Living History Books

I am writing this review, because it was a humanities class project. I am reading
Matilda Bone, I would give it two stars.

Matilda is an unfortunate orphan who arrives at Blood and Bone Alley. To help a bone setter named Peg. She has never even imagined herself picking up a mop! Now she must help Peg with dirty dishes and bloody bones. Matilda finds herself meeting lots of greedy people!

I would prefer to read a different book, because this book has a lot of little problems. I like one big problem, but that's just my opinion. The story keeps going on and on, and it never has a meaning. It gets better at the end, it actually makes since. Matilda Bone has a lot of details.

I would recommend this book to someone who loves details and gruesome parts in the book. What I mean by gruesome is rotten eels and bloody bones. If you like smelly eels and bloody bones, then you would really like this book. Gruesome things come up in this book a lot!

I read Matilda bone for a class assignment for humanities. The book was about a girl named Matilda that was assigned to be an assistant to a bone setter named peg. She lives on blood and bone alley. When she arrives she doesn't know anything that's going on around her. After a while she gets to know the people and her boss peg. And life goes by easily after that

I gave the book a two and a halve because to me it had lots of detail but also lots of small problems, I prefer to read about one big problem otherwise the book doesn't interest me. I'd probably recommend this book to someone who likes medieval problems and how they solved it then.

I'm writing this as a humanities project. Matilda Bone has a slow start, but then gets better as you go!
It is about a girl named Matilda that is not pleased when she goes to work at Blood & Bone Alley to become assistant for Red Peg the bonesetter. Matilda is a person who can't picture herself doing chores, and bone setting. Matilda thinks no one understands her. Life teaches her through kindness, and friendships, finally Matilda begins to see the world around her!
I would recommend this book to someone who likes very detailed books, or someone who likes lots of little conflicts.

Matilda Bone by Karen Cushman is a book full of compassion and friendship. When Matilda's father Lord'leufuerd goes to London Matilda becomes an assistant for a bone setter. Bone settters are people that can heal injured bones and Peg, Matilda's mistress teaches Matilda lots of new things. She meets new people when her father is gone and while she is with her mistress,Peg. Matilda is a selfish girl and doesnt like to be bossed around. But how long can Matilda take these orders by some bone setter?

This book has thought me a lot about friendship. Is is filled with Friendship during this book. It is very well written too.

Great for our medival unit study. My children enjoyed listening to this book on tape. We were not disappointed at the end of this book. It is very good with details from that period.

I know a lot about history, though I'm no historian. I can say with all honesty I have read actual HISTORY books more interesting than this. This book was mostly facts, with a small amount of description put in. There was no deep character analysis, no beautiful descriptions, and no real theme. It assumes that you'll be so shocked to find out about the naughty things historical figures have been involved in that you don't need and actual good story. In fact, I got more enjoyment from reading Alexander Hamilton, a biography from Ron Chernow, than from reading this.

What follows spoils some of the story, so don't read it if you actually plan on buying it.

The author also asserts the ridiculous (at least in my opinion) belief that Alexander Hamilton FORGED letters to make it look like he was being blackmailed, and was actually engaging in shady financial dealings with JAmes Reynolds. Though I admit to slight bias (I adore Hamilton), this is a claim is unbelievable.

I love history reads, and particularly so when it seems relevant to me in some way. I'm probably related to Thomas Callender, so I doubly expected to be glued to this book for a weekend. Sadly, this book was so dry and devoid of historical value in the first 5-10 pages that I just couldn't keep enough interest to pay attention after that and sent it to another relative, who I hope won't hold that against me too much.

The words we use matter.

That is what this book comes down to and who better to write such a massage then the "On Language" columnist for the The New York Times Magazine.

Usually journalist narcissism about there bloated since of self-worth to the community turns me off but Safire plowed through ass such predigests I held with his ability to bring historical figures into multidimensional focus and craft such a smoothly flowing story that it carries one on with the same invariability as the fixed history it tells.

The truly amazing aspect though is how a novel so grounded in historical research can at once ring so true not only for the revolutionary times it portrays but for our times as well. While Safire's background with the new York Times lends itself to telling a story more about the power of the newspapers I was surprised by just how much the story seemed to portray the new medium of blogs - I actually would find it hard for a reader not to see those parallels with the newspaper editors firing personal attacks back and forth at each other through there printed sheets and responding in a far less restrained way than one would find today.

But above all and as I have said before it is the language that carries this book.

I agree with the review that said you need a background in this time period to follow the book. I have a degree in history, and I still had to read very carefully at the beginning so I wouldn't get lost. It wouldn't hurt to take some notes on the cast of characters as you read because they come and go with rapidity. I also was surprised by a few modern language slips, esp. from Safire. But I love novels that are packed with accurate history, and this novel is indeed that. It would be a great class novel for an American history class.

While this book is carefully -- even elegantly -- written, be aware that your enjoyment of it (or even your ability to follow it) will be seriously impaired if you lack a strong background in the Founding Fathers.

For those who know a good deal about America's early years, about the Constitutional Convention, about Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, etc., this book will bring their knowledge to life in invigorating and engrossing ways.

For those who only know nearly nothing (or only some broad facts about this time), this book is likely to prove dense and unrewarding.

So study up first. Safire doesn't give you a primer. It's for readers who are already "into" the era.

For many years, I intended to read this novel. Now I have ... and I was swept away by the scope and depth and insight of the "story," one that will repay a reader many times over for the challenge of staying the course. The book succeeds on so many levels, maintaining multiple messages, if you will, and allowing them all to play out. It's about war, indeed, but war in all guises: among people, within families, and the one each of us fights every day, with ourselves, our dreams, and our realities. It's about southern life and values, then and now, about southern history, then and now. It's about memory and storytelling ... and how the two intertwine and confuse one another. The book, simply put, teems with life as we all live it, so full of joy and sadness, reminiscence and regret, soaring dreams and sordid realities -- it contains multitudes. This is as fine a book as I've read in some time; it's that good. Strap yourself in and read it. Just read it, slowly and lovingly, and let the beauty of its imaginative and historic genius work its magic. It will.

This book was in a lot of used paperbacks that I bought on eBay. I decided to read it first because I had seen the movie several years ago, and enjoyed it.

It is a long book, yes. I would have to say, though, that it is one of my favorites. There is not one minute that I spent reading it that I regret. The characters were real to me, the setting so vivid, so imaginable. I could picture it all in my imagination.

I loved Lucy. I was actually sad the day that I finished this book, I felt as though I was putting to rest an old friend, one that I will miss.

Often I wondered how it was possible for a man to write so insightfully about the life of a woman. I felt as though Mr. Gurganus understands a lot more about female life than I would have given most men credit for.

I did not read the book, but watched the mini-series on cable. The segments which amounted to vehicles for the implantation of emotional anti-gun propaganda and feminist philosophy gave me cause to doubt the veracity of the entire work. I prefer to think for myself and make my own conclusions, thank you.

Just started the book but seems very candid, which is what I was looking for.

It's been some years now since I read this book (for the second or third time), but it was one of the most memorable I've ever read, and supercedes classics like "To Kill A Mockingbird", even. It would probably make my Top Ten of all time.

This book is one of the best books about the culture wars that I have read. I have recommended it to so many people. Rabbi Lapin is an observant Jew who explains why, as Jews, we should be supportive of the Evangelical Christian political viewpoint rather than fear it as Jews have done (I believe) for years. He argues that it's not Jews that Christians dislike (which many Jews believe (falsely). . . I can personally attest to this), but that it's liberals they dislike. . . with reason.

Rabbi Lapin explains that Jews and Christians share a Judeo-Christian value system which is threatened by liberal secularism. And, considering his convincing arguments and examples, one can only agree with this conclusion after reading this interesting and well-written book.

Jews and Christians raise their families in much the same way. Although our theologies differ, our value system is almost identical. Personally, I think, as Jews, we'd be better served if we could honestly recognize who our real friends are. Rabbi Daniel Lapin makes it perfectly clear who they are and who our real enemies are. Unfortunately, I think most Jews-- including my own relatives-- don't understand the truth of this yet.

I'd like to see this book rereleased and updated to include the last two elections and 9-11.

I purchased this book on a whim and I have to admit I did not even read what it was about. Thinking it was a treatise on the war against terror, imagine my surprise when I learned that Rabbi Lapin was addressing the cultural war that America is engaged in. Consequently, it sat in my computer on MP3 format unlistened to for several months.

It is an outstanding and well-reasoned book. Rabbi Lapin makes his points without belittling his opponents. His basic thesis is simple: The liberal left is out to de-Christianize the United States by removing any semblance of religion from the public life. Lapin argues that it is the belief in God and a strong moral sense of right and wrong that made this country great. Imagine my surprise when he argued that America was founded as a Christian nation. No, one does not have to believe in Christ to be a citizen, but that the traditional moral beliefs as stated in both the Old and New Testaments provide the moral foundation of right and wrong.

In this war, conservative Jews, evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics have much more in common that binds them together than differences that separate them. Rather than fearing conservative evangelicals, conservative Jews ought to see them as allies and friends. I have long argued with my Jewish friends that their real enemies are not conservative Christians, but liberal secularist. If there is going to be persecution of American Jews, it will not come from the religious right but liberal left. For instance, it is the conservative Christians who support Israel, whereas secular leftists have more sympathetic toward Moslem extremist in the name of cultural diversity.

His analysis of why Jews are so liberal was both insightful and fascinating. I have always wondered why American Jews have this propensity for liberalism, especially in light of the lefts sympathetic leanings toward Islamic extremists. I will take one issue with Rabbi Lapin. When one speaks of a cultural war, the object of war is to kill and defeat your enemy. When we come to the realm of ideas, I prefer to persuade people to my beliefs than to make war on them.

I almost totally disagree with Rabbi Lapin when it comes to politics, but this was an interesting book to see the perspective and arguments of a conservative Jew. I find the overall premise, that we need to either stick with Christianity as a basis for our laws or everything will go to hell, to be a false one. This war he has envisioned between good and evil, right-wing and left-wing (left-wing being evil) only exists in the minds of the far right. Such people can't understand what separation of church and state means, and liberalism to them is an evil ideology. I'm liberal but I wouldn't say conservatives are evil, I would just say I disagree with them. See the difference?

This book is mostly void of intellectual prowess although it is quite effective and leveling mostly empty, fiery claims against liberal America. The book makes sweeping generalizations, lifts things out of there proper contexts and uses really hostile language to critique the "other side" which is basically everyone who is not a right-wing religious zealot either Jewish or Christian. ALthough it is not a poorly written book, and occasionally makes a decent point, it is nothing earth-shattering and there are definately better books about the ills of America, reading this whole thing is wasting time.

Though a refreshingly well-executed effort in light of some truly unreadable drivel that passes for intellectual discourse these days, the Rabbi's effort is, alas, in vain. The "War of Ideas" is pretty much over, at least as far as faith is concerned, and the faithless have won.

While it is admirable for the more articulate spokesmen for traditional religion to recall the founding of this country as an indication that America was not started as a secular nation, after reading enough such commentary one is eventually left with the burning question: if religion is, in fact, the backbone of a free society, why bother with the separation of Church and State?

What the Rabbi, and other conservative thinkers conveniently forget, is that while the US was founded by (and for) men who at least nominally practiced some formal faith, these were not, as the Rabbi would have us believe, religious fundamentalists, or zealots. The Founding Fathers were considerably more ambivalent about their sectarian faith (though not the formalities of such) than is the Rabbi, or for that matter folks like Pat Robertson. The genius of their effort was not in founding a society based on man's shared servitude to God, but rather one based on man's essential right to liberty, which is absolutely necessary for man to pursue his own individual goals by his own means, as an end onto himself, provided that his actions do not infringe on the rights of the others to do the same. Note that service to God does not require man to be free, since even an enslaved man can be made to worship a deity, just as he can, and has throughout history been, made to serve the wishes of the various pagan, religious, and collectivist thugs which societies that were NOT based on liberty and individual rights seem to have had no trouble producing in great abundance.

All in all, as we stand and contemplate our future in the early years of the new millennium surrounded by the various monumental achievements of mankind, we should be reminded that the greatest threat to that future is posed not by the ever-present secular evil, but by the most fundamental and, some could argue, the most internally consistent manifestation of faith and mysticism -- radical Islam. We will not be able to win the ideological war with these Islamists if our only philosophical argument remains: "our God can beat up your God".

For a healthy antidote to Rabbi's book check out the recent "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

This is a book that reads like a synopsis instead of the full, actual novel. It's a quick little Harlequin when it should be a huge, lengthy, massive Kathleen Woodiwss-sized mega-novel.

The hero, Simon, is a marvelous character, tortured and revenge-mad underneath a light and witty foppish exterior. How delicious! The heroine, Lucy, is grave and calm and lovely, different from the usual run of flighty heroines. The plotline is not too overused, and feels pretty fresh, overall.

The problem is, the characters--all of them, but especially Simon and Lucy--feel like they're sketches instead of the finished product. They need to be further fleshed out. The book itself also feels like a sketch to me, and it really needs to be further fleshed out, more depth added, more details, more explanations, more scenes that show who the characters are and what they're doing and why.

The romance between Simon and Lucy is very sudden and feels uneven, sketchily written. I was surprised when Simon proposed to Lucy--it felt like it came out of nowhere. The secondary characters, like Christian, Rosalind, and Patricia are horribly under-used, and definitely need more time spent on their sub-plotlines. They barely feel like real characters at all.

This book could be so much MORE than it is. It's watered-down, thin, it needs to be much meatier.

If this book took more time to delve into the characters, and even the setting and especially the motives and action and backstory, this book would be an absolute gem, a keeper for sure. There are such marvelous elements to this book! But unfortunately it's too thin and light.

Simon really is an interesting and attractive character, though. I liked what I did read of him. I'd love to have been able to read more.

I thought it was wonderful. Perhaps it's because I'm not a consistent romance reader. If I read romance, I LIKE it to have all those extra twist, intrigue, fight scenes, and mystery. The action was consistent in this story and there was nothing wrong with the description of the hero's wardrobe. Sorry, people, but this is a different time period. One in which men were just as dressy and flamboyant as the women. So often romance writers do not stick to what was real for that type period and change to suit what is popular beliefs and ideas of today. I like the little things that make a book for historically accurate.

Love this author! I picked up another one of her books out of curiosity and I am so glad I did!The character development is wonderful! I truly fell in love with the main characters, and the situations they were in.

Simon and Lucy have great duality, and believable thoughts and actions. I wished this book would have continued, as I did with The Raven Prince. It was fun to See De Raaf cameoed in this exciting romantic novel!

The characters' actions did not make sense. For example, one day she leaves him and then returns to him the very next day. I was not drawn to the characters or to the story the way the author's first book drew me. I loved her first book, The Raven Prince. I do not recommend either buying or borrowing The Serpent Prince. Story brief: Simon is killing men out of revenge for their killing of his brother. They arrange for men to kill Simon, but he survives the beating, is found by Lucy and she nurses him back to health. They fall in love but he continues his revenge and she is against it. Sexual language: strong. Number of sex scenes: seven. Setting: 1760 Georgian England. Genre: historical romance.

Maybe it's because I haven't read the previous two books? I don't know, but I read the blurb on the back about Lucy's quiet country life being disturbed by her encountering a stabbed, beaten, naked man on the Lane to her home and I was immediately intrigued. There's a mystery here--and I LIKE mysteries!!! Perhaps that's it?

I thought Lucy was a strong character. She is mature and confident. She immediately feels compassion for a dead man dumped along the road--and when she learns he is still alive, she calmly insists on getting him the proper care, despite a quirky man servant and a cranky, blustering, but loving father.

Simon is the more difficult character... but one has to love his cool at finding himself waking, injured in a strange bed in an unknown place when he was last in London walking along the street, before being jumped by three men.

He falls in love with his "angel"--and I don't see why the love at first sight isn't reasonable, here. Lucy is a calm and loving anchor in Simon's troubled and chaotic world. Simon is the hope of love and passion that Lucy doesn't have in her ordered country life, where she has been slowly courted by the vicar who is so passionate he's taken three or four years and hasn't yet asked for her hand. That Lucy quickly realizes she can't settle for the vicar, even as she knows Simon's world isn't her own, is a mark of her sense and her sensibility. Simon, too, knows his world isn't her world--not because she's a simple country miss (as Lucy sometimes fears) but because the attack upon him is part of the current darkness of his life--one of revenge and death, leaving little room for love and goodness.

Convalescing, Simon gradually tells Lucy the tale of the Serpent Prince, ostensibly so Lucy, talented with her drawing and painting, can illustrate it as a gift for Simon's young niece. I think the tale fits their character and the story perfectly. He is revealing his thoughts of unworthiness and his road of sacrifice, even the sacrifice of his love. It's beautiful and moving, and rather than just imposing a superficial frame of reference for the romance, deepens it.

Now, perhaps Hoyt has handled this even better in her earlier two books, I don't know, but I do know I liked it all well enough here!

Historically--yes, the details were very light, but the elements of Georgian style Simon's life reveals is fine enough: his red-heeled shoes, his close-cropped hair under his wigs, his duels and fencing, the brothels and gaming hells and coffee houses...

But I am predisposed towards Georgian romances... and men whose witty tongue and sartorial excellence hide their inner, far more sensitive soul. I found it all profoundly romantic and I couldn't put the book down.

Now, perhaps I am in for an even better experience when I read the other books? What's so bad about that?

I remember when this accident occurred I thought "what a waste - of 9 lives, of a good commander and all stemming from just a quick ride for some civilians".

As a Navy veteran mentioned in another review he saw some of the best and worst aspects of the Navy (read bureaucracy) in this book. Commander Waddle's well being after the accident wasn't a primary objective to the top brass.

It's a story of standing alone facing a firestorm and wanting to do the right thing and not the expedient thing.

To me this is two books in one. Its is a story of faith in the face of adversity. In that it is excellent. Since that has been discussed here heavily, I wont go any further with that concept. What I find more interesting is Cdr Waddle has unintentionally given us an expose' on the US Navy.

I served in the Army so my knowledge in this realm is academic. However, it seems to me submarine officers are highly screened for quality and competency. From reading this story I come out wondering how Scott Waddle ever got in command of a submarine let alone be allowed to serve on one in any position!

The first half of this autobiography is devoted to Waddle explaining his Naval career. It isnt pretty. He recounts one story after another of cutting corners, disobeying direct orders, outmaneuvering supervisors and ignoring inconvenient regulations. Not only that Waddle doesnt strike me as being one of the sharpest knives in the drawer. I find it hard to believe an officer can get to the two decade mark of Naval service and honestly think his career could in any way survive ramming a civilian watercraft. I did five years in the Army (of all places) and knew the answer to that one!

To me this is the great value of this book. The Navy somehow let an incapable person who knew the art of smooth talking slip through the cracks long enough he wound up in command of an extremely powerful warship. This inattention resulted in tragedy. I see a number of sailors have come here and posted comments. Please tell me Waddle is a fluke!

I am glad that I did not read the reviews about this book before I purchased it. I think that The Right Thing is a great story about standing up and saying that you are sorry and taking responsibility for your actions. Based on the book, I do not believe that the events of that day were anything more than a combination of small mistakes and accidents. I do not feel that CMDR Scott Waddle should have lost his command because of this incident. For some reason, we in America feel that when something happens that we must have some one to crucify. Were there mistakes made? Yes. Were they done on purpose? No. There are many people that deserve to take a piece of the blame, including the US Navy. Instead we choose to place all the blame on Waddle and intead of crying foul, he took it like a Christian. I cannot remember who made the comment about CMDR Waddle's repeated references to God, but as a Christian I was moved by what he said and what he went through. I have no problem with him relating to Job, I have related to Job and I have not gone through anything like he has.

Above all, please give this book a chance and allow yourself to read it with an open mind.

I was disappointed in this book. It's too preachy, and it's written at the third grade level. As a former submariner, I was hoping to get an inside look at the details of the accident and the politics of the Court of Inquiry. Instead, very little time was devoted to these subjects in between a rambling autobiography and a religious tract. Cdr. Waddle can stop shouting from the rooftops how much he loves his wife and his child and what a great son, father, husband, disciple and sailor he is. After the 20th time, it just wears thin. Granted, the US Naval Academy doesn't graduate idiots, and the Navy doesn't let knuckleheads command their premier warships. I get it. But just because you love your wife doesn't mean you didn't screw up. And screw up he did. Waddle unnecessarily rushed his crew, including a rookie Deck Officer who wasn't experienced and capable enough to handle the artificially rapid pace, and not secure enough to stand up to his CO and ensure the boat's safety. Waddle had guests on board to impress, and he got distracted and sloppy and violated his own standing orders.

Now 9,999 times out of 10,000 it wouldn't matter; it's a big ocean, but this time another ship happened to be in the way, and people got dead. Did he deserve a court martial and jail? No. But you can't kill people and keep your command, especially after an entirely avoidable accident. Its the same thing as if you are looking down and changing the radio station in your car when a kid runs in front of you and you kill him. Should you be driving paying attention with both hands on the wheel all the time? Yes. Were you negligent? Yes. Malicious? No. But 9 people dead, a diplomatic relations nightmare, and $100 million later: Someone has to bend over...

Waddle was a child of privilege, growing up overseas, and accepted to two military academies. He was groomed and nurtured by the Navy from the start. Even in spite of that, his career was almost derailed from the beginning, and only his getting into good graces with a senior officer allowed his service record to be cleaned up and made him eligible for command. I will have to search and find some other sources of information to get a better perspective on the accident. I would be interested in hearing the accounts of the FT and the deck officer. I'm sure, despite his claims, that Waddle wasn't beloved by his entire crew, either. No Captain is. In spite of all the rah-rahs, I know from experience that at least 70% of the crew was pissed off at having to spend a day driving VIPs around, including the reactor start-up crew that had to report at midnight or earlier the night before.

I respect Commander Waddle, and admire some of the things he accomplished, but I wouldn't serve with him. He is too cocky and the rules of navigation or chain of command don't apply to him, because he always knows better. And if a CO ever told me during a drill or on watch that the only perfect man to walk the earth died 2000 years ago, I would nod my head and say "Yes Sir, Skipper", and run screaming to my detailer as soon as we docked to get me off of this guy's ship. While that kind of statement (if it really happened) looks great in a book where you are trying to impress the public with what a great guy you are, it is entirely inappropriate for any workplace, military or otherwise. Nothing is scarier than a zealot with a weapon. As a Senior Chief once said to me, "God's on the surface, kid. Down here at 600 feet it's just you, me and the Russians".

I agree with the reviewer's statement that if Waddle was REALLY the saint he claims to be, he would donate all the proceeds from the book to the victim's families.

I have read the NTSB report and the unclassified version of the Court of Inquiry by the Navy. Clearly there are significant problems with the author's memory as to both what happened and what he said at the time. Significantly, this accident happened because the captain violated his own standing orders which if followed to the letter probably would have prevented this tragic event. The person I feel sorrow for is the OOD who was known as methodical and exacting albeit slower than the captain liked. In the trial transcript several officers and crew testified to the carefulness of this junior officer OOD. But if the captain had not pushed the OOD to perform a maneuver in 5 mins which he admitted would take a more senior and experienced officer (than the OOD)at least 8 mins to complete, it is highly likely that the Greeneville would have either recognized the converging courses or might well have physically been several hundred yards away from the merchant ship. The captain also interrupted the OOD during the periscope scan which also compromised safety. There were many other more senior officers (to the OOD) who did nothing as the scenario evolved. While others did not perform their duties as well as they should have, the laxity in doing so came from the top down. Command at sea is absolute in authority and responsibility.

Hackworth is the ultimate soldier. He has been there, done that, and his record gives him the credentials to call a spade a spade in military matters. Recommendations and condemnations are posited on the basis of what is best for each soldier and his defense of our country. Even his technical descriptions are easily understood by an average reader. The writing flows naturally, and Hackworth's integrity is clear on every page. Honor, duty, country. Hackworth was all about that, even without the ring of West Point. He lived it; all of us owe him respect.

Love him or hate him, you can't deny that David Hackworth has a story to tell. "Hazardous Duty" is his very persuasive diagnosis of the problem with American armed forces. Hackworth has "been there." Hew has led men in combat in Vietnam and experienced the "ticket punchers" who were less interested in destroying the enemy than in feathering their resumes. In this book, he takes us from the rice paddies in Vietnam to the scorching sands of Iraq and Kuwait in order to show us the weaknesses in the American fighting machine.

Hackworth takes dead aim at the "military-industrial-congressional complex," the source of much of the problem, in his telling. His "perfumed princes" ride the military promotion machine to high rank while arms manufacturers pad their expenses and congressmen use the revolving door to lucrative jobs in the arms trade. The media and public are bedazzled by a few "smart" bombs and glad-handed into shelling out more tax dollars for Flash Gordon wizzbangery. Meanwhile, the grunts on the ground are outfitted with obsolete weapons and uniforms manufactured for the wrong climate.

Hackworth portrays himself as a soldier's soldier, more interested in what happens on the ground than in some major's efficiency report. His devastating analysis of the debacles of the Grenada invasion and the Iranian hostage rescue are the first serious criticism I have heard about these botched operations. His skewering of Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf is pretty frightening. In Hackworth's telling, it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein was such a horrible tactician; the US might have taken some serious casualties otherwise. By letting Iraq's Republican Guard escape, he empowered Saddam Hussein, and ensured that we would have to fight him again.

Hackworth sees the military as a bloated giant, drunk on appropriations and its own sense of importance. Its leaders are dizzy with bringing home the bacon and fighting the other services, leaving America poorer and less prepared to fight the next war. Hackworth's pre-9/11 perspective is fascinating, if not always on target. He criticizes Reagan and Bush I for blindly throwing money at the military and Clinton for trying to integrate gays at a time of severe cutbacks and low morale. Writing at the time the US was involved in stopping Bosnia's self-destruction, he criticizes that effort as well as our interventions in Somalia and Haiti. The measured success in Bosnia and Haiti were still in the future, and somewhat diminishes Hackworth's omniscience.

Whatever his excesses, Hackworth is passionate about his country and the ordinary soldiers and sailors who defend it. His prescriptions (reducing the armed services from 4 to 1, stopping the revolving door from Congress to arms manufacturers) may be either visionary or unrealistic. But it's clear from his experiences and perspective that a military that persecutes and marginalizes "war fighters," which continually prepares to fight the last war, and is hypnotized by fancy gadgetry is no asset to our country.

Great read, unique and interesting perspective about the US military from a qualified expert.

There are two types of soldier, peacetime and wartime. Hackworth is from that wartime brand. A pain in the ass in peace but vital in conflict. He clearly identifies the issues and yet is lambasted as a poor staff leader, funnily enough so was Patton, and what a fighting general he was! No one believed him about the Russians at the end of WW2. As an ex-soldier from a recon background i'd really have liked to have met and even served under Col. Hackworth. At least he wouldn't have thrown my life away like modern leadership. The quickest way to resolve an issue is to accept that it exists. The US Military should listen to these views and act on them, otherwise when the big day comes and they are up against an effective force they will be sorely embarrased. Look how badly they are currently handling the insurgency in Iraq.

Very interesting book. I couldn't put it down after the first page or two. I've been inspired to read his other books -- esp. About Face, and support his organization Soldiers for the Truth.

I found this book to be very informative. Although aimed at grades 6-10, it would be a great read for any age. There is much about epidemics and medical practices that is not included in the typical history of our country, but they are important to the complete historical picture. Mr. Murphy has done a great job in relating a story in such a compact way. The only fault I find is that he did not include who history gives the most credit to in eradicating yellow fever and malaria - William Crawford Gorgas. Overall, this book would be a great addition to a classroom.

I loved this book. It is very descriptive and made me feel as though I was there. I don't think that four year olds can understand it though.

This is the story of the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1793 that decimated Philadelphia. Most folks don't know much about this plague; I didn't til I had to research it for a class I'm taking (for a class I would teach).

This book, written for young adults, is captivating. The illustrations are relevant and extremely interesting; the text flows and is full of foreshadowing and detail that are the hallmarks of good writing. It's short enough to finish in a timely manner, and has all sorts of "excerpt" quality passages that one could read to students.

Although it would be best placed as a resource book in a classroom, I found it entirely readable as a book on its own. Though I got it for a class, it will stay on my shelf as a favorite. That's a rare accomplishment for non-fiction, in my world!

(*)>

From what I've read of the book, An American Plague by Jim Murphy I think this book is okay. I thought that all the pictures in the story were unnecessary. But I liked the information it gave, in most stories the author won't show every theory from scientists. If you are really interested in the yellow fever it is recommended that you buy this book.

This dramatic account of the Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793 is riveting. It is packed with historical facts and presents the horror of the disease, the implications for the city of Philadelphia and neighboring areas, and the reaction of both the townspeople as well as those in power with vivid detail.
Politicians, the medical community, common people, orphans, the poor are all brought to life before our eyes and we feel their pain, we share their misery, and we gain insight into what life was like for them during this terrifying time.
Author Jim Murphy chronologically follows the beginning of this epidemic, making us feel as if we were actual witnesses to this American Plague, using quotes from those who were there, newspaper clippings, period engravings and portraits.
Additionally, we are shown true acts of courage and selfless behavior as Mr. Murphy tells us of great men and woman who risked their lives to help their fellow people, and some who ultimately sacrificed their lives. He also unravels the controversies, particularly among the medical community in regards to the reaction to the disease and discusses bloodletting, ingesting poisons, bathing in vinegar, purging air with gunpowder, inhaling black pepper as well as other practiced modes of treatment.
Some people may find the descriptions of the disease and the progression of the illness horrifying, but it is truth nonetheless, Yellow fever is nothing short of horrific. I believe this fascinating book is truly deserving of the many awards it has earned. This very visual and brilliantly written book is a great tool for you to use in teaching this part of our nation's history to your children.

I found the book to be sloppily argued. Some chapters are nothing more than a hodgepodge of different sources strung together to fit Podles' thesis, while others rely much too heavily on his own unexamined assumptions about both Christianity and masculinity. I wanted to learn more about the subject of the feminization of Christianity, but ended up only learning more about Podles.

I read this book several years ago, and am still digesting some of the author's ideas. There is much to ponder here, and a careful reading of it will throw much light on the ways in which the modern Church has been yanked off-balance by overemphasis on a feminine or bridal Christian mysticism. This bridal mysticism, which began to grow after the thirteenth century, focuses on Christ as Lover and tends to disregard the many images of Christ as Warrior, Priest and King. The author contends that to dwell excessively on Christ as Lover is to repel healthy men, and it is a reasonable conclusion.
The author also shows how men nurture, and how Christ, in His divine masculinity, nurtured and still does nurture, His Church. This nurturing is accomplished with the shedding of men's blood, as Christ shed His, and it stands in contrast with feminine nurturing, in which women feed others with our bodies and hands. I found this a very profound idea, and it made me view the relationship between Christ and His Church, as well as between men and women, in a different light. It gave me much more respect for men and their sacrifices than I had before.
I am not sure if his thesis can explain the absence of men from church life, but it seems reasonable that it must in part explain it. This book is worth reading for the detailed view it gives of the bridal mysticism in the Church, and for the other possible spiritualities available to men it suggests.

This book is invaluable in pointing out the ways the Christian churches, at least in the West, have, over the centuries, become feminized to the point that attendance is shockingly inbalanced in terms of gender. It is no secret that men are not nearly so attracted to a church as women, and this for a church whose head is male and whose early members were mostly male. It presuposes that there is an important difference between the male and the female. I only wish more space had been given over to what can be done about all this.

Instead of laying a Biblical grid down on the purported problem real men have with Christianity, Podles lays a socio-cultural masculinity grid on Scripture. He finds, therefore, the biblical bridal paradigm to be wanting, rather than pervasive and compelling. In Podles view it's certainly not the real men who have it wrong.

(...)

I found this book shortly after completing my MA in Biblical Studies. I was impressed by Leon Podles accademic competence, his brilliant insight, and logical train of thought. This book is a must read for all men in the Christian faith. Not only does it deal with a long running issue dating back to the Middle Ages, it also offers some brilliant insights into the male and female mind; a factor that proves critical in our method of approach to the Christian faith.

Leon Podles writes in a long over due attempt to re-balance the masculine side of Christianity, long since missing, but entirely present in the New Testament era. This book is a blessing to Christian men, I thoroughly recommend it.

Because I had enjoyed "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning" I read the Thernstrom's previous book. "America in Black and White" provides a well-researched historical, contemporary, albeit conservative perspective on black-white race relations in America. In "No Excuses" they held back their strong opinions at least while presenting the information. However, in this one I thought that the Thernstroms allowed their opinions to interfere with the presentation of the prodigious factual information at their disposal. However, I still recommend the book because the data presented is worth having.

This book renders a thoughtful and persuasive treatment of the facts of racial divisions in the United States. The problems encountered by the Thernstroms in propounding on this subject can be summed up in what one anti-reveiwer on this page has written in order to smear another reveiwer with whose opinion he apparently disagrees. To wit, the anti-reveiwer does nothing more than cite a case brought by the CFTC against the son of the targeted reveiwer whom he's attempting to marginalize, much as those who don't agree with the Thernstroms' attempt to marginalize them; and with the same type of faulty facts and sloppy research, just as in the instant case I cite.

It's unfortunate that the debate of such momentous and substantive issues, such as the racial problems addressed by the Thernstroms, cannot take place in more temperate tones. It would also be more helpful if reveiwers would focus on and respond to the facts presented in this book, on the merits, rather than opposing them because they affront the complainants belief system.

This book reflects some sobering and instructive work. Let's hope the more emotionally balanced among us can use it to further the goal of racial harmony rather than to continue being divisive.

Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom's "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible" charts a different course from many of the scholarly books written about racial relations in the United States today. The authors agree that the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s was a resounding success, opening many doors to African-Americans as a result of the systematic dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the South. This book is necessary, claim the authors, because the ideas that originally drove the civil rights movement have since drifted into dangerous terrain. According to this book, Martin Luther King's message of one nation where all people will be judged by their individual merits and not skin color has become a land where blacks and whites are once again moving into separate camps based on race. The introduction of affirmative action programs and other racial social policies does not solve divisive problems but instead creates new racial barriers. Moreover, media and civil rights proponents today discuss black problems as though that segment of the population has made little progress. The authors insist that there are still nagging difficulties to overcome, but that a "lack of analytic rigor" leads to false perceptions about how far blacks have actually risen in society. Therefore, the authors rely heavily on statistical tables, charts, and polls to prove their arguments.

The first section of "America in Black and White" outlines the history of the odious conditions blacks faced in the American South and the resulting rise of the civil rights movement. The Thernstroms describe southern society in all of its squalor: the crushing poverty faced by both whites and blacks, the lackluster drive towards industrialization that kept many members of the population toiling in fields and small towns, pathetic levels of state spending on education for blacks, and the biases of the criminal justice system. Relying heavily on Gunnar Myrdal's groundbreaking study of race in America, the authors correctly detail the host of social structures aligned against the African-American population. For example, blacks rarely received decent treatment in the legal system because police departments run by whites often failed to protect the black citizenry from criminals. Moreover, the legal system in the South considered crimes committed against blacks secondary to outrages perpetrated against white members of society. Subsequent sections of the book take an in depth look at black progress in various social arenas from the 1970s onward, arenas such as education, politics, law, crime, and many others.

The absence of job opportunities, poor education, lack of protections in the courts, and segregation policies in the South led African-Americans to increasingly move north. The first migration came during World War I. A second, even larger migration occurred in the 1940s and 1950s. Blacks in the North did not have to deal with segregation, but did experience racism in housing and certain sectors of the job market. Better conditions in the northern states led to an increasing drive for an end to Jim Crow in the South. The authors argue that federal legislation destroying segregation in the 1960s also contained the seeds of future divisions. The Thernstroms see a sinister change of direction with the release of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report on the black family in 1965. Moynihan's remedy for the problems faced by black citizens, echoed by Lyndon Johnson in a speech at Howard University the same year, moved beyond providing for equal opportunity to call for "equal results" as well. This argument indirectly endorsed the idea of affirmative action and social entitlement programs based specifically on race. For the authors, the problems inherent in this approach are clear: to formulate policy giving special treatment to one race is just as racist as passing laws subjugating specific races.

Perhaps the most interesting section of "America in Black and White," and probably the most controversial, concerns the authors' claims that African-American social advancement was greatest immediately before the rise of the civil rights movement. During the 1940s and 1950s, the authors write, blacks surged forward in nearly all areas of American society. This growth was far from perfect, but in the arenas of education, economics, politics, and sports blacks saw remarkable gains. Almost half of the African-Americans who lived in poverty moved out of that classification during this period. Education levels for blacks, while lagging behind whites, still grew significantly compared to earlier eras in American history. This period also saw the integration of professional baseball and basketball, opening up an entirely new aspect of society to black advancement. African-Americans showed signs of vigor at the polls, as a court case outlawing white southern primaries and greater movement to the North allowed more blacks to vote than ever before. Obviously, there were still many problems to overcome: black wages still lagged behind white levels, education was still a problem, and the South still practiced vigorous discrimination against its black population. But African-Americans did make progress, and this chapter effectively illustrates that modern day claims about the complete lack of black improvement before the civil rights movements of the 1960s are patently false.

The greatest problem with this analysis of black gains during the 1940s and 1950s is that it undercuts the need and influence of activism as a force for change. If African-Americans were achieving so much, why did the civil rights movement appear on the scene? It may well be a case of a segment of the population finding some success and quickly wanting more, thereby accelerating the growth and scope of that change. But the Thernstroms spend more time discussing the overarching factors-political, economic, and social-that contributed to two decades of growth instead of focusing on what everyday people were doing on a local level to bring about advancement. Following this argument to its logical conclusion makes a reader suspect that twenty years of gradual progress would have toppled Jim Crow laws without the assistance of any sort of social activism.

Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom's book is the most comprehensive survey of American race relations that I have ever read. The authors present important new information about the positive changes and improvements in the lives of African-Americans as a whole. They go on to argue, with tons of statistics to back them up, that the perception of serious racial divisions in our country are outdated, exaggerated, and dangerous. The reason for this, they show, is political: "it nurtures the mix of black anger and white shame and guilt that sustains the race-based social policies implemented since the late 1960s." Proponents of this status quo are afraid that calling attention, for example, to the rapidly-growing black middle class, "... would invite public complacency and undercut support for the affirmative action regime."

I was especially enthralled by the authors' analysis of the "War on Poverty" programs of the 1960's, particularly the expansion of welfare, and their horrifically negative effects on generations of black families since. Not only did the "War on Poverty" make things worse for the poor, but the expansion of welfare to include unwed women and children fostered a lifestyle of dependency and irresponsible behavior, and precipitated the downward trend in two-parent black families, that has left three generations of black Americans in dire straits ever since.

Liberals, especially black liberals, are terrified of books like this, and rightfully so. This book undercuts the blacks-as-perennial-victims/American-society-as-forever-racist rhetoric that keeps the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, with support from the liberal media, in business. Along with the works of John McWhorter, Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell, this books serves as a much-needed wake-up call on the issue of race; a cold dose of reality that no doubt makes most liberals cringe.

It's clear the Thernstroms set out to create a definitive work. Despite the claim that Americans struggle with discussions about race, they argue that race is the focus of our media, entertainment, political discussions, economic policy, education policy, etc. What they believe is missing is the `lack of analytical rigor' applied towards these issues. They believe the discussion has gotten muddled with dogma, clever rhetoric, and unproven assumptions, which has led to tremendous confusion and frustration. Exceptionally well researched and plenty of `analytical rigor', passion and sensitivity, the Thernstroms have produced a work that has cleared the fog on a wide-range of issues including housing, civil rights legislation, education, job discrimination, voting, crime, the black middle class, etc. This work is also highly qualified to stand the test of time.

Some may be put off by the authors right of center analysis. They question the merits of affirmative action, proportional representation, and the degree to which racism continues to hinder blacks. This work is less incendiary than Dinesh D'Souza's `The End of Racism' (which is still very good), however, this work is replete with statistics and hard data that are difficult to dismiss.

America has gone through extraordinary steps to move beyond the sins of its past. There is little doubt that through this work the Thernstroms have a sincere interest in helping America move towards becoming a genuinely color-blind nation.