gil de Ferran winning 100 Indy Car wins for Penske and Rusty Wallace winning 55 stock car races for him. Poor sentence structure; A number of drivers got Penske to 100 Indy Car wins, and Rusty won 55 races in all, but not all of them with Penske.

The list goes on. Amateur mistakes.

In regard to the view that Finley needs to pay more attentio to money supply and velocity i would suggest that the economies of ancient times were not as susceptible to changes in currency as our modern economy is. It seems strange that someone would give such a frugal review without further explanation. Having said that, I have only read what I could of hte book from this site but I'm sure that there are some valuable points to be taken from this authors views on the subject.

Finley in "The Ancient Economy," presents an informed argument against the notion that ancient civilizations exhibited "modern" market behavior in the style described by Erich Roll as "an enormous conglomeration of interdependent markets." M. Rostovtzeff's notion that trade of manufactured goods was active and important in classical economies is successfully challenged, and the reader is given an interesting peek into the process by which free, landed peoples gradually replaced slave labor in the hinterlands laying the foundation for medieval serfdom. This is an excellent (and concise!!!) introduction to the economic structure of the classical world both describing the various class structures and how each class in general viewed the economic notions of land, capital, trade, and accumulation. I definitely recommend this book to any student of economic history.

Finlay is a good translator and editor (see Penguin's "Greek Historians"). The function of sensibly abbreviating long and important works down to a readable volume is an honorable and extemely useful function in its own right (see also Saunder's abridgement of Gibbon's first volume and Gaster's abridgement of "The New Golden Bough"). Such abridgements give both to students and to those of us who have little time to spare for reading unfiltered through "The World's Great Books" a taste of such books and hence of the minds of the great authors who wrote them.

However, Finlay's as author is not as satisfying.

The foreword to Finlay's book is good. It puts Finlay's contribution into a larger context and, in particular, pointing out Max Weber's influence on Finlay.

Max Weber noticed that most people are mainly interested in social prestige, not the means thereto, and, more specifically, that the modern means to prestige is not the traditional (ie., ancient) means thereto.

As a result of the foreward, I immediately ordered Weber's ostensible masterwork "Die Protestantische Ethik und der 'Geist des Kapitalismus'" (written 1904 with revision 1920).

Finlay himself does not explicity appear to recognise his debt to Weber. He refers to Weber's contemporaries (Rostovtzeff & co.).

As the author points out, very little was probably ever written in ancient times - and much less has been delivered down to us through the passage of time - regarding "economic" matters, the writing and reading public being consituted essentially by well-born persons with private incomes, who were generally interested in the (for them) more appropriate topics of poetry, rhetoric, religion, philosophy and heroic military exploits.

Hence research on this subject is difficult.

Also, the book is rather tedious and the amount of repitition and ampflication on essentially obvious points gets a bit monotonous.

Having said that, the whole subject matter was interesting, and the pointers to other authors useful.

The economic model which is developed is typical social sciences stuff: simplest ideas expressed cryptically as pseudo-mathematical charts. One can overlook this.

At the end of the day, the most worthwhile knowledge which I gained from Finlay's work was the knowledge that there was a Roman writer called Vitruvius who wrote a work on Architecture at around the time of Christ which remained the standard work on that subject for at least 1,500 years.

In the meantime I have read Vitruvius and found him to be both useful and entertaining.

Now I'll read Max Weber.

Finley may be a great classical scholar, but his application of economic theory is flawed. Somebody should have taught him about money supply and velocity. Finley's major thesis is just wrong.

The author of this book, M.I. Finley, is a giant in the field of ancient history. The introduction paints a pretty impressive picture of the man. He graduated from college with an M.A. at the age of 17, an amazing feat for us wannabe intellectuals. His M.A. was in public law, not exactly the usual prerequisite for an amazing career in history. Finley's positions on the ancient world were based on the works of Max Weber; the sociologist who posited that status played a big role in society. In this book, Finley tries to prove that the ancient economy was largely a byproduct of status. In other words, economic systems were not interdependent; they were embedded in status positions.

Finley first examines status and statistics. What constituted status in the ancient world? For one thing, class and status were independent. A person could be of low class, but very high status. Pallas and Narcissus, the freedmen that served the emperor Claudius, come to mind here. Both were extremely high placed in society. They were rich beyond the dreams of avarice, but their class was lower than that of a senator. Finley's examination of statistics in ancient Rome is telling. In our world, it is inconceivable that the economy could be discussed without using stats. In Rome, this was not the case. Certainly, there were receipts of expenditures and interest rates on loans, but numbers just didn't hold the allure in Rome that they do today. The absence of guilds and interdependent markets, according to Finley, certainly has something to do with this. Most merchandise was locally made and consumed locally, or shipped directly to Rome. There was no need for corporations or massive transportation of goods (except grain shipments to Rome) between regions.

Finley's discussions on slavery are certainly enlightening. Finley believes slavery was necessary to the Roman world because it reinforced status. The highest strata of society disdained work, so having a dependent class of workers was essential to watch over estates and manage businesses. One of the surprising insights Finley provides is in exploding the myth that slavery is inefficient. Finley shows that the large landowners had money to burn due to the labor of slaves, as did the plantation owners in the American South. I'm not so sure I agree with this argument. To the extent that slaves were profitable in Rome, it would seem that this had much to do with the Roman system of slavery. The Romans had a process called "Peculium" in which slaves were given seed money by their masters to start businesses. Slaves could keep some of the profits from this system and eventually buy their freedom, as well as learn a trade. This is an excellent incentive to work hard, thereby increasing profits to their owners. I don't think slaves in the Americas had the same incentives.

Although the book is much more complex than the poor description I've given above, this review should provide ample initiative to read Finley. Even a beginner to Roman history could get much out of this book. Finley, despite some early hiccups, has a smooth writing style that is sympathetic to the newbie. Many a professional scholar has received inspiration from Finley. Highly Recommended.

Doty's book is a perfect example of what happens when academics are more concerned with trying to be appear hip and clever than with conveying substance. Doty is clearly extremely knowledgeable about different approaches to mythology and different theories of myth-- and he's clearly spent a lot of time wrestling with them, digesting them, etc., to come up with his own approach to writing about myth. And, when he talks about myth per se, he occasionally has some insightful comments to make. However, these insights are scattered throughout the book in a somewhat disorganized fashion, mixed in with a lot of pointless sidetracks, a good deal of personal reminiscence too many contrived references to pop culture. (Not that there's anything wrong with discussing pop culture in a book on myth-- Barthes does so very effectively in his "Mythologies". However, Doty's are forced, contrived, and cloying. Unlike Barthes, who takes, say, wrestling as something that can be studied as a kind of popular mythology, Doty simply seems to mine pop culture for metaphors-- and these metaphors usually end up being forced and cloying, like the "Rock around the Clock" chapter title discussed by the previous reviewer. Rarely (if ever) do they actually illustrate or illuminate any of Doty's points in a meaningful way-- really, they seem to be thrown in merely to provide proof that Doty's not a "stuffy" academic, but is womeone who's hip and with it. The same holds true, by the way, about his chapters and appendix sections on myth and the internet. Not much substance there.... mostly a bunch of technie name-dropping (not of actual people but of cyber-references) to show how trendy he is.) I'm sure some non-scholars will find that Doty's prose is more immediately accessible than a lot of the more densely-written, jargon-laden, academic texts on the subject of myth, but I'm not sure they'll actually learn anything more it.

Still, if one is willing to put up with all the dross, there are some genuine insights to be had from "Mythography". Foremost among these, I think, is Doty's attempt at a comprehensive definition of myth. For too long, professional mythologists have been adopting definitions of myth that are either so broad as to include conceivably anything (a criticism that can be made of Barthes, certainly) or so timorous, qualified, and limited as to be almost useless. Doty seeks to provide a "polyphasic" definition of myth (the "polyphasic" is just a meaningless but trendy-sounding buzzword that links together 17 basic qualities of myths in a (more or less) unitary definition. He then goes on to explain each of those 17 basic qualities. The glossary he provides at the end includes short but useful sound bite definitions of some of the jaw-cracking neologisms used by professional mythologiests-- words like "mythos", "mythologem", etc. (Neither of these items is perfect, mind you, nor unquestionable but they are at least somewhat useful). Many of Doty's observations about how we should conceive of myth, in general, are also useful.

All in all, this is a book that probably ought to be read by anyone seriously interested in keeping abreast in thought about mythology. However, it may not be a book that you get a lot out of of unless you've got the stamina to wade through all of the cutesy pop culture refs and pseudo-postmodern phrasings and the ability to separate the few kernels of wheat from the a whole lot of chaff...

If you want to understand what 'myth' is about you need a starting point: this is William Doty's 'Mythography'. Put boldly and simply there is none of the kind. What makes this book unique, is not only the toolkit provided for reading 'myth', but the relatively detailed and clear presentation of the different schools of thought and thinkers that have been concerned with understanding what 'myth' is about. This is exactly what the title 'Mythography' suggests: an outline of conceptualisations of 'myth'. As an outline though it is not just a list: it brings into perspective the historical development of the notion of 'myth' itself. But where William Doty has particularly succeeded is to take us further than the mere historical listing of notions of 'myth': he takes us across the disciplines. He goes beyond those traditionally concerned with 'myth' (i.e. religious studies, anthropology, depth psychology) in those we never imagined would be concerned with such controversial a notion (i.e. linguistics, literary studies, cultural studies, arts, science), since for better or for worse, to use Edgar Morin, the notion of 'myth' is found everywhere.

William Doty's Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals is an interesting analysis from the standpoint of content. It draws extensively on various traditions, particularly the Jungan tradition of interpreting myths as universal. Regretably, the author's attempt to make the book accessible to a non-academic public impedes readability and sacrifices clarity. The book is peppered with references to popular culture and intrusive biographical detail about the author. Rather than situating the material in an ostensibly more easilly understood milieu, the references frequently seem spurious, not particularly closely connected to the point being made or illuminating of it. The first chapter, entitled Myth Around the Clock, for example, claims to examine the universal and timeless nature of myth, the "long term nature of things mythical", but the musical reference overtly refers to a radical break in musical tradition. Dangerous generalisations are made, based not upon any heterogenous trend than anecdotal evidence (e.g. the authour's claim that "the Tanach now begins" with a progressive reference to the gods...) Certain frames of reference, such as the "ReadMe" file at the introduction of the text, are so disconnected from the content as to be glaringly irrelevant. Despite the fact that it is published under the auspices of a University press, I would not recomend the book for serious work on Mythography, because of the intensive filtering and interpretive process required to get at the content, which is in itself not poorly thought out. Within a more casual context, however, the book may be enjoyable.

I have to agree with the reviewer who find this book appalling. Mr. Doty seems to belong to the let it all hang out school of scholarship-don't deliver reasoned opinions, but any opinion as long as it is your own. This is not a scholarly book-for all of Doty's exhaustive knowledge-but a book of strange opinions spiced with Doty's all intrusive liberal opinions on current politics. This book is shameful, but probably accurately reflects the state of contemporary scholarship in out baby-boomer, narcissistic universities.

This work is indispensable as perhaps the only comprehensive and encyclopedic overview of the analytical study of myth and ritual. Every significant theoretical perspective is covered in depth and placed within a systematic context. I found the author's philosophic and discursive approach valuable as he provides both a broad conceptual framework and the specific tools and resources necessary for deeper investigation and study. The personalized style-- at times lighthearted, wry, or ironic-- leavens the deep insights and consistent scholarly substance of this updated edition.

I am totally of the same opinion with serbian friend who commented on this book three years ago.Please buy Thomas Egenes' 'Intros to Sanskrit 1 and 2'. Avoid Whitney and Gonda.

The classic Sanskrit grammar is, of course, Whitney. It, however, includes Vedic Sanskrit and very rare forms. Jan Gonda provides a basic, understandable grammar that covers everything a first year student needs to know. His straight-forward style also makes this volume useful for Indo-European historical linguistics classes where the intent is to understand the basic structures of the "Indo" branch. In short, I recommend this highly as a starting point.

The book is exactly what the title indicates, concise and elementary. It is a great book to use in a class, with a teacher who can explain what it all means. It is not at all suitable for self-study. If you want to learn Sanskrit on your own, try Coulson's Teach Yourself Sanskrit.

First the good points: First few pages, dealing with the script, are rather good and clear in presentation. Those pages, that can be seen scanned on the site, attracted me to buy this book.

Now, the bad points: All the rest of the book. Instead of clear explanations and tabular presentation of noun declensions and verb conjugations, that I somehow expected to get, all there are are pages after pages of obscure paragraphs more meant to confuse than to explain.

Let us look at Page 43, Conjugation, § 57. Preliminary remarks, II, which is supposed to explain Sanskrit moods and tenses:
"The moods are: indicative, optative, imperative; only the present has three moods, the remaining tenses only the indicative; the infrequent precative is, however, a kind of aorist optative. The tenses are: present and imperfect, which form the present system with opt. and pres.imp., future, the rare conditional, aorist, perfect."

Precative? aorist optative? pres.imp.? And it gets worse and worse.

I really cannot recommend this book. I wasted my money and time on it. Instead I recommend "Introduction to Sanskrit" by Thomas Egenes. It is a very user-friendly book that can actually teach you something about Sanskrit.

I havent read this book yet, but I am sure that it is well written. I have Dr. Streb as a professor and he is one of the smartest professors that I ever had. I have read some of his past work and it is very clear and easy to understand while also being very scholarly.

Matthew Streb; was a guest of C-Span's Washington Journal. He maybe a holder of many degrees but he has no common sense. His habitual referral to the Blacks as, "African Americans," and captive voters of the Democrat Political Party is blinkered and racially prejudiced in nature.
Any group of American Citizens that uses a national prefix before stating they are American are by trial Anti-American. As far as one can determine there is no demographic knowledge as to the percentage of American Black persons that actually have roots back 157 years into a slave family.
There is a strong probably that ninety percent of the black population would be unable to make such a link.

Matthew Streb; was a guest of C-Span's Washington Journal. He maybe a holder of many degrees but he has no common sense. His habitual referral to the Blacks as, "African Americans," and captive voters of the Democrat Political Party is blinkered and racially prejudiced in nature.
Any group of American Citizens that uses a national prefix before stating they are American are by trial Anti-American. As far as one can determine there is no demographic knowledge as to the percentage of American Black persons that actually have roots back 157 years into a slave family.
There is a strong probably that ninety percent of the black population would be unable to make such a link.

Streb does an excellent job of analyzing the current role that race and class play in politics today. Streb thoroughly explains the disappearance of racial presence and the emergence of class status in voting while underscoring the importance of race in US elections. This book is an excellent resource for students, professors, and scholars.

I am currently working on my own project in aesthetics and hope to teach a course next year. Beardsley's book is a great reference, though I would not use it for a text unless I provided supplements to the class. One needs to see and hear examples of the art being discussed. His discussion of the figures is excellent, yet for an introductory course, one may want to have original sources to read.
What Beardsley does so well is to present every important view in historical context so that the reader gets a good idea of not only what the different views on art are, but why they were developed.
While it may not be a great text, it is a great resource.

I disagree with the previous reviewer. Although it might be possible to write a book that covered only the Major figures in aesthetics--Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc--I found this book very useful in getting a grasp of what has been said in the field of aesthetics throughout history, particularly medieval aesthetics, upon which it is very difficult to find information. In some cases, I don't quite agree with Beardsley's interpretation, but again, this is best read as an introduction to more serious studies in Aesthetics. Ultimately, only the primary sources are going to give you an understanding of their contents.

I used this as a text for an undergraduate course in aesthetics. I would never use it again. Beardsley seems to not understand that one need not include EVERY detail regarding EVERY person who ever made a comment on some issue of aesthetics. The result is a confusing and cluttered read that drowns one in a myraid of loosely related facts. A bigger problem is: I'm not sure that anyone else tries to do what Beardsley does - present a survey, with analysis, of the history of western aesthetics.