Maryland Books

I was impressed by Kentucky Clay for several reasons. For one, it details the story of eleven generations of the family that spawned Cassius Clay, infamous from the history of Lincoln. For another, my favorite aspects of history are the little-told stories, those tales of family members who lived average lives rather than the great magnates, presidents, etc. They are innumerably interesting to me for some reason. Kentucky Clay paints a vivid and poignant portrait of early settler history in the american south and east coast. I admit to not knowing much about the history of the South. This piqued my interest for that reason.

The book is also a delight to hold and read from a more physical appeal. A large family tree fold-out is included and is masterfully done. The paper is high quality and nice against the fingertips. It reminded me of the simple joys inherent in reading books versus electronic versions, in a world where so many books are also mass-produced and cheap feeling. History books seem one of the last bastions of this art, alas.

If you're greatly interested in early American history, and would enjoy learning more, this is a tremendous resource. Kentucky Clay is a reminder of how interconnected everything is, and of just how much one family can change history, and leave their own fingerprints there, lasting forever, much as a potter leaves theirs in real clay.

This book is a bait-and-switch: its title and subtitle make it sound as if it's a history of the Clay family of Kentucky, a family that gave us Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, and abolitionist Cassius Clay. Those historical figures are mentioned, but not discussed, on a couple of pages. The book is not about the Clay family.

The book is about the author, her mother, and her grandmother. Specifically, the book is about the three dysfunctional relationships among them, and the author's attempt to understand those relationships by digging into family history. She decides that the mother-daughter relationships recapitulate previous mother-daughter relationships, and that the grandmother-granddaughter relationship recapitulates previous grandmother-granddaughter relationships.

Well. Is family history destiny? Bateman says that, in the South, it is. I'm a Yankee, and I'm not so sure.

Bateman certainly feels better after writing this book, and it seems that learning about her family's secrets, divorces, alcoholisms, depressions, and other ills has made her feel better about her own problems (which include only a few items on that list). She's candid in telling her story and her family story, and fairly insightful about her female forebears.

Would you like this book? If the words "Clay" or "dynasty" are important to you, then, no. If a book entitled, "Eleven Generations of the Bateman Family" would be interesting to you, this book is well-executed and you'll probably like it.

Kentucky Clay was an interesting and readable family narrative. Note that I said narrative and not history. A detailed genealogical study it is not. In some ways this is a good thing... we've all read a biography or history that is so mundane and dry we drag our feet to get through the monotonous facts and dates. However, I do think it is fair to say that I thought this would more of a history and a bit less of the author's personal journey through her genealogy.

What I enjoyed most was the imagery. My ancestors are not from the south nor have I had the opportunity to visit there, but I felt I got to know the area as if I had been there or had history there. The only name I recognized was Henry Clay, the presidential candidate and antebellum figure. Considering that the book covers eleven generations, his story is not the focus. In fact the focus seems to shift from the Clay family to the Cecil family, specifically the women. This is the part of the book that turns a bit more gossipy as the stories are relayed not through research but through personal passing down. Still, it is compulsively readable and interesting. At times I did have trouble keeping the line of descent and various people straight but that didn't detract from the stories themselves. This book certainly made me want to research my own family history. Kudos to Ms. Bateman for tenacity of researching and documenting her history.

One thing I feel should be commented on is directed to those reviewers who seem to judge the actions of the author's family. As a reviewer already stated, let's not judge these people by our present-day standards. Perhaps even Ms. Bateman herself could benefit from having a bit more of an open mind, considering the time and political climate that her ancestors lived in.

ISBN 1556527950 - Because I've worked on my own genealogy for several decades, the story in Kentucky Clay sounded appealing. The surprising fact that I found a relative that might tie my family to the Clay tree was a bonus. Those readers who have read family stories like this one, based on both family legends and historical research, will know that most of those books fit the description of "love letter to family and history". Kentucky Clay does not, however, fit that mold.

Katherine Bateman has been told family stories all of her life. Years ago, the author left Kentucky and the family stories behind; now she's returned to revisit both, beginning with John Thomas Claye in 1612. The family stories can be - and are, in Bateman's hands - reinforced or disproven to a degree by records of the time. The story takes an unusual turn, genealogically speaking, in 1800, when Rebecca Cecil married William Clay. Usually, genealogy is male-dominated, by virtue of the fact that men keep their surnames, own property and, at one time, were the only actual names on census rolls, and are therefore easier to trace. The Clay family story becomes female-dominated, thanks to Rebecca Cecil's influence and the certainty she has, and that she passes down, that the women of the family are strong. Following her family from 1612 to the present day, the author comes to realize that, by sheer luck and somewhat against her will, she's found her way home to Kentucky land that one of ancestors had owned, long ago.

What you get out of this book will depend, in a big way, on what you expect of it. Genealogically speaking, if you have a family tie to the Clays, the book is something you'll want to add to your collection. The story here is limited to a specific line and expecting the author to go off in various directions is going to lead to disappointment. For example, although there is (as a genealogist, lacking evidence, I say "might be") Native American blood in the family, it's a different branch of the tree than the one the book is about. Expecting one hundred percent accuracy is equally silly - the basis of most of the book is family stories and, if you've ever tried to verify your own family stories, you realize that's nearly impossible.

On the other hand, the description I started with, of a "love letter to family and history"? Really, not even close. In genealogy, an honest and fair look at your family can be difficult - no one really wants to find criminals lurking in the tree, for example - but there's a line between acknowledging reality and airing your family's dirty laundry and the author seems to have had a hard time recognizing it. Despite the "strong women" story she's been told all her life, the women in the family seem to be pretty rotten, and surprisingly weak, with a pattern of opting out of responsibility and choosing alcohol over parenting and the author, oddly, seems to be perfectly comfortable telling all the family tales, ugly as well as those that aren't. I give it 4 stars because I thought it was well-written and it lived up to my expectations; I think the book will appeal to genealogists looking for links to the Clays, et al, but be prepared to be surprised by Bateman's assault on her family.

- AnnaLovesBooks

"Kentucky Clay" is a family history written by an historian of the eleventh generation of the Clay Family of Kentucky. It carries the family story from the immigrant ancestor in Seventeenth Century, on the trek west from Virginia to Kentucky, through the War years, and in Kentucky you know which war that means, up to the present generation of the former college professor-author. Many bits of it tie the family into America's story. John Thomas Clay was one of the early settlers of Jamestown, that beginning of America that we so often read about. Charles Clay fought in Bacon's Rebellion of 1676, one of the Frontier Rebellions which erupted in the Colonies from time to time. Kizzie Clay would not return to the home, which she loved, after Col. James A. Garfield's troops "Muddied it up." These vignettes show how American History affected real people and was affected by it. They make us wonder, how many similar stories are there in the family histories of our acquaintances?

In the early part of this book I was enthralled in the recitation of a family continuum through generations. An historian has asked me to write down things about my family, similar in form, but as a history of the French Canadian tradition. As I was reading, I was encouraged, seeing how this could be done and feeling a rising tide of enthusiasm which led me to think about when and how I could begin and complete the project.

Despite its promising beginning, this book turned out to be a disappointment. It is entitled as the story of "A Southern Dynasty", the family of Henry and Cassius Clay (19th Century Abolitionist, not prize fighter). I was expecting a story built around Kentucky Statesman, most prominently Henry Clay. I was expecting supporting roles from other family members, perhaps politicians, planters, judges, and heroines who rallied their families in times of crisis, spiced by an occasional character who brought the whole story down to the clay of Kentucky. As I read the book I came to realize that Henry and Cassius Clay are mentioned only as cousins, once as one who had a nose similar to a major character in the book. As the story progressed into more modern generations, about whom the author could draw on oral histories rather than historical record, it degenerates into something resembling a supermarket tabloid. Author Katherine Bateman tells a tale of dysfunctional families, sexual license, and broken marriages, in at least one occasion by design, alcoholism and illegal abortion. I am not sure whether she included these stories just to get the book to the end, or if she feels that, somehow, this establishes the "line of strong women" referred to by a string of characters. There is nothing dynastic about the characters treated in this book.

If you are looking for a history of a noble clan that contributed mightily to the American Saga, this is not the book you are looking for. If you are looking for a history of a family with feet of clay, pick it up.

Again I feel the editorial reviews summed the plot up enough, it would be redundant if I gave an additional summary.
First though let me say I am a big fan of Freedman's works, however I couldn't in good conscience give this offering more than 3 stars.
As thriller's go it is interesting, and has many elements I look for in thrillers namely excellent characterization, after all if reader doesn't feel he/she can genuinely care or sympathize for characters why read the book? Freedman again presents an anti-hero worthy of readers' emotion, and it is not there I failed to totally fall for this story.
It is just not exceptional. The tie-in with Ollie the Crane was nice play on title, but the overall plot didn't make me go wow I've gotta stay up all night reading. I know Freedman is an extrememely talented writer and although this could be he most mature work I can't claim its his best. Having said that I am reviewing it not necessarily to give it the ol' 2 thumbs up but to at least praise it as being worthy for a quick read.

Fritz Tullis was a successful professor at the University of Texas until he had an affair with the wrong (as in married) woman. He resigned while on leave of absence and is now living in a somewhat renovated sharecropper's shack on family property in southern Maryland. It's on the edge of a swamp where he fishes, photographs the many birds in the area and enjoys the solitude the place offers while he tries to get his head screwed on right.

One day while photographing the birds, he sees a small plane land across the water on the new neighbor's (James Roach) property. He witnesses a murder and vows to himself not to get involved. Then he learns the neighbor is the wealthy, shady assistant secretary of state. Fritz has been reckless most of his life and, against the advice of his lawyer friend, starts nosing into the life and misdeeds of Roach--to see that justice is done. He's soon in way over his head.

The story has a few twists and turns to keep your interest. And there's much more to the story than I've mentioned. This was my first experience with this author and there will be more.

My wife and I both liked this novel, and we're really not sure why anyone else wouldn't. The main character is slightly damaged goods, setting aside career and life's other ambitions, and hiding away in the boonies enroute to an undecided future. Not sure why that's apparently such a poor choice for a protagonist who is cast as an unlikely hero, but it did work for us. It's not realistic for all storybook heroes to be alpha male over-achievers who never take a step back to recover from their failures and disappointments.
I appreciated the author's brevity of language, and ability to make the characters accessible and real. The storyline kept me interested all the way through.
When I finished the book, I went looking for more by the same author. I was happy to add this one to my list of favorite authors.

Freedman wrote one of my favorite thrillers ever--Against the Wind, and several dynamite follow-ups. This is not one of them.

The basic plot elements are all great. Ordinary guy falls on hard times, too much alcohol, too much self-pity, too much self-absorbtion. Then a series of events, rooted in gun running in decades past, mixed with political intrigue, conspire to intrude into hero's neat little self-contained world.

The plot twists and turns; no one is quite who we thing he (and, most significantly, she) is. The story unfolds with Freedman's great writing, and the pages keep turning.

Two problems. First, the scenes between Maureen and Franz feel extremely forced, and even to the point of being long winded. Second, the story simply peters out at the end. We don't know if the bad guy gets away with it. We don't know if true love will out. We don't even know what happens to the birds.

I suspect that Freedman got bored with thrillers, and tried to do something more "literary". The title is an excellent double (triple, more?) entendre--it is by viewing his birds that Franz gets sucked in; but it is also by trying to live life from a bird's point of view--above it all, with no cares about the world--that Franz gets sucked deeper and deeper into trouble. Finally, the whole problem is caused by the fact that Ollie (our hero's whooping crane) is not where he belongs--several thousand miles from Texas, where he "belongs". This is also Franz' problem, who got lost in Texas, and ended up a few hundred feet away from Ollie in the Maryland swamps.

Good read, but not as good as the other Freedman's I've read.

Freedman has six prior novels, but was unknown to us until a friend insisted we read "Bird's-Eye". We weren't sorry, as our author combines solid writing skills with the ability to capture our interest immediately and keep us turning pages in a hurry with mystery and suspense. Already in Chapter One, we meet our leading man, Fritz Tullis, but have no idea why this thirty-something high-achiever, from a land-owning family wealthy for generations, is living in a shack on his mother's property in the swampish backwoods of the lower Chesapeake Bay. He spends his days doping, drinking, and enjoying ready sex partners, with occasional forays into the swamp to photograph birds (hence the title) with long telephoto lenses. By chapter's end, his camera catches a murder on a nearby property with a private air strip from a concealed, on the water, vantage point no one would ever know about.

Tullis spends much of the first half of the story staying uninvolved - but as he learns more about the potential culprits, or at least the conspirators involved, he cannot resist doing the right thing (solving the crime) while seeking little help from the authorities, with whom he knew he would have little credibility. Meanwhile, another new lady friend takes just a little too much interest in both the birds, one of which is a rare whooping crane, as well as the murder mystery; and we readers get enough info to smell a rat much sooner than does Tullis. Corruption and politics soon enter the fray as an Assistant Secretary of State, James Roach (presumably no pun!) turns out to be the neighbor who owns the air strip. Along the way, another murder or two adds to the intrigue and the dangerous nature of the chase, with the action and affairs of the heart reaching crescendo pace by book's end.

Freedman develops a fine plot without engaging so many characters we lose track. The suspense is realistic, as are the players and their thoughts and feelings. In sum, we not only enjoyed this novel immensely but will seek out his earlier works soon. Enjoy!

I loved this book. The main character Morgan is such a funny fellow. A hardware store manager, he enjoys dressing up and pretending to be other people. This leads his life down an entirely different course one day while he is pretending to be a doctor, and is called upon to deliver a baby.

All of the characters in this book are so well developed and comical in their own right. Morgan's wife, whom he eventually leaves for a younger woman, is spiteful but in such a lighthearted manner that the tricks she plays on Morgan come off more as harmless pranks than malice. I would highly recommend this book.

Like Melville's "Confidence-Man," Morgan Gower wanders through life--and through this novel--as a chameleon, taking on whatever persona people expect, hope, or need from him. Now a priest, now an exile from the Klondike, now a French artiste, always an actor on the stage of other lives, his closet filled with Daniel Boone outfits and riverboat-gambler costumes--he is happy to play anyone but the middle-aged man with a wife and seven daughters and a dead-end job at a hardware store. Morgan is surely one of the most eccentric characters in recent fiction, and at first it's not quite clear if he's menacing, creepy, bonkers, or simply immature.

Morgan's lives--all of them--seem to shift when he meets Emily and Leon Meredith, two puppeteers who perform their shows for children; he poses as a doctor, delivers their baby in the back seat of a car, and mysteriously vanishes after dropping the couple off at the hospital. Just as the grateful pair imagine him as a harmless, if eccentric, guardian angel, Morgan idealizes the young couple and their daughter as the echo of his lost family life, when his daughters were still children he could protect and adore and not strangers who bother him with their marriage plans. ("You don't stop loving people just because they change size," says his exasperated, long-suffering wife.) While Emily and Leon's marriage deteriorates, they're not quite sure what to make of the eerie man who not-very-surreptitiously spies on them and whose attentions become more and more intrusive, until he insinuates himself fully into Emily's and Leon's household.

"Morgan's Passing" is perhaps Tyler's most unruly, wacky, even Dickensian novel; its fabulist plot and characters flirt alternately with the surreal and the extreme. It is also, I think, one of her most underrated works of fiction, an offbeat tale of love among the ruins of tedium, of a life still "rich with possibilities." Yet, as unique as it is among her oeuvre, the novel features a hero with a peculiarly Tylerian trait: while passing through the lives of others and transforming them all irreversibly, Morgan ends up exactly where he began.

Having read a half dozen, I have mixed feelings about Tyler's books. Part of me admires and enjoys the way she can write engrossing sagas about ordinary people not necessarily doing much of anything. The other part is left feeling exhausted, like I just lived through someone else's entire life for them...and not quite sure if I got it.

Essentially, Morgan's Passing follows the story of Morgan Gower, a middle-aged man who becomes infatuated with a young couple after assisting in the emergency birth of their daughter. Gower - a married man with seven daughters - dreams of living Emily and Leon's frugal life, just as he's taken on the "roles" of many other persona in the past. As time passes, he also become obsessed with Emily, who begins to represent everything that he believes his own wife isn't, and everything he would want. Eventually, of course, Gower learns that people are just people, and not always what we think - or want - them to be. It just might be too late when that realization occurs.

If you live in a city without English in its bookstores, what do you read? Well, odds are you encounter a Westerner from time to time and exchange books you've read for books you haven't. You never know what you'll wind up with. It's Book Crossing, taken to a much higher level.

And so it was that I found myself looking at a battered copy of MORGAN'S PASSING, with no memory of who gave it to me or what book(s) I gave up in return. Pages brown and falling out, cover falling off, blurbs that make it sound like something I didn't want to read. But, a desperate junkie in need of my reading fix, I gave it a shot.

And, at last, the review. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The story of how I obtained it is much like the character of Morgan himself. He just kind of appears -- you don't know why -- but you're glad you met the memorable eccentric. This book is witty, original, and well worth reading. Ignore the [...] on the cover about "the love story." The book has one, but it's incidental. Some marketing bozo didn't know how to describe true creativity.

Okay, time to go broke ordering more Anne Tyler books from Amazon. All the way from China. There's even a Putlizer Prize winner in there.

I just finished another Anne Tyler book that was written earlier in her career. Once again I feel like I've lived with another group of people/characters for the few weeks that it took to read this story. It was a slow read. I wished the first three quarters of this book flowed with the same dramatic intensity that the last quarter did. I didn't fully understand lead character Morgan until then. But maybe that's the point. Once the plot twisted, the characters seemed to come into view more. All in all I enjoyed it and recommend it for Tyler fans.

As per usual, I came into this series after the lead-in novel. I had my first Luther Ewing experience with Crow's second book, The Bite, and I was pretty underwhelmed. Ewing, an ex-special forces/ex-merc sharpshooter who was shipped back to the U.S. after getting half his skull blown apart by a Serb sniper - along with his entire supporting cast of Baltimore Police - well, the characterizations are as derivative as they come, and the uber-hardboiled writing of author Michael Crow (the nome de plume of a - ahem - prize winning, critically acclaimed novelist) is as cheesy as week-old Velveeta.

Read it, said, 'Huh'. Been there, done that. Tossed it.

Okay, fast-forward a year. Something in The Bite must've struck a nerve, 'cause now I'm bored, desperate with a need to read. Stalking the local mega-used book store like a heroin junkie looking for a street-corner dealer, I see a used hardcover copy of Crow's first Ewing thriller, Red Rain, and I think, 'Huh. The other one wasn't so bad... Was it?'

Maybe it wasn't. Red Rain opens with Ewing and his first assignment with the Baltimore Narcotics squad, and his soon-to-be partner, Ice Box (Seriously. Imagine a white, falsetto-voiced version of The Fridge...), as they help bust a pathetic ring of suburban white-boy dope dealers. Ewing's boss, Lt. Dugal, labels Ewing a wild gun ('natch, since Ewing throws down with a non-reg, Israeli made, .50AE Desert Eagle equipped with an Aimpoint attachment), and promptly hooks Ewing up with Ice Box as his senior partner, sort of reverse Lethal Weapon style. The fun begins when more and more drug busts come down, all suburban kids, the drugs getting heavier and heavier, and suddenly all the trails lead back to one of Luther's old merc buddies: a Russian mafioso, ex-Spetsnaz psycho called Vassily who's quickly taking over the Baltimore drug trade. The bodycount builds fast after 'The Big Bust' goes south; Vassily goes after Luthor and his homies. In the end, after Vassily almost drops Luthor's city detective buddy Dog, well - not to give anything away here, but Luthor goes Rambo on Vassily and his cronies, even going so far as to smear on the war-paint during the finale.

Okay, yeah, yeah, it's derivative of just about any other thriller out there. But there's something endearing about Luthor and his crew, and until the cheese factor ramps up a notch with the lipstick war-paint at the end, Crow barrels gleefully along, tossing in enough sex and spilling enough blood to satisfy any adolescent teenage boys' hormonally charged action fetish. Just read - don't think, 'cause Red Rain really is as big and bombastic and... well.. dumb as a Shane Black flick. Get past the silliness and into the adrenaline, and you might suddenly find yourself having a blast.

Well. I thought it was pretty good. Most reviewers sound like an ex . . . "How dare you?" and "We're supposed to be impressed by THAT!" and along the lines of "if you had any guts you would come out from behind that nom de plume."

I like Luther Ewing, don't care that he's half black-half vietnamese, has the usual arrogance for authority that . . . let's see, Joe Pike, Spenser, Robicheaux, Hawk, Lucas Davenport, Frank Corso and Sunny Randall have, likes to have sex (wow; what an anomaly), and knows his guns. The anti siezure drugs have me a little perplexed but, what's your point?

I think the guy behind Michael Crow wanted to test his limits. People get irritated that he does that and I suspect it was a little too heavy handed that crap about 'he's really an international author blah blah.' Sounds like one of those 'game show annoncers.'

But that's a publishing decision. The guy goes to his publisher and says "I want to do this, will you back me?" and Pub says "yeah but we want to make some dinero on it so we're going to do it this way." That's what went down. Viking didn't want to spend muy bucks on some author's whim. You guys are nuts.

So I give it 5 stars. Exciting dialogue. Good plot, and yes, the guy knows his street slang (I think only Pelecanos does it better) and his guns. Interesting character. I've read them all. I got no beef, dog. Larry Scantlebury

This book is a pretty amazing example of how much harm you can do to yourself with a bad "about the author" blurb. The book itself isn't half bad -- it's not memorable, and it's certainly cliched, but it's solid and it pulls you through easily. It's about a cop who has a secret sniper-in-Yugoslavia past and a headwound that will give him an epileptic seizure if he stops taking medications. It's clearly meant to start a series. The twists and turns are standard, and the writing is a notch above standard. But then, at the end, you come to the "about the author" blurb, which, as you can see from the reviews here, infuriates people. Allow me to quote it in full:

"MICHAEL CROW is the pen name of a prize-winning, critically acclaimed novelist whose works have been translated and published in nine languages."

Let's leave aside the issue of whether "Michael Crow" can correctly be called THE pen name of someone who also writes under another name. (I notice it's been changed to "pseudonym" on a couple of websites.) A quick web search turns up the fact that the guy self-consciously slumming as "Michael Crow" won a prize I've never heard of and was nominated for the Pulitzer for journalism. Since fan-favorite "John Sandford" actually WON the Pulitzer for journalism under his real name (and has never implied that he's stooping or embarassed by writing the "Prey" series, just that he needed to keep his careers separate until both were established), "Michael Crow" starts looking pretty weak. He sure has an amazing ability to irritate people with an "about the author" blurb, though!

one gets the sense that the author analysed a bunch of best selling mysteries, and then dashed off one of his own. which he could have pulled off fine if he came across as someone who had actual experience, first hand or close to it, with the material. instead it feels like like he went straight from a university writing program to writing about lives he never came closer to than reading other novelists describe.

his details about guns are play army gear geek detail, not something most ex military special ops types would obsess about.

lastly, he's always using BRAND NAMES, often multiple times on one page. i assume he's doing it for artistic effect of some kind, not for payola, but if i wanted to get bombarded w brand names i'd watch tv.

I have to say I was a little disappointed with this book. I had to work very hard to locate a copy (maybe that should have been my first hint) but I was very much looking forward to it for some reason. I had seen some blurb here on AMazon that made me go track it down, but I can't remember what it was now. I think most of the reviews here are on target; in general this book is very formulaic and there is a disappointing lack of character development. Over all nothing within it will make it memorable for me so I gets my "OK" three starts rating.

Since it was so formulaic, I found the coyness of the author's pseudonym extremely irritating; understandable but irritating. Mr. Crow is billed as being a prize-winning novelist on the dust cover, and having made that claim I can see why another reviewer has decided that the author is contemptuous of the audience. He is billed as being so capable, yet he delivers a product that is very average. Ergo irritating, but understandable why he doesn't want his own name on it. So this feels like simply another hack writing job someone had to do to make a mortgage payment. I don't sense a true attachment bewteen the author and the characters and the world he has created within these pages.

All that being said though, I did read the whole thing, and read the two sequels, mostly because I was having a week where a little gratuitous violence sounded cathartic and I didn't have anything else to hand. So if you want a standard story of tough guys whupping up on other tough guys and don't have any Robicheaux or Repairman Jack novels available then this might fit the bill.

It's the sixteenth summer of Alice McKinley, and she's determined to make it memorable. Yet things keep conspiring against her.

The old gang's still meeting at Mark Stedmeister's pool, yet the feeling is different. Everyone's got summer jobs in different places, and new friends are being made. Among the old familiar faces, new activities are being pursued, such as smoking cigarettes and marijuana. Sometimes - like when she's uncomfortable in a car being driven too fast - Alice is put to the test. Will she speak up for what she believes is right, or keep quiet to avoid be thought a baby?

On the homefront, Alice's dad and Sylvia are adjusting to married life, and older brother Lester's dating Tracy, a fantastic girl who happens to be black. Since it's not a problem for the McKinleys, Alice - and Lester - are devastated when it turns out to be an issue for others - including Tracy herself.

In the meantime, Alice fans will be comforted in seeing more of the usual standbys of her stories, including embarrassing moments, memorable Aunt Sally interactions, and good times with longtime friends Elizabeth and Pamela.

"Alice in the Know" is a quick, fun read, guaranteed to please both longtime readers of the series and newbies.

I ttly love alice books & all books by phyllis reynolds naylor!! shes an awesome author!! i gaurantee ull stay up till 1:00am reading this book!!

I love the Alice books, but this one is not one of my favorites. It's still a wonderful read because Ms. Naylor is a wonderful writer, but I found parts of it a little tedious. As always, I love the characters, I love the way important social and relational issues are addressed, and I love the poignant ending. What felt "tedious" to me though was what came across as day-by-day journaling and I found myself wanting to get to the end of the book as quickly as possible. It's still a good read but just not my favorite in the series.

As a dedicated reader of the Alice series, I was extremely excited when I saw the newest book on the book store shelf! Of course I bought it.

This book was not my favorite in the series, but I am surprised at the horrible reviews it has gotten. By no means is it a 'bad' book. It is simply (in my opinion) not my favorite.

Alice is still the same girl, except maybe a little more mature, and Alice fans will be very much satisfied with this book.

Here is the plot:

Alice is in the middle of the summer before here Junior year of High School, and her life is defenitely taking a different turn. Her dad is encouraging her to take a break from her job at his store, the Melody Inn, and explore different jobs. Her brother's love life just might be getting a lot more serious, and the usual gang of friends that hang out at Mark's pool are changing, some for the better, some for the worse.

Alice is obviously getting more mature, and giving more thought to her future. And, as the more recent Alice books usually do, Topics such as sex come up during the story. I think this is good, because often Teens or tweens are uncomfortable with these subjects, and it is good that books they enjoy reading educate them about these topics in a way that is fun.

Although not the best in the series, this book is still a must read for Alice fans! ENJOY!

I've been an Alice fan for more years than I can remember. I had been a little unsure of how I felt about the high school Alice, but "Alice in the Know" reassured me.

Alice is definitely growing up. I found the ending of this novel to be poigniant, and I read this one twice in the two weeks I had it from the library. There were still plenty of silly, embarassing moments (just like real life) but with some hard issues mixed in.

This is definitely my favorite Alice that's been out in a while.

I am in agreement with the reviewer who stated that this was the first novel they'd read by Robson, and would also be the last. Too much historical detail, two-dimensional characters, and I'm no prude, but I found this novel at times to be both vulgar and disgusting. I'm ashamed to say I was born in the same town as this author. If you want a more accurate portrait of the fair state of Maryland, you'd be much better served by reading "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener, "Annapolis" by William Martin, or the "Wild Swan" trilogy by Celeste de Blasis. Don't waste your time with this trash.

I recently visited historic St. Mary's City and then decided to pull this book off my shelf and give it a second chance. ( I found it a slow read on my first attempt.) I really enjoyed the detail and the fact that the author remained accurate as to the setting, culture, language etc. Since I visited the city I could easily picture everything she talked about in the novel. Unfortuneately,the story moved too slow and the characters could have been developed better. I have enjoyed other books by this author but I might have left this one on the shelf if I had not toured the setting site. Still Slow!

"Mary's Land" is a colorful and detailed novel of a time at the beginning of Europeans' migration to the New World. Robson's novel puts the reader into the thick of the action from the long journey on a small ship to the taming of the frontier. The characters are people you care about. You cheer them on when they find success and cry for them when they don't. Wonderful to see it back in print.

This was the first work I read by Robson, and it was also the last. While I love the use of history and detail in order to bring a time period alive, Robson goes a little overboard in an attempt to paint even the minute details of 18th century colonial life into her work.

I was interested in the religious struggles undertaken by many of the early American colonials and Robson does a fairly good job of highlighting their plight and it's also interesting to meet many of the indentured servants who helped build early America.

But, after a journey on a crowded ship to America, the story seems to fall apart. I honestly stopped caring about what would happen to any of them. Yes, the poor, indentured Anicah is somewhat amusing in the beginning as she tries to keep herself and her lover, Martin, out of trouble (sort of) but everything moves so slowly that reading this work was literally like watching paint dry.

I like my historical novels to be akin to the History Channel--giving me good information, in an interesting way, but not enough to bog me down or bore me--but bore me is exactly what this book did.

Mary's Land brings the old pages of history to life and makes the people live and breathe - Another of Lucia St. Clair Robson's "can't put down books" - and as soon as I've finished I want more - her facts are always correct and she has a wonderful feel for putting them into words that create pictures in the soul.

Nader Saiedi's book Logos and Civilization. Spirit, History and Order in the Writings of Baha'u'llah came out in 2000. Up until a few weeks ago, I had avoided buying and reading it. But last year, someone recommended the chapter on the Kitab-i Badi and, on the strength of that, I bought the book.

When it arrived, I set out to read it carefully cover to cover and give it a fair reading. But I got through only the Introduction before my fears were realised. I was already disturbed by what I was reading and put the book away for a month. Then I brought it out to try again. Perhaps I was just in a bad state at the time, I thought. After that, I was able to read the first three chapters, which constitute Part I of the book, "The Dynamics of Spiritual Journey". There are three parts to the book: Part II is "The Critique of Spiritual and Historical Reason" and Part III is "The New World Order".

I'm telling you this because I want to be clear that I have not read all of the book, only Part I. By the time I got through Part I, I couldn't face any more. (Although I do still plan to read the chapter recommended to me.) I have looked through the rest of the book and believe it is fair to suggest that my concerns about Part I also apply to the other parts of the book. However, what I think are 'concerns' about the book won't be concerns for others.

I don't mean to say that Part I was wholly bad. Not at all. I learned important things from it and, for this reason, was pleased I'd persevered. Part I is about mysticism and spiritual journey, which is the subject that most interests me. Two things in particular stood out for me. The first is Saiedi's discussion on the Ontological Circle and the stages in the creating process - what he calls the "Arc of Descent" (see diagram on p. 54). It has always puzzled me how the creation process works and this explained it to me.

Apparently, the Bab says that there are seven stages in the process:

1. Will
2. Determination
3. Destiny
4. Decree
5. Permission
6. Term
7. Book.

I could never understand how creation was the fruit of God's will and yet there was no relationship between God and creation. Saiedi explains by paraphrasing the Bab: "In His Sahifiy-i-Adliyyih (Book of Justice), He [the Bab] explains that God created the Will from nothing through the causation of the Will itself without any external determination, and created all other beings by the causation of the Will through the seven stages of contigency." (p. 56) I found Saiedi's discussion on the seven stages informative and useful and plan to discuss it again in a separate blog entry. Given that we humans are created in the likeness of God, then the way we create must be similar to the way God creates.

But I was left with mixed feelings because, although I was pleased to have learned this from the book, I was sad that I had to rely on Saiedi to inform me about what the Bab had said. This isn't a complaint about the book or its author, it is a complaint about the lack of official translations. The mass of believers don't themselves have access to the writings through good English translations. They are forced to rely on people like Saiedi who can read the writings in the original languages and tell others what's in them. I'm confident that Saiedi and other scholars with his skills do an excellent job in sharing with others what the originals say, but the mass of believers need to be able to work out their own understanding of the writings.

The other stand-out feature of Part I was Saiedi's discussion on what he termed "the spatial metaphor", as found in The Four Valleys (p. 80). Again, Saiedi's understanding comes from his ability to read the work in Persian and see how Baha'u'llah has used the spatial metaphor in his introductions to each of the valleys. Saiedi says that the numbering of the valleys as one, two, three and four is NOT in the original; it has been added by the translators. Therefore, the four valleys are not about progressing from one stage to the next, as in The Seven Valleys, but are four different kinds of person and spiritual journey. Saiedi explains that Baha'u'llah uses the spatial metaphor to emphasise the difference between them. The person of valley one is a long way from the beloved and the journey is about travelling closer. The person of valley two has reached the beloved's antechamber and is in awe of the beloved; the person in valley three is in the beloved's home and is attracted to the beloved; and the person in valley four has united with the beloved and is her lover.

After reading this, I was exhilarated. I thought, "Gee, this is good stuff!". But then, as I read on and as Saiedi began to argue his interpretation of it, my heart began to sink. To me, that wonderful metaphor captured it all. I won't go into the details of Saiedi's interpretation. But I'll quote the penultimate paragraph of the chapter, in which Saiedi gives his summary of what spiritual knowledge is:

"Such knowledge is universal knowledge in the sense that, with the attainment of knowledge of the self, the wayfarer has also attained knowledge of the totality of reality. This is evident in the notion that the human being is the perfect mirror of the world. Knowledge of the self becomes knowledge of being in general. This self-knowledge is ultimately possible through knowledge of the Manifestation of God, who represents the Perfect Human Being in each particular age. Knowledge of the self through knowledge of the Manifestation of God becomes knowledge of one's own state of perfection or paradise. Finally, this knowledge, by its very nature, becomes a historically specific knowledge - a progressive knowledge in the context of progressive revelation. In Baha'u'llah's revelation, the center of that knowledge and the demonstration of its attainment is the principle of the oneness of humankind." (p. 109)

I'm lost in wonder at this. Only a few pages before this passage, Saiedi had taken us to the fourth valley. As a reader, I was all fired up, thinking about union as a lover with Baha'u'llah. Come in: the feeling you get when you imagine being in Baha'u'llh's presence. The thrill and the swoon. Nothing exists but ecstasy. Baha'u'llah is before you and you are a gonner. Be fair, now, are you at that very moment going to give the least thought to the principle of the oneness of humankind?! As a matter of common sense, how could that principle possibly be the center of spiritual knowledge? I accept that it is an aspect of it, but Saiedi privileges it way out of proportion. "Just lie back and think of the oneness of humankind", is what I hear Saiedi saying. And it's one reason I couldn't finish the book. It's ironic that Saiedi spends quite a bit of time in the book accusing Juan Cole of reductionism but then tells us that the center of spiritual knowledge and the demonstration of its attainment is the principle of the oneness of humankind. (I agree with Saiedi's critiques of Juan in chapter one, by the way, over the issue of when Baha'u'llah knew he was a manifestation.)

I am the first to defend Saiedi's right to interpret the revelation as he pleases. And I don't want to make heavy weather of our differences, for they don't matter in the big scheme of things. But another reason I couldn't finish the book was becuse of the way Saiedi presented his position. As the passage above shows, you feel like you are being talked at. There are quite a few "It is clear that" clauses - two on page 108, for instance. In some places, Saiedi does 'own' that what he says is just his view. But the language he slips into leaves you feeling that if you don't share his view, you're wrong, rather than just in a different place spiritually. My overall feeling is that Saiedi has put the revelation into boxes of mental constructs and neatly tied them up with a bow. The following passage illustrates what I mean, and it includes a chilling reminder for the reader who doesn't see it his way:

"The Bab explains that the real meaning of this is that one's faith is complete and will not be subject to alteration or negation if one believes in all four supports or pillars of the divine covenant [ie, Will, Determination, Destiny and Decree]. Decree, here, becomes the symbol of the fourth pillar of the covenant. One's faith is always incomplete and subject to alteration if one has accepted only three levels but has failed to recognise the fourth. In the Baha'i Faith these four levels of the covenant are God, Baha'u'llah, the authorised interpreters of the Faith..., and the Universal House of Justice. The affirmation of divine bada', in this sense, would signify the inseparable unity of all the elements of the divine covenant. Turning away from any part of that covenant constitutes breaking the covenant, which deprives one of faith." (p. 61)

Logos and Civilization is one of the most well-researched, comprehensive and insightful books on this subject and has become one of my essential reference books.

Well-written, well-researched, and intelligent.

A must-buy for anyone seriously interested in Baha'i or religious scholarship of any kind.

Poorly written and unsystematic, this work is an attempt to analyse the Baha'i writings in new ways. Although there are some interesting sections, these are lost amongst rambling excursions into flights of hyperbolic fancy. His mostly unsubstantiated criticism of fellow Baha'i scholars is unfortunate, and somewhat surprising as he shows little knowledge of this body of academic Baha'i studies.

Every Bahai should read this book. This book will open your mind...and clean out any problems it finds. In this brilliant and thorough treatise, Mr. Saiedi has burned down many of the veils that western and eastern religious thinkers have thrown at the Bahai Faith. The book is at once hard to read for those who are not familiar with a lot of philosophical words, but the author does manage at times to explain rather intricate and quite abstract ideas in one sentence. The amount of material covered is quite extensive and you will need a pad of paper to keep some notes, which you will most definately refer to throughout your thinking life. There are so many important ideas in the book, there is no way that anybody can read this book and not come away more intelligent. Interestingly chapter 6 deals with the Kitab-i-Badi, (not yet translated into English, 412 pages) and which the authors says is (refering to the Kitab-i-Badi) the "most comprehensive analysis and intrepretation of the Bab's writings." This book makes you think very hard about what is going on "behind the scenes", so to speak, in the writings of Baha'u'llah. It's absolutely brilliant. The most important idea discussed in the book is the explanations regarding the "historicization" of divine revelation, and how unavoidably true it is. A must read for everyone on this planet.

Lydia Bird's story of her Atlantic crossing solo on her 42' sailboat Sonnet and her trip from the Azores to Greece with crew is well written and intriguing. This is not just another "how to" book about boating, but rather a psychological tale that is almost embarrassingly personal. Indeed it was too personal for my taste although I admit to finding it all interesting and well written. I felt like a voyeur at times reading a secret diary I had found unlocked. Lydia (I call her "Lydia" because by the end of the book you feel like you know her so well) also says some very personal and painful things about her family, her friends and their mates. Was such honesty really necessary? Hmmm...I wonder.

As a boater I found especially interesting that Lydia writes in detail about engine problems and hassles docking and undocking her boat, which in fact is what many of us sailors struggle with most. I found it refreshing that someone has written about the angst involved in these seemingly trivial events. In fact there's nothing quite so hair-raising as maneuvering around windswept docks in a sailboat, trying to get the thing into the slip without smashing something, while the engine threatens to stall. Most sailors have been there, trust me, but no else describes it like Lydia does. Lydia manages to capture the pathos and bathos of these sorts of situations.

And in my opinion her poetry is pretty good.

This is one of the few books I could stand to read on this subject. Im so sick of reading storys about the "reluctant mate", and so happily read this book about a wife who wants to go more than her husband wants to go. ( I guess because I idnetify with it) It shows you to, that sialing away doesnt sail away from your problems - she has all the same issues out there on the water and with other crew mates as she would at home. The whole story was very entertaining...I hope I can do what shes done someday- either by myself, or dragging my husband aboard. It was soo soo good to read about a STRONG COMPETANT female sailor for a change! I hope she writes more!

As a woman who has crossed the Atlantic Ocean, Bird's book was a superb actualization of what I had experienced my self. In fact prior to my journey across the ocean I was seeking out a woman's voice which shared the interpersonal challenges of crossing an ocean. Bird's book depicts the clarity and raw emotions of such a journey. I resonated with her experience and truly appreciated the vulnerability with which she wrote and shared her story. I have found no other woman writer to provide this personal experience. Most write about provisioning, standing watches; the how tos of ocean crossings. Bird brings much more of the voyage to life. I highly recommend this book to people who want a personal account of sailing single-handed.

An anorexic woman whines her way across the Atlantic and Med. No sense of adventure or accomplishment to the feat - just an endless litany of angst and self-doubt laced with an empty, transparent pseudofeminism. Not really a book about a sailing adventure at all. In fact, if someone in your life is interested in sailing and you would like to discourage them - give them this book!

I didn't want to put this book down. I found the relationships aspect most compelling, although the details of sailing, the weather, the boat itself, and the experiences at various marinas are crucial to the story, since all that creates the backdrop against which the human interactions, and the growth of the narrator, take place. I had to keep reminding myself it wasn't a novel. Also, having studied, and taught, a little American women's history, I kept seeing all four women as representative of various cultural prescriptions (and proscriptions) which most of us struggle with.

I found Monica (Bird's first crew member), fascinating. I saw her as a frightened woman, dishonest with herself as well as with others, doing what people who feel powerless often do, that is, try to control their world through manipulation.

I identified more with Elaine, at least on one front, since I'm the type who demands a life jacket if I embark on a canoe trip in a three-foot-deep lily pond. At the same time, I saw her as buying into the very patriarchal, male-dominated military system. Probably a very strong woman but maybe a little rigid and quick to judgment.

I liked very much the relationship that developed between the author and Skyli. The occasional descents into self-doubt, the constant self-examination and analysis of others seemed pretty typical of a female world. At one point, Bird (like the professor in My Fair Lady) wishes women could be more like men. But our tendency to read between the lines and second guess others has probably been our greatest survival mechanism.

In short, I was impressed. By the voyage, the author's willingness to risk in so many ways (with the elements and with relationships), and by the book itself. And I mustn't forget to mention the pure poetry of much of the prose.

I enjoyed reading this book, and would suggest it to others looking for an entertaining novel . . .If you want to read a book that goes straight to your heart, read Stolen Moments by Barbara Jeanne Fisher. . .It is a beautiful story of unrequited love. . .for certain the love story of the nineties. I intended to give the book a quick read, but I got so caught up in the story that I couldn't put the book down. From the very beginning, I was fully caught up in the heart-wrenching account of Julie Hunter's battle with lupus and her growing love for Don Lipton. This love, in the face of Julie's impending death, makes for a story that covers the range of human emotions. The touches of humor are great, too, they add some nice contrast and lighten things a bit when emotions are running high. I've never read a book more deserving of being published. It has rare depth. Julie's story will remind your readers that life and love are precious and not to be taken for granted. It has had an impact on me, and for that I'm grateful. Stolen Moments is written with so much sensitivity that it made me want to cry. It is a spellbinder. What terrific writing. Barbara does have an exceptional gift! This book was edited by Lupus specialist Dr. Matt Morrow too, and has the latest information on that disease. ..A perfect gift for someone who started college late in life, fell in love too late in life, is living with any illness, or trying to understand a loved one who is. . .A gift to be cherished forever

This was an ok book, but I have read better. It was worth reading to the end. If you want to read a book that goes straight to your heart, read Stolen Moments by Barbara Jeanne Fisher. . .It is a beautiful story of unrequited love. . .for certain the love story of the nineties. I intended to give the book a quick read, but I got so caught up in the story that I couldn't put the book down. From the very beginning, I was fully caught up in the heart-wrenching account of Julie Hunter's battle with lupus and her growing love for Don Lipton. This love, in the face of Julie's impending death, makes for a story that covers the range of human emotions. The touches of humor are great, too, they add some nice contrast and lighten things a bit when emotions are running high. I've never read a book more deserving of being published. It has rare depth. Julie's story will remind your readers that life and love are precious and not to be taken for granted. It has had an impact on me, and for that I'm grateful. Stolen Moments is written with so much sensitivity that it made me want to cry. It is a spellbinder. What terrific writing. Barbara does have an exceptional gift! This book was edited by Lupus specialist Dr. Matt Morrow too, and has the latest information on that disease. ..A perfect gift for someone who started college late in life, fell in love too late in life, is living with any illness, or trying to understand a loved one who is. . .A gift to be cherished forever.

This was an ok book, but I have read better. It was worth reading to the end. If you want to read a book that goes straight to your heart, read Stolen Moments by Barbara Jeanne Fisher. . .It is a beautiful story of unrequited love. . .for certain the love story of the nineties. I intended to give the book a quick read, but I got so caught up in the story that I couldn't put the book down. From the very beginning, I was fully caught up in the heart-wrenching account of Julie Hunter's battle with lupus and her growing love for Don Lipton. This love, in the face of Julie's impending death, makes for a story that covers the range of human emotions. The touches of humor are great, too, they add some nice contrast and lighten things a bit when emotions are running high. I've never read a book more deserving of being published. It has rare depth. Julie's story will remind your readers that life and love are precious and not to be taken for granted. It has had an impact on me, and for that I'm grateful. Stolen Moments is written with so much sensitivity that it made me want to cry. It is a spellbinder. What terrific writing. Barbara does have an exceptional gift! This book was edited by Lupus specialist Dr. Matt Morrow too, and has the latest information on that disease. ..A perfect gift for someone who started college late in life, fell in love too late in life, is living with any illness, or trying to understand a loved one who is. . .A gift to be cherished forever.

I also have read all of Meagan's previous books and am a devoted fan but this was not her best work. If this is your first time reading her work, don't hold it against her. I had a difficult time finishing this book. It did not flow well and she did not develop the characters enough. I would highly recommend any of her earlier books but I do not recommend this one.

I've read every book by Meagan McKinney and I have to say that the last two haven't been as good as the earlier books. The Fortune Hunter was downright bad, but this one was okay but not great. I've noticed that with a lot of my favorite authors,their latest books haven't been up to snuff. Do they get under pressure and not devote enough time to creating their characters?

Alyn Blum-Jones is the only living relation to her aunt Jacqueline, whom she has never met because her mother was dis-inherited when she married Alyn's father. Now a year after Alyn's mothers death Jacqueline wants to meet Alyn. On the eve of her visit to her aunt's magnificent estate, her aunt is missing, presumed dead.

When Alyn arrives at her aunts' estate she meets Peter Youngblood, a private investigator for the insurance company who will pay out $20 million if Jacqueline is found dead. Of course they don't hit it off, the stableman and the butler (whatever they call him in the book, I can't remeember!) immediately file a motion to reverse her aunts' will and immediately Alyns' life is in danger. Of course Peter is the only man to protect her.

I felt that Ms. McKinney could have developed Alyn and Peters' relationship better. One minute they hate eachother and another minute they love eachother, no in between time to explore their feelings for eachother.

All in all, this is a good, quick read but wait for the paperback.

The Way We Really Are is recommended for parents as well as students of sociology and contemporary affairs: Stephanie Coontz provides an examination of America's changing families, from the different systems of cooperative and step-families to studies on changing traditional family methods and structures. An intriguing survey of family relationships is revealed.

I think Ms. Coontz read way too much into the Chicken Little story. The sky isn't falling, it's just people throwing rocks at each other. She has certainly managed to tap into the "it isn't my fault" mentality so widespread on today's society. Why blame broken families on a lack of morals and poor personal choices, when we can simply say, "Society made me do it."

Who knows? There may just be enough lost souls seeking to avoid blame and responsibility to make this a best seller. I, for one, hope not.

Climbing back up a slippery slope is always a struggle, but that doesn't mean it can't be done or that we shouldn't try. Didn't your Mom & Dad always say, "If your friends jump off a cliff, does that mean you should?" Mom & Dad were right, you know. Ms. Coontz, on the other hand, would cheer you on as you to step into the abyss.

I enjoyed Ms. Coontz's previous book but found this one a disappointmet. "The past wasn't what we think it was and anyway we can't go back", is a useful starting point for debate on any social topic. The question on everyone's mind then becomes, "So what should we do now?". And unfortunately the author never addresses the fundamental of what might make for a good family. Why do people look back at the 50s as a golden age? Forget every television image and false theory, concentrate instead on two variables: parental involvement as measured by time and continuity of environment.

If Ms. Coontz had confined herself to these I think she would found her answer to why many people think children today are being shortchanged. Forget the question of whether such families are led by gays, lesbians, single parents, people who have remarried, etc. The fact is parents spend much less time today with their children, by all measures, and there's much less continuity whatever the situation.

"This is how things are today, deal with it", is not a solution or even a very sophisticated description of the problem. If one can imagine a world of diverse families it still stands to reason that the basic needs of children are probably similar and the author might spend some time spelling out what they are. That book has yet to be written. There's no reason a progressive couldn't write such a book but he or she would need a lot of courage.

Initially, Ms. Coontz builds a pretty impressive case for her point of view, backing it up with studies and statistics. Alas, about two thirds of the way through she begins to fall down: there is much more opinion and much less evidence. In most controversies, there is a large middle-of-the-road (MTR)contingent that forms the "swing vote" and sympathizes to a certain degree with both the extremes. Coontz seems to lose any understanding that she may have had of these people and her arguments accordingly become less likely to sway them. At this point I felt that she wasted all the good that she might have done.

Most people that I know see a difference between, for example, a family needing help because they have lost a bread-winner and one created by parents who not in a position to support their children from the beginning. The first family is seen as having played by the rules and suffered a misfortune and worthy of assistance. The latter parents are sometimes seen as cheats who did not make a reasonable effort to be self-sufficient and suffer the consequences of their actions. The MTRs may accept that it is wiser in long run, particularly given that children are involved, to assist these latter families, but balk at being asked to conceal their disapproval. I think that Ms. Coontz, and many of her colleagues in the social sciences, need to read up on evolutionary psychology and game theory. Even if one doesn't accept that human psychology is largely genetically determined, it does help explain the social uses of a lot of behavior. I can recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature), which I happened to be reading when this thought hit me, especially "Part IV, Know Thyself", but there are plenty of other books. She doesn't seem to think that people respond to incentives and disincentives.

Certainly, we could decide, if we wanted to, that the government would give anyone who has a child an allowance sufficient to raise it, or, perhaps better, deliver services directly to the child, like public school. But is this to be offered only to certain families or to all families? It has been argued that, all things being equal, financial assistance to college punishes frugality and savings by giving assistance to people who have no money because they lived lavishly.

Coontz's logic seems to assume that the difference between Have and Have-Not is entirely a matter of luck whereas there are a lot of very unhappy wage-slaves, including me, who are working solely so that we can live a middle-class lifestyle. If that lifestyle is to be conferred gratis upon all comers, then why should we work? Then who will pay taxes to finance the programs Coontz wants? Further, I have read that the largest amount of welfare cheating is done by polygamists, i.e. men who have multiple wives and families that they cannot support. (See "The Secret Story of Polygamy" by Kathleen Tracy.) The wives make the fictitious claim that their children were fathered by someone who has deserted them and collect welfare. Does Coontz's respect for alternate family lifestyles include supporting polygamy?

The other major flaw, and I nearly threw the book across the room at this, is Coontz's argument that Social Security for childless people is a form of dole. (Let me say here that I don't pay Social Security, except for Medicare, and I'm not eligible to collect it.) She argues this because "the average person" get more out of Social Security than he/she puts into it. Well, I should hope so, considering that the government has everyone's money for decades! But even this "average" is questionable. I've seen this quoted several times, but not with any explanation of how it's calculated. I am told by someone who worked for the Social Security Administration, that the average is corrected to exclude benefits paid out to persons who may never pay in (such as the earliest beneficiaries and the disabled), but that it is not corrected for inflation, which can make an enormous difference over three or four decades. I finished feeling very disgusted with Coontz, because having read the better parts of her book, I find it difficult to believe that this was an "innocent mistake."

This book describes factors playing for and against the well-being of families in the US today. The book seems to have 3 simultaneous goals: to describe and contrast the economic conditions of single- and two-parent heterosexual families, to provide self-help, support or guidance for two-parent families in crisis, and to suggest government policies to help American families thrive. Some of the topics covered in the book include: the idealization of the 1950s, working mothers, the future of marriage, divorce, traditions that should be abandoned, who's to blame for families in crisis, societal change and risk for kids, and the strengths and vulnerabilities for today's families.

The title of the book misled me a little. With a title like "The Way We Really Are", I expected the book to detail the kinds of families that exist in the US today. I was interested in learning how many families consist of adults with their own children, or with step children, or with no children, and how these numbers are changing. And how many families consist of homosexual couples with children, and is this number growing? How many families are nuclear families, and how many extended families do we find in the US today? Are there differences in these statistics according to race or ethnic background? What about family units that consist of divorced or widowed adults and in-laws, step-parents, or aunts or uncles? But that's not what this book is about. Most of the book deals exclusively with the economic well-being of single and two parent heterosexual nuclear families. Homosexual families are mentioned briefly in a few paragraphs towards the end of the book, and extended families receive no mention at all. Even when Coontz discusses two-parent families with a breadwinner and a homemaker, she always assumes that the breadwinner is a male, and doesn't consider or describe when it's the other way around, or provide statistics about female breadwinner families.

The main thesis of the book seems to be that many American families are in crisis today. The reasons for this are varied, from unrealistic idealization of the 1950s, to government policies that run counter to the needs of families. Coontz argues that right-wing groups that claim to be pro-family by stressing the need for children to be raised in families with 2 married parents may be unrealistic and actually work against the children's welfare.

While I found many of Coontz's arguments convincing, I think she could have gone further by giving a lot more thought to families and economic conditions in other parts of the world rather than confining her research and hypotheses strictly to the US. For instance, she suggests that during the industrial revolution in the US, there was a debate over "whether to protect women's interests by secluding them in the family, away from the rough-and-tumble competition of the capitalist market and political party system, or to grant women the same independent legal and political existence that white men had acquired, so they could claim their interests as a right." Coontz seems to be suggesting here that after the Civil War, women were being kept at home to protect them from market forces, and that that's why they weren't given property rights or allowed to open bank accounts on their own, etc. But given what we find in the rest of the world, I think it may have been the case that women were kept on the farm because of the common trend worldwide to try to keep women in seclusion, as can still be found today throughout the Muslim world, or parts of Asia. And property rights weren't restricted from women just because of industrialization- -I'm not sure, but I think there is a long history of such restrictions throughout European law, as well as in the rest of the world. On the other hand, she may have found support for her thesis that two parent families aren't a panacea in themselves if she had considered modern Japanese families, which very often consist of the two-parent, two child, male breadwinner ideal, and which are quite often completely dysfunctional when judged by American standards, in which we expect the parents to have healthy emotional ties to each other and the children. All in all, while Coontz has some interesting points, I would be more interested in seeing a book with a little less advice and a little more thought about all the various types of American families considered in a world-wide context.