Fitzgerald Books

Really a very interesting read. Picked this up shortly after Ford died and it was really interesting to see his final thoughts on this most controversial period in American history. The ultimate truth may never be known, but with Ford being the last member of the Warren Commission, this beautiful volume will stand as the last comment on the subject from that committee. Proud to have it in my collection.

I have this book on my coffee table--it is one of my proudest possessions. Having lived through Watergate's dreadful aftermath, I am glad to see this great President's life-contributions documented in such a beautiful manner. When history handed off to him, Jerry did not drop the ball.

This book features many never-before-seen photos from the Kennedy Presidential Library as well as a new introduction from President Gerald Ford. I found this new foreword very fascinating. He went into great detail about many of the misconceptions abou the Warren Commission and was quite candid. He mentioned many names of people who are currently in high offices in the U.S. Government.
The quality of this book is amazing and it tops anything the Easton Press has ever done!

I straddle the fence on whether I believe the lone gunman theory that was the conclusion of the Warren Commission, but there's no equivocation about my admiration for this beautiful leatherbound, gilt-edged edition which includes a new Foreword by President Gerald Ford. Also, while I disagree with Ford's pardoning of Nixon, there's no denying the historical importance of the work he did on the Warren Commission, and it's safe to assume that his new material in this edition will represent his final public thoughts on the JFK assassination.

In September 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.

A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings. I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the murderer of America's 35th President.

And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63 (both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all logic and reasoned thinking.

Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced (in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.

I was thinking recently about the following quote by author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common" variety).....

"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi

.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my personal "reasonable doubt")......

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.*

* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the "curtain rods" based on the following:

A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository after the assassination.

B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination.

A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods" were in that paper package on 11/22/63.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of a doubt.**

** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST; which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating "right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.)

Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. .... The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S. President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).

But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above. The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts.

The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy arguments become.

I've admired Fitzgerald all my life and regard his work as singularly underrated as time goes on. He was a brilliant and witty writer who could turn a phrase as well as any American author of the 20th century. This biography is the best I've ever read on Fitzgerald. It's particularly strong in the depiction of his gaudy, booze-soaked life with Zelda, especially when they were ex-pats living in France. Bruccoli really draws the reader in with deft descriptions of their marital rows, woes, break-ups and innumerable reconcilations. I was happy to see that their daughter, Scottie, was also illuminated so brilliantly.

The material on Sheila Graham, Scott's lover in Hollywood, was also intriguing. Graham's own book about Scott is a great read, but the author brings out elements to the story which Graham omitted. I was genuinely sad when Scott dies and the narrative concludes. The debauchery, booze and high times of the Flapper era are all here. This is a highly recommended, beautifully tribute to one of the great writers of the past 100 years.

I am a writer, and first took out the book suffering from similar problems to Fitzgerald's at the beginning of his career, hoping to get some guidence. Reading it, I was struck by the profundity of the advice on writing he gave his daughter Scottie, which is copied in excerpts. I felt like I was getting the same benefits he gave her, and I also got the sense that he would want this. He meant what he had learned to be accessable to everyone; in a way, it was what his life was based around. Then, I got a good deal out of the analyses the biographer devotes to transcibing the process Fitzgerald went through in mapping out each of his extaordinary novels- I took notes I'll keep for ever. I only wish I could find a source like this on my other favorite writers. I'll have to appeal to Amazon's reccomendations for advice.

I bought this book and read it before reading any of the works of F. Scott Fitgerald.

The book opens with an interesting literary hook as we follow the last few hours in the life of Fitzgerald on December 21, 1940. He is an unemployed screen writer living in Hollywood at the apartment of his companion Sheilah Graham. On the previous day, he had symptoms of a heart problem. That morning on the 21st, he was working on "The Last Tycoon." He was sitting in a chair, stood up, grasped the mantlepiece, collapsed, and died at age 44.

That book is one of seemingly dozens of short stories on F. Scott, Zelda his wife, and others. The book is not a seamless story but is a chronoligcal collection of short - almost disconnected - stories about his life and works.

It is an excellent reference book to consult as you read the works of Fitzgerald. I found the book on its own too dry with too many facts and it gives no idea of what the writing was like. It was not until I read "This Side of Paradise" did I understand what all the fuss was about with F. Scott Fitzgerald, and it was at that point the present biography came to life. For example, I quote a passage from Chapter 2 of Book I, as Amory sits on the steps of his dorm at Princeton after his first day on campus:

"Now, far down the shadowy line of University Place a white-clad phalanx broke the gloom, and marching figures, white-shirted, white-trousered, swung rhythmically up the street, with linked arms and heads thrown back:

"Going back-going back,
Going-back-to-Nas-sau-Hall,
Going back-going back-
To the-Best-Old-Place-of-All.
Going back-going back,
From all-this-earth-ly-ball,
We'll-clear-the-track-as-we-go-back-
Going-back-to-Nas-sau-Hall!"

Amory closed his eyes as the ghostly procession drew near. The song soared so high that all dropped out except the tenors, who bore the melody triumphantly past the danger-point and relinquished it to the fantastic chorus. Then Amory opened his eyes, half afraid that sight would spoil the rich illusion of harmony."

One learns more about Fitgerald's writing from that passage than the entire biography.

Having said the above, this is a fact filled reference book that acts as a wondeful guide and supplement to the F. Scott's life and the background for the works. There are many photographs and other documents among the 61 short chapters. I especially liked the ledger notes that were kept by Fitzgerald that clearly outline the characters and plot details for the books. Bruccoli has included a huge notes section and appendix at the back of the book, about 100 illustrations, plus many more documents. I have read many interpretations of "Tender is the Night" but it is a lot clearer when you actually read the author's own notes as produced here in the present biography.

Highly recommend: excellent collection of short stories and documents.

This is an excellent biography, full of a great wealth of detail. In truth, Fitzgerald is a pretty easy biographical subject, because his fiction was so closely based on his own life and experiences and because he wrote so many letters and kept such detailed notebooks and ledgers accounting for his own life. He also had relationships with many people (Zelda, other writers, etc.) who left behind many accounts of him. Still, Bruccoli does an extremely thorough job and the book is very well-written.

I would give it five stars except for an extremely irritating tendency Bruccoli has to be dismissive of almost all of Fitzgerald's short stories. Bruccoli is way too arrogant about pronouncing dozens of the stories F. Scott wrote as being "minor," or "disappointing," or even "embarrassing," while reserving his praise for a select few, such as "May Day" and "The Rich Boy." Personally, having read every one of FSF's currently collected short stories (well over 100 in all), I don't rate "May Day" or "The Rich Boy" very highly, but I love lots and lots of the "commercial" ones Bruccoli dismisses. I think he should leave the assessment of which stories are good up to the reader. Bruccoli's literary analysis -- of Fitzgerald's novels -- is outstanding, but the short stories should not be so dismissed (even if Scott himself at times dismissed them and hated having to write them to earn money).

I am an absolute diehard fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald, both his life and his literature. So, I knew when I purchased this book I was bound to scrutinize its every nook and cranny. Well, my scrutiny proved to be a wasted effort. Without question, Matthew Bruccoli is the number one Fitzgerald scholar in the country, and after reading this biography, it is impossible to question why.
Bruccoli covers every aspect of Fitzgerald's life and includes several bits of correspondence to really give readers a look inside Fitzgerald's thinking. --Perhaps my favorite thing about the book is that it does not sentimentalize the author (which I myself have a habit of doing). Fitzgerald is spelled out here in all his glory, yet, we also get to see his unflattering side...paranoia, arrogance, unharnessed alcoholism, and downright neurosis.
F Scott Fitzgerald was a brilliant man whose life became legend. It is my humble opinion that Bruccoli has written the most thorough and best possible biography. Simply put, the read is fascinating. It might be 600 pages, but you will fly through it. It is "never dry" (like Fitzgerald :)) and always entertaining. For Fitzgerald fanatics like myself, this book is a must, but I am convinced that anyone who takes to "human interest" stories would find themselves engulfed in its pages.
Also recommended: "The Romantic Egoists"...a scrapbook collection put together concerning the lives of the Fitzgeralds. It is packed with pictures and is a wonderful companion to the biography. It was also published by Bruccoli.

The book The Stowaway Solution is a fictional action adventure book. The main characters Aiden and Meg are fugitives trying to prove their innocence because they where framed by Frank Lindenauer. This book is adventurous and suspensful, easy reading, and many other books in the series follow its footsteps. I rate this book 5 out of 5 stars and it would be great for anyone who has read the first three books or if you like adventurous and suspensful books. Everybody should be offered the chance to read one of these books because they are great and good for all ages.

This series by Gordon Korman worked wonders for several reluctant readers in my class. These are good fast moving books that really move you on to the next in the series.

Great but before I say anything, NOTE this is a six part writing, the reader must read them in order to make sense. Now for a young adult to adult reading it was great. G.Korman is a master of getting kids you will love, in and out of fixes and still maintain a balanced understanding of right and wrong.

My daughter (age 10) started reading this series last year and is finishing up now that we found them online. She has really enjoyed them.
She has also read a couple of the trilogy that follows (Kidnapped: The Abduction, Kidnapped: The Search, and Kidnapped: The Rescue).

This book was really great. I love all the books in this series!

There are so very few books that convey a sense of "being there" when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. This outstanding book takes the reader back to that fateful weekend of November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas and does so in an open, honest and compelling manner.

"When the News Went Live" is written by four journalists who were in Dallas on that day covering the presidential visit. Bob Huffaker and the other three newsmen share many interesting stories that you will not find elsewhere and that have been untold for many years no doubt to all but their personal friends. This is why the book is such a valuable contribution to the historical record. Such first hand observation regarding not just those few seconds in Dealey Plaza, the murder of Officer Tippet and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, but how in fact the entire story unfolded, makes fascinating reading.

As an aid to anyone interested in the assassination, this book is a must have. I would emphasize - rarely do you find first hand knowledge like this - much of what is written on this subject is written by people many steps removed from the event where fact and fiction merge into one. Not so here. A fabulous book which is refreshingly free of the conjecture and myth that is so common in the Himalayan pile of work on the Kennedy assassination and is highly recommended.

We have become accustomed (yea, verily, some would say desensitized)to horror unfolding before our eyes in our very own living rooms. Bob Huffaker's book brings us back to a time before the desensitization, when we could scarcely believe what our eyes were telling us. I recommend this book highly to those who were there, watching as I was, and even more so to those who were not there. The young, raised in an era of suicide bombers, need to understand that it was not always thus.

1963 nov 22 brought to life again but with more professionalism.some very interesting facts that confirmed my own thoughts .

I stayed up all night reading when my copy of When The News Went Live, Dallas 1963 arrived. This book is a classic and should be included in the curriculum of every journalism and political science classroom in America.

Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix and Wise have written the Texas story of the Kennedy assassination, the inside scoop on Oswald's murder and the history of the evolution of modern journalism. These four men were Dallas television reporters, on the scene and on their own, in the middle of the news story of the century.

It is a salute to their training and their integrity as newsmen that their coverage under duress stands today as a compelling rendering of those fateful moments. I am glad they were the early ones on the scene, for they were the ones who broke the news to me in my elementary classroom. The story gives their perspectives more fully; all these years later, this book helps me understand the events and how they affected Texas and the nation.

Bob, Bill, George and Wes were there in Dallas with their Southern sensibilities. They weren't easily pushed around or manipulated that dark day and still aren't. They were taught to tell the truth as objectively as possible, and they reverted to that training and their good common sense when placed in positions lesser men might have blown or exploited. These four men cared about truth and justice and fairness and still do. I hope all young journalists will read this and learn about balanced reporting.

"With three shots from a mail-order rifle, Lee Oswald set off a worldwide tragedy that developed too fast to print. .... Broadcast journalism came of age in that crisis of grief and uncertainty, and as it drew its mourning audience, it helped to hold the nation together." -- Bob Huffaker; From the Preface of "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963"

----------------------

"When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963", published in 2004, paints a vivid word picture of many of the incredible events that surrounded President John F. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, as seen through the eyes of four journalists -- Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, and Wes Wise -- who covered those events as they happened for CBS affiliate KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas.

President Kennedy's shocking and appalling assassination on November 22, 1963, was the very first really big "Watch It Unfold Live On TV" news event of the television era, with four full commercial-free days being devoted to nothing but exclusive assassination-related coverage by all three major TV networks (with KRLD's on-the-scene Dallas reporters frequently feeding CBS-TV headquarters in New York).

And the four reporters whose intriguing stories unfold within this 224-page hardcover volume were right smack in the thick of things during the rapidly-developing events -- from the initial sketchy bulletins that told of the President being shot in Dealey Plaza during a motorcade drive through the city of Dallas -- to the announcement of JFK's death at Parkland Hospital -- to the capture of the accused assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a nearby movie theater -- to Oswald's very own murder on live TV (with Bob Huffaker reporting live from the basement of the Dallas Police Department, where the single gunshot from Jack Ruby's pistol added yet another hard-to-believe chapter to the weekend's nightmarish story).

It was a mesmerizing weekend in American (and television) history, to say the least. And those days are re-lived with clarity in this engaging book by way of the recollections of four men who lived through and reported on those events when they were occurring.

"When The News Went Live" contains several excellent black-and-white photographs, too (some of them I haven't seen published elsewhere).

On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of communicating (via e-mail) with Bob Huffaker several times. He has been very cordial and gracious whenever answering the questions that I had for him. His personal insights into the events revolving around JFK's death are fascinating glimpses into the past, and are insights that I have enjoyed reading immensely.

A sample e-mail excerpt from Mr. Huffaker:

----------------------

"David, you're right about the presidential visit and motorcade being the main attraction that all Dallas media were covering, of course. But all our stations had limited capabilities for doing mobile TV, which then demanded either cables or microwave dishes--as well as a receiving dish within line-of-sight beaming or bouncing.

Hence the pool TV arrangements, limited to three planned locations. The local TV stations did live TV from the FTW {Fort Worth} breakfast, Love Field, and the Trade Mart. But this was, indeed, the day the news went live on television, unplanned.

WBAP-TV in Fort Worth had a non-running TV van, which they had towed all the way from Cowtown to Dallas Police headquarters, and we sent both of our KRLD-TV vans into duty--the Bread Truck at DPD and the Blue Goose on the 24th to the county jail, etc.

This was the first time in TV history when on-the-spot news suddenly demanded to go live from the scene. Before that, radio news on-the-spot descriptions such as ours that day were common (like the Hindenburg broadcast--radio only), and live TV was usually reserved for major speeches, sports, etc.

Bob" -- E-mail to this writer; May 30, 2006

----------------------

Relating to the subject of "WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE", I'd like to offer up the following observations as an extension of this book review.....

To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 10 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history.

After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK".

Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well).

Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:

"Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!"

What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.

Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed "8-to-10-shot" shooting scenario, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.*

* = And Mr. Groden's theory (that sports from 8 to 10 gunshots) also features an additional hunk of lunacy, in that Groden thinks it's very likely that NONE of these eight to ten shots came from the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository! (I'm not making this crazy stuff up here. I promise. Anyone who owns a copy of Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" can check out Groden's preposterous theory for themselves, on pages 20-40.)

The bottom line is -- Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information being broadcast that would support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever; and certainly no "conspiratorial" evidence that has ever panned out and "proved" that a multi-gun plot ended JFK's life in Dallas.

This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.

And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country (including Messrs. Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix, and Wise) would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-proving angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later.

To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".

For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting.

For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22nd saying he heard "3 shots" fired.

Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.

Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard, Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President Kennedy.

In addition, Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, who were both riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind JFK's limousine, can also be added to the lengthy list of witnesses who heard precisely three gunshots.

And then there's also amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder, who took the most famous 26-second home movie in history when he captured the entire assassination with his 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera -- Zapruder showed up on live TV about 90 minutes after the President's murder took place and gave a graphic account of the horrifying event that had taken place in front of his very eyes.

Mr. Zapruder told the WFAA-TV viewing audience that he had heard two or three shots (but definitely no more than three), and he also demonstrated on live television where on the President's head he had seen the effects of the fatal gunshot. Zapruder puts his hand over the right-frontal portion of his own head to demonstrate where he saw the blood coming from JFK's head.

That's pretty amazing "LIVE" stuff from Mr. Zapruder's own lips (within approx. an hour-and-a-half of the assassination). And it's especially incredible and amazing if there had actually been many more than just two or three shots fired at the President, and if the fatal shot had actually (as many CTers believe) caused a huge hole in the BACK of John Kennedy's head, instead of the location where Zapruder placed it on live television -- i.e., the RIGHT SIDE AND FRONT portion of the head.

How could the so-called "conspirators" have possibly gotten THAT lucky with respect to Abraham Zapruder's live "on-the-air" WFAA-TV statements and head-wound "demonstration"? How?

And -- Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing only TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")?

Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY (again) when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository.

Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots.

And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you.

Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least.

Again -- I'd advise all conspiracy theorists to sit down and watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a "Multi-Gunmen Conspiracy" lurking within ANY of those original broadcasts. If anybody finds proof of a conspiracy via those means, please let me know. And let the world know too.

David Von Pein
December 2006
January 2007

We're on our second copy of this book because the first one literally fell apart from being read so often. The three stories are very funny and the artwork's lovely. You'll likely find your kids are memorizing the stories in short order -- which of course means no shortcuts as you're reading!

We've piles of books for our two children and this one's perhaps one of the top five favorites.

Snail's teacher can't figure out what is going on with snail. In each of the 3 chapter's snail shows he has quit an imagination or does it really happen. This is a great book to read to young children 3 and 4 years old or to have your 5 to 7 year old read to you. It will keep a girl's or boy's interested. I have read this book to many children and they have all enjoyed the snails adventures in the hallway at his school. And that frustrated teacher.

My son is only 4, but is an advanced reader/listener. He really enjoys the book. Initially I got it for him because he was interested in snails, but I think he likes the school aspect, and the three different adventures in the book (his first chapter book). If this book was part of a series I would definitly try others.
I also found some of the dialogs and illustration to be amusing for adults as well.

There are 3 stories in this 64 page book, illustrated with large, colorful, interesting pictures. All the stories involve a little snail at school and how he/she engages in fantasy play. Or is reality and not fantasy, or a bit of both? Read it and you be the judge. In every adventure Snail must grapple with Mrs. Harvey the teacher, who likewise must grapple with snail's adventures, and whether they are real or imagined. Mrs Harvey never seems to push the point of how much of snail's adventures are real. As she is about to ask snail, she restrains herself; the stories end with Mrs. Harvey saying "Never mind, snail, never mind". Tom Keresztes Princeton, N

This book made me laugh out loud, and my six year old still talks about the stories in it. The stories and pictures work together to get beginning readers to want to keep on reading. My son was especially excited because he could read a real chapter book, just like big brother. I wish there were more Snail books like this one!

[This review refers to the Dover Thrift verse
edition of the AENEID translated into English
by Charles J. Billson in 1906.]

As incredible as it may seem, I prefer this
Billson verse translation over that of Allen
Mandelbaum (which I also have in the Bantam
Classic edition, 1970). What causes one person
to like one translation, and another to prefer
someone else's? It is a matter of taste, but
also of conditioning through aesthetic experience
and expectation. I have read a great many poems
in a great many forms. To my sense and sensibility
there is something about the Mandelbaum translation
of the AENEID which is too confining...too clipped...
it does not seem, to me, to flow freely. And yet
Billson's translation has archaic word choices --
but the flow of his translation seems more interesting
and "freer" than that of Mandelbaum.
Here is a sample of Mandelbaum:

I sing of arms and of a man: his fate
had made him fugitive; he was the first
to journey from the coasts of Troy as far
as Italy and the Lavinian shores.
Across the lands and waters he was battered
beneath the violence of High Ones, for
the savage Juno's unforgetting anger;
and many sufferings were his in war --
[Bantam Classic, 1970.]

And here is Billson in the Dover edition with
the same passage:

Arms and the Man I sing, who first from Troy
A Doom-led exile, on Lavinian shores
Reached Italy; long tossed on sea and land
By Heaven's rude arm, through Juno's brooding
ire,
And war-worn long ere building for his Gods
A Home in Latium: whence [came] the Latin race,
The Lords of Alba, and high-towering Rome.

To my senses, and sensibility, there is something
about Billson's language and flow which seems to
have more august grandeur -- epic style, sound, and
sweep.
Here is an even more telling example -- the famous
scene in which Aeneas plucks the Golden Bough:

[Mandelbaum:] ...just so
the gold leaves seemed against the dark-green
ilex;
so in the gentle wind, the thin gold leaf
was crackling. And at once Aeneas plucks it
and, eager, breaks the hesitating bough
and carries it into the Sibyl's house.

[Billson:] So on that shadowy oak the leafy gold
Glimmered, and tinkled in the rustling air.
Forthwith Aeneas grasped the clinging bough,
And plucked, and bare it toward the Sibyl's
cell.

There seems to me a fineness of poetic sensitivity
there, in Billson, to choose those words just so --
and have the words almost resonate with the sounds
of the objects they are describing.

Roman society was enamoured of Greek culture -- many of the best 'Roman' things were Greek; the major gods were derivative of the Greek pantheon; philosophy, literature, science, political ideals, architecture -- all this was adopted from the Greeks. It makes sense that, at the point of their ascendancy in the world, they would long for an epic history similar to the Homeric legends; the Iliad and the Odyssey, written some 500 years after the actual events they depict, tell of the heroism of the Greeks in their battle against Troy (Ilium). The Aeneid, written by Vergil 700 years after Homer, at the commission of Augustus (himself in the process of consolidating his authority over Rome), turns the heroic victory of the much-admired Greeks on its head by postulating a survivor from Troy, Aeneas, who undergoes as journey akin to the Odyssey, even further afield.

Vergil constructs Aeneas, a very minor character in the Iliad, as the princely survivor and pilgrim from Troy, on a journey through the Mediterranean in search of a new home. According to Fitzgerald, who wrote a brief postscript to the poem, Vergil created a Homeric hero set in a Homeric age, purposefully following the Iliad and Odyssey as if they were formula, in the way that many a Hollywood director follows the formulaic pattern of past successful films. Vergil did not create the Trojan legend of Roman origins, but his poem solidified the notion in popular and scholarly sentiment.

Vergil sets the seeds for future animosity between Carthage and Rome in the Aeneid, too -- the curse of queen Dido on the descendants of Aeneas of never-ending strife played into then-recent recollections of war in the Roman mind. Books I through VI are much more studied than VII through XII, but the whole of the Aeneid is a spectacular tale.

Fitzgerald's modern and accessible translation makes the Aeneid really come to life for modern readers. It is a verse translation, not forced into word-by-word construction nor into false, flowery and stuffy structured verse that would seem formal and distant. This is a language familiar to modern readers, just as Vergil's Latin would have been readily accessible to the listeners and readers of his time.

Vergil died before he could complete the story. He wished it to be burned; fortunately, Augustus had other ideas. Still, there are incomplete lines and thoughts, and occasional conflicts in the storyline that one assumes might have been worked out in the end, had more editing time been available. Despite these, the Aeneid remains a masterpiece, and Fitzgerald's translation will be a standard bearer for some time to come.

What a shame that THIS edition of them all is printed in the worst edition. The paper is brittly, gauzy and somewhat iridescent, the ink is sallow on the paper, the book lacks an introduction, any critical notes (any indication that the last words of the text are in fact the last words, and not a typo or printer's error, seeing as how they end at the bottom of the page and are followed immediately by the plastic cover).

It is perhaps because of the Aeneid that the phrase "les traductions sont comme les femmes: quand elles sont belles, elles ne sont pas fideles; quand elles sont fideles, elles ne sont pas belles." I have spent much of the summer in meticulous scrutiny of four editions of the aeneid: the lind, mandelbaum, humphries, and billson. the process has led me to some resultant nasty and pretentious slants of minds against the first and third of the abovelisted translations, which are in many parts mistaken, lacking in detail, and overall, diluted and generalized. the billson is actually a very difficult text if one is without a firm grounding in the english poetry that flourished a few centuries ago; billson takes delightful ''liberties'' in his word choices, and takes a unique and exhilarating grammar form, that is typically ''classical''.

i do not recommend reading this one, nor reading it in close comparison to all the other available translations. pick up a copy of wheelock's latin instead.

This review is one of the this particular translation and not of Virgil's Aeneid. This translation is outstanding. It is a prose translation undoubtedly made by some nineteenth century British Classicist. That, however, takes nothing away from it. This is the one translation I have found that actually succeeds at keeping the beauty of Virgil's words. It makes for great sounding language and it is not spoiled by modern idioms or expressions. The translator keeps his text very literal and yet somehow manages not to sound redundant or awkward. Indeed, the words simply flow. I do not know who the translator is and oddly enough, the book doesn't tell you either. I highly recommend this translation especially to anyone who is tired of the classics not sounding like classics.

The Roman poet Virgil, normally content with evocations of farming, animal husbandry and rustic scenes, here takes up the task of crafting an epic worthy of Rome's greatness and success as a world power. Taking as his model the Odyssey of Homer, Virgil traces the wanderings of Aeneas, hero of the Trojan Wars, as he wends his way toward Italy and his destiny -- to found Rome. Along the way he falls in love with Queen Dido of Carthage. There are lots of scenes of battles and one-on-one fighting, and they are occasionally more gory than Homer ever was (or perhaps it just seems that way because we know more about the victims' psyches than we did with Homer's characters). Be prepared for a rather abrupt ending, but the good news is you won't have to wade through obsequies and other formalisms in a denouement that could only have been anticlimactic. The prose translation I heard (on the Blackstone unabridged tapes) was undoubtedly accurate but not very noble. Someday I'll try it again with a poetic version.

At a sleepover party, Nancy and her friends read a story about a pending alien invasion of Earth! The Queen of Planet Zagon is supposed to be on her way. Sleepovers are a great place for scary stories. Nancy and her crew are ready to forget it all -- until a new substitute teacher shows up in school named Mrs. Zagon!

Sit back and watch the rumors fly, and imagine how Nancy will have a hard time proving to her pals that Mrs. Zagon is not an alien!

Alien in the Classroom is a fun read that young readers will love.

Did you ever think about having an alien in your classroom? Alien in the Classroom from the Nancy Drew Notebooks series is written by Carolyn Keene. Alien in the Classroom is about a girl named Nancy Drew who has to figure out if their substitute teacher is an alien. If she doesn't, Brenda, another girl in her class is going to put the story about an alien in the school newspaper! Can Nancy find out if Ms. Zagon is an alien? Read Alien in the Classroom to find out.
I liked this book because it has a very good ending. It is also a good mystery to solve. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give this book a 9.
I think Carolyn Keene wrote this book to tell kids not to be afraid of aliens.

This book is one of the best books I have read I am 12 and in Australia that means you are a good reader if you read books like this so I dont think you should write that it is for 4 to 8 year olds because in Australia 4 year olds cant read and 8 year olds can bearly read..

I love Nancy Drew Books.I think that they are good books for 8-12.I read the ones for older girls and these are just as good.I liked this one espescially,because it is a very hard mystery.It is Great.If you want a good book,get this book.It is the perfect book!

I am 9 years old. I would reccomend it for ages 8-11. If you are a VERY good reader you can try it at 7. If you are very good at remembering things, at the end of the book there is still something that I couldn't figure out. Try it!

Originally published serially in "The Saturday Evening Post," Fitzgerald's "The Basil and Josephine Stories" was probably underappreciated in its time--the late 1920s. Fitzgerald's mastery of prose and storytelling shine, however, in this collection of short stories. The book is divided into two halves, the first dealing with Basil (a fictionalized version of Fitzgerald as a young man) and the second with Josephine (a fictional young woman in America in the early part of the 20th century). We follow Basil through the adventures and misadventures of his early life as he searches for acceptance and meaning. Josephine searches for love and friendship, among other things. Both meet with success that can only be described as questionable. Beautifully written and suprisingly deep, this collection offers profound insight into the psyche of the Lost Generation. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in modern American literature.

this charming collection of stories written by f. scott fitzgerald follows the physical, emotional, and social growth of two characters at the turn of the century. Basil, the typical rebellious child, struggles to find some understanding of life, school, friendship, and, most importantly, women. fitzgerald details a number of episodes in basil's life starting with his childhood and following him through his entrance into school. i don't know if basil ever entirely grew up or learned as much as he desired, but he came as close as any man can. the josephine stories follow roughly the same time span, but tend to focus more on her relationships and her place in society as a young woman at the turn of the century. all of the stories are masterfully told and it is obvious why fitzgerald became such a well known and respected writer. his storytelling is unparalleled and his descriptive language and imagery transports the reader to a different place and time. i highly recommend this book to any fitzgerald fan, whether an experienced one or a not-so-experienced one. i think it a shame that this book does not get more recognition than it does, recognition that it most definitely deserves.

I found the Basil stories to be much better written than the Josephine stories. Basil's stories are fun and full of irony and satire. The reader sees definite growth in Basil. The Basil stories are excellent and worthy of great praise. As for Josephine's stories, I often found myself loosing interest in the stories. They tended to be bland, and I found it much more difficult to connect with Josephine than with Basil. The four star rating is largely based on the Basil stories, which account for about 2/3 of the book, and for the one Josephine story I really liked.

Pure genius! Only Gatsby is better. Basil and Josephine are lyrical, magical; everything good that can be said about writing can be said about this book. It's great. Genius.

I really liked this book. And this isn't coming from some super-articulate adult. This is coming from a 14-year-old High School Freshman. It really shows you what life was like back then in the early 1910's, and how teens back then deal with the same stuff as we do, such as popularity, dating, cars, etc.

My 5 year old read this cover to cover - her 1st ever - and loves it. Getting more "Biscuit" books for her and my 3 year old. Short sentences, fun for the kids, really recommend for new readers.

She borrowed the book from the school librarry and we somehow lost it. The librarian insisted I replace it - hence the order.
Biscuit lives on...

This story is called Biscuit Wants to Play. This is a story about a puppy and two kittens. Biscuit wants to play with the kittens but they want to play with something else. When the kittens are stuck in the tree Biscuit helps them by barking a lot. Finally the girls come out to save the kittens.

The author's purpose is to entertain you when you read the book. The story was very entertaining when I read it. Another author's purpose is to teach the reader that friends are important.

Biscuit wants to play was a very fun and entertaining story. The author did a great job on the story. I would probably read more stories written by Alyssa Satin Capucilli because this story was good.

Biscuit meets a pair of kittens and decides he wants to play with them. But try as he might, the kittens pay no attention to him as they play and explore on their own.

But this changes when the kittens follow a butterfly up a tree and can not get down. Biscuit barks and gets the attention of The Girl In The Purple Sneakers and The Girl With Puddles and the little cats are rescued. We then see them playing with their helpful new friend Biscuit.

Another fine story. This one shows that while you may not always get your own way, things usually work out in the end. Filled with more adorable illustrations.

The book Biscuit Wants to Play is about a puppy named Biscuit and two kittens. Biscuit wants to play with them, but they won't play with him. The kittens always want to play with something else. They run around and get stuck on a tree. Biscuit barks and barks until the girls come out and rescue the kittens from the tree

The author's purpose is to entertain the reader. When I was reading the book I was entertained by what the kittens and Biscuit did. Some parts in the story were funny. Another purpose is that the author taught me
that friend's are important. The author really entertained me I think the story was very cool and entertaining.

I think this author is a good author. I would recommend this story to my friend. I would read more stories from this author Alyssa Satin Capuclli.

It is hard to believe that there was a time when you could have passed Jack or Jackie on the street and not known them. This book has made them into "real people". I really enjoyed reading it.

To borrow from the movie HELP!, "Here's how they was before they was." Unguarded and completely charming photos of newlyweds, before international fame overtook them and they perfected their public faces. As one who has read extensively about the Kennedys, I am always happy to find books that can still show me something I haven't seen before. This book does that, and I enjoyed it and recommend it.

Camelot At Dawn: Jacqueline & John Kennedy In Georgetown, May 1954 is the collaborative work of photographer Orlando Suero and author Anne Garside. As his first major photography assignment, Suero spent five days with the Kennedys in May of 1954. He enjoyed their full cooperation and the intimate access that produced more than twenty photo sessions as Suero documented a typical week in the young couple's life including Jack at his Senate office, Jackie attending classes at Georgetown, and the couple playing touch football in the park. Camelot At Dawn is a "must" for all of those whose lives and imaginations where touched by one of America's most idealized couples before tragedy would shattered both their personal lives and those all too brief days of an American "Camelot" for the rest of us.

As someone who grew up in the Kennedy era, these images had a profound effect on me. They are images that shortly after they were made, could never have been made again. Can you imagine seeing Jack and Jackie Kennedy strolling alone down the streets of Georgetown (in DC), her wearing shorts and him wearing sneakers and a plain t-shirt? Or playing football in a public park with absolutely NO gawkers hanging around? The great impact of these pictures comes from their innocence and irony, because of what came after and what we now know. If you remember the Kennedy era, you might stare at some of the images in this book for many minutes in wonder, about the people in the picture, about yourself, and about how we were then and are now. I gave this book to my brother-in-law--a recognized expert on the Kennedy assination--and he said he almost cried. It's that good.

Can the Kennedys ever have a bad photograph taken of them? It is appears not, as this book illustrates. CAMELOT AT DAWN is kind of an artsy photojournalism feast for the eyes, and although at first glance the text will seem to have general information that we all know about, it too is a treat.

Orlando Suero had his first big assignment taking pictures of Jacqueline Kennedy for McCall's magazine for an article. It would turn out that most of his shots would not be used because the press felt that the Kennedys had been overexposed in the media due to their wedding--so it is only now in this book that most of the pictures taken for that assignment have been published.
Suero says that JFK manages to sneek himself into most pictures, and so the final result became as much as about him as Jackie...but we also see the Bobby Kennedys as well as the former President Trumans.

Some of these pictures have been published in other books, so not all of them are seen here for the first time, but seeing them within the context that they were shot makes the photos that have been seen before all the more interesting. However, it is only a few--most of these are just being seen for the first time.

As for the text, some of it is "well duh" text because it is known by everybody:"Jackie was a silver-and-Sevres kind of girl, whereas Jack was a milkshake-and-hamburger kind of guy." (I am not cutting on Anne Garside's writing--because the book is actually quite good, I am just trying to point out that some of the information that she writes everyone knows in their sleep...as that is how famous Jack and Jackie have become.) Now don't take this sentence of Garside's alone--you have to read the whole book before you dare judge her writing, and in my estimation she has succeded in the overall scheme in making two well known sujects seem like new again. How does she do this?
For example, there is information about the renting of Dent Place--where these photographs are taken as well the Kennedys first home--which is interesting because we get to see excerpts from Jackie's letters to the Childs (the people who the Kennedys were renting the house from.)
Also information about Evelyn Lincoln's calender is given as to what the Kennedy's were doing the week the photos were taken, as well as little details spread out throughout the text that make the book an interesting read.

I believe that this is a standout book published on the Kennedys. It is informative and orginal in text, and the pictures easily give Lowe, Avedon, and Shaw a run for their money. You can and will enjoy this book if you give it a chance--don't get stuck on the information about the JFKs that we all know or the pictures that we have all seen--read the entire book and appreciate the entire book!