Sherman Books

After a dearth of many years, four biographies of southern soldier and politician Wade Hampton have recently appeared. I have read three; Rod Andrew's work is easily the best. Many of Hampton's personal papers were lost to fire; there are virtually no letters from him in existence before the war and most of his war papers were also lost, but Andrew has done an excellent job finding sources and scattered letters. Andrew used several letters from Hampton or close acquaintances that Brian Cisco did not include in his recent popular biography of Hampton. Andrew also gives a much fuller portrait of Hampton as a slave-holder than does Cisco, contrasting Wade III's paternal management with the brutality of his grandfather Wade I.
I was impressed that Andrew detailed Hampton's amazing record as a cavalry commander with such detail, surpassing the treatment of Edward Longacre, who wrote about Hampton's Civil War service. But it is Andrew's analysis of Hampton's character and his commitment to southern ideals that stands out the most. Andrew has done an excellent job of defining Hampton in the era and landscape of his own existence, not forcing him to abide by modern standards of racial justice. Hampton was a racist, and a paternalist, but his legacy to the world was vastly different from men like Ben Tillman, Martin Gary, and James Henry Hammond. Hampton was a man of honor, who came to bitterly hate Yankees, especially William Sherman, and who never regretted or apologized for his role in the war. Although he did earnestly seek black votes and appointed many to office after his disputed gubernatorial election in 1876-77, he was never committed to enforcing civil rights and was an impotent defender of the limited success of his racial policy by the 1890s. Nonetheless, Hampton's record is largely remarkable. He was deeply mourned in passing as one of the finest of his era and section.
Rod Andrew's biography is a first rate example of research and analysis. William Davis's work on John C. Breckinridge and Andrew's work on Hampton are my favorite biographies of Civil War-era southerners.

Wade Hampton III who was born in 1818 and whose life spanned the century (he died in 1902) was an important figure in South Carolina and in the American South. He was born to near-aristocracy, his father having fought in the War of 1812 and his grandfather in the Revolution. He was a wealthy plantation owner, one of the wealthiest in his state. He was also a conservative who opposed the break with the union, but when called upon to do his duty went to war and raised his own regiment known as 'Hampton's legion'. He served in the Stonewall Brigade and then took over JEB Stuart's cavalry units after the battle of Yellow Tavern. He served to the end with Lee. His son died in the war and his house and properties were destroyed by Sherman's union army in its march to the sea. After the war he was drafted to run for Govenor by the Democrats but relented waiting until 1877 to take the helm of his state as a passionate opponent of reconstruction and northern meddling in southern affairs. Later he served as a Senator.

This book is not an fawning biography but rather a more critical one that examines the importance of this influential leader whose life mirrored that of his southern compatriots and that of his class. He was the embodiment of the south and as the title suggests, both a warrior and a redeemer whose efforts and politics hang over the South today.

A very interesting, well written account that will appeal to devotees of Southern history and the Civil War.

Seth J. Frantzman

Robert Bork's story is one of the more tragic ones in jurisprudential history. Even his most liberal critics, when pressed, are forced to agree that despite what they conceive as his medieval views, the man was eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. What's more, the smears instituted to keep him from that august post are truly miserable examples of depravity and are surely marked on St. Peter's list as spiritual demerits for their authors.

But whatever else Bork may be, this book proves that he is emphatically not a cultural critic. The most concise way to sum up the problem with this book is to say that it wishes it didn't exist, or more accurately, that Bork wishes it didn't exist. He obviously did not wish to have to write it, since the tone of the book makes it clear that he views the problems with American culture to be self-evident. This is a potentially deadly premise for a polemic to start with, and it destroys Bork's work. Bork's tone does not speak of a desire to correct his audience's misapprehension of the world - it speaks of a desire to chastise them with shrieks of indignation. Whereas many polemics treat opposing arguments with derision in refuting them, Bork skips the refutation entirely and simply seems to be saying "how dare you even think of raising those arguments, young man? Go to your room!"

If one wants to preach to the choir, this tone works well. If one is speaking to a choir member who is slightly apprehensive about the sermon (like this reviewer), it fails utterly. The problem is not so much that Bork's diagnosis of American culture is wrong (though it does have one glaring error which I will point out later), it is that his cure is highly mistaken. Worse yet, Bork goes after his ideological allies in the libertarian movement, labelling them "quasi-conservatives" and sneering about their "radical individualism." He might as well have written "get off my lawn."

That's not to say there aren't bright spots in the book. Bork's best passages are the ones on radical egalitarianism, and its corollary of radical toleration. His passages on the rising tide of illegitimacy and the entitlement mentality practically sparkle with polemical frustration, even though they will not succeed in persuading anyone who does not already agree with Bork. Unfortunately, the most painful elements of the book are also the majority of it - namely Bork's obsession with attacking "radical individualism." However, it quickly becomes apparent that despite protestations to the contrary, Bork really wants to go after ALL individualism insofar as it implies nonconformity. Worse, Bork's idea of censorship fails utterly to take account of the idea that nonconforming urges will simply go underground and flower there once the Government puts its fingers into the culture. Thankfully, his afterword does take cognizance of the fact that censorship can be subverted by liberals, albeit with a tone that implies "I wouldn't gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling individualist freaks."

The reason for these two logical blind spots comes from a critical problem in Bork's diagnosis - his focus on individualism as the problem. Considering that Bork was a socialist in his youth, this may not be surprising. In any case, it's obvious that the book's real purpose has nothing to do with radical egalitarianism and everything to do with shrieking in the faces of his audience that they have responsibilities to the rest of society, and how dare they even think about implying otherwise. If Bork were still a socialist, this would be understandable, but he's not. The fatal problem which Bork fails to take cognizance of is actually NOT radical individualism, but radical egalitarianism. That is, though Bork is correct that a great deal more filth is available in the culture today than it was before, the reason why people don't feel guilty consuming it is not because of refusal by the government to regulate their tastes, but refusal by the artistic/cultural elites to acknowledge that there is such a thing as filth. What needs rejuvenating in today's culture is not censorship, which grew out of a cultural desire for higher art, but rather the notion that there is such a thing as high art. The notion that the Government shouldn't tell people what to like is perfectly sound - what is not sound is the notion that human beings should not tell other human beings what to like. Bork's book continually dances around this conclusion, but never hits it because of his obsession with proving our communal responsibility to one another. Ultimately, however, it is this fact that shows not only why society has gone down the toilet, but also why censorship has been subverted to destroy conservatism in the way Bork discusses in his afterword - all of American culture has become so focused on everything being equally valid, that we have made everything equally invalid. The great trouble is that culturally, we are slouching towards Moscow, which is a far worse place to live than Gomorrah.

This book was first written in 1996. Not many books are worth reading, 12 years after they are published. This one is.

Bork was the federal appeals court judge appointed to the Supreme Court by Reagan, whose confirmation was denied after a bitter battle in the Senate. Prior to then, he was a law professor at Yale. He is one of modern America's strongest and clearest thinkers. Almost every page offers quotations which state, with matchless clarity and force, deep insight about some key modern issue.

This book is a systematic look at how modern liberalism emerged, and is systematically destroying American culture. The power of Judge Bork's analysis is extraordinary. He is learned in history, philosophy and the law. He ranges across American culture, discussing in turn the philosophic roots of liberalism, its legal views and its manifestations in such diverse fields as feminism, scholarship, music and religion. His view is one of relentless gloom. As he sees it, modern liberals are the barbarians within, whose goal is to annihilate our culture and replace it with utterly unrestained hedonism and moral anarchy.

I agree with much of what Bork says, but I do not share his pessimism. As I was reading this, I also was reading Chernow's biography of Hamilton. The epic battle between Hamilton and Jefferson, in many ways, resembles the issues which Bork discusses. Hamilton can easily be seen as representing all that was good and solid in early American history. Jefferson can easily be seen as a demagogic, hypocrite, who talked about democracy while owning slaves, and whose visionary ideology sought to destroy the financial stability of the young Republic.

You can see the Jefferson-Hamilton battle that way. It certainly seemed that way to Hamilton, who saw as little good in Jefferson as Bork sees in our liberals. Yet, 200 years later, we can see that was good about Hamilton's system survived, and that Jefferson also had great virtues. No, Jefferson did not understand finances, and he dismantled the navy, which lead to the national humiliation of the War of 1812. But he also popularized the idea of democracy. He was extremely good at public relations, and he used that skill to promote freedom. Years later, Lincoln brought the legacy of Hamilton and Jefferson together, into a grand synthesis.

Perhaps, years from now, we will see that modern liberals have played as constructive a role, in their own way. as did Jefferson. We can already chalk up on their side of the scorecard black civil rights and equal rights for women. Who knows what their ultimate role in American history will be. Where I disagree with Bork is that I simply do not believe that all goodness and justice is on one side, and that the other side is utterly without value. I follow his critique, and I largely agree with it, but the world is bigger than we are and large movements -- like Jeffersonian democracy or modern liberalism -- do not come into existence without some good reason.

This book is not to be missed by anyone who is concerned about where our country is heading. With surgical precision, Judge Bork dissects our declining culture, discovering in the process advanced moral decay that may well be inoperable. Because this decay is spiritual in nature, the book provides an ideal backdrop for studying the word of the God who created us all.

This is definitely not a book for sissies. If you want hard hitting, historically accurate, and unassailable truth smacking you upside the head in every page, and you are willing to be open to read without criticism a critical critique of America's Narcissistic love of self and what consequences are coming down the pike, this is a must read.
Bork pulls no punches. He explains in the first few pages how America and it's dream of the American life have over reached its boundaries of realism, and how the fantasy Americans continue to pursue is killing the very soul of this country.
You may not like Bork because of his true conservative mannerism, but he tells the truth about our selfish, self-centered culture just like it is.
I am finding this book fascinating, and directed to educating the unlearned, unschooled the consequences for dabbling in the Beautiful Side of Evil. The consequences for ignorance are not pretty. Hopefully it is not too late for America and its citizens to wake up and see the fearsome, ugly, hateful, envious, celebrity centered reality which we have become... a reality created without God, a reality based in Hell.

I had no idea that Slouching Towards Gomorrah was re-released in 2003. I'm surprised and pleased though about how many reviews there are for it. Of course, it deserves the exceptional reviews just as it deserves the exceptional attention. I purchased Judge Bork's work in 1996 at a bookstore and it profoundly impressed me at that time (really, I hadn't read anything like it before). In 2006, I had an opportunity to reread it and must say that it has held up remarkably well. There are some conservative bestsellers from the 1990s you could never say the same thing about. That it continues to resonate powerfully is mostly due to our nation so obviously morally and characterologically declining even further in the time since its initial publication. As I flip through these pages I now see that Chapter 13, The Decline of Intellect, along with Chapter 11, The Politics of Sex, are practically illegible due to two courses of underlining and circling. The hardcover version of this book is painfully cheap...so get it. That's my honest recommendation. As we know though, Bork was and is right. Radical egalitarianism remains one of the chief causes of the present crisis, and the government's unprecedented expansion is now leading us to slouch towards socialism. I have no doubt that Bork's analysis will remain pertinent in 2030; provided there are still some Americans around who wish to conserve and preserve what remains of our nation. It's a shame that Bork does not currently address us from a place on the Supreme Court.

I found this book very satisfying on a couple of levels. First, I was impressed how Alexie developed a diminsional person using all the aspects of a humanity. I appreciated that his characters were neither good or bad, just people trying to survive.

Secondly, I like the mystical aspect he put into. After all, aren't we all tied to our ancestors as strongly as Alexie paints.

Indian Killer
Sherman Alexie
New York, NY. Warner Books 1996
420 pages


"The sheets are dirty. An Indian health service hospital in the late sixties, on this reservation or that reservation, any reservation, a particular reservation. Antiseptic, cinnamon, and danker odors, anonymous cries up and down the hallways..."
This is the introduction that Sherman Alexie uses to explain the world, but through the eyes of Native Americans.
Indian killer is the story of john smith, Marie Polatkin, And of course, the Indian killer. John smith was born a full Native American but he was raised by white people. He later meets a Native American activist named Marie And at this time there is a mysterious murder where the victim was scalped, which starts an argument between the white people and the native people of Seattle.
Being Native American but raised by white people, john smith is slipping into madness because he doesn't know what tribe he is from. He has an overwhelming need to be a Native American.
My favorite part of this whole book is when Marie Polatkin argues with the Native American studies teacher who is white. She argued because the teacher was using a book written by a guy who wasn't Native American. This was funny because I could see myself doing something like that.
The theme Sherman Alexie was trying to show is how hard it can be for a race when some kind of media is attacking them. In this case it was the radio.
This book was really great. I liked how it changes from person to person. I would change all the stereotypes that Sherman Alexie uses in the book.
I would recommend this for people who can follow more than one storyline. And I would also recommend this for people who are interested in Native Americans or who are Native American

I very much enjoyed the movie "Smoke Signals", which was based on Sherman Alexie's "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven", so it was with substantial anticipation I sat down to read "Indian Killer" as part of a book club selecton. Right away the language was easy and light, and the first few chapters flew by quickly. However, it soon became evident that the story and the writing in general would not hold its appeal for me.

It is set up as a typical "who-dunnit" albeit with an Indian flair. We are treated to lots of stereotypical "observations" about Indians and about Whites, all from the other's viewpoint. There is a desperate attempt to portray political incorrectness; however, it more or less boils down to a meaningless shouting match between people who have in some way been wronged. And the solution to the mystery is a complete let-down. All that for this???

I found various historical tidbits and descriptions of customs interesting; however, I often found myself questioning the amount of objectivity in certain factual-sounding statements. This became especially evident after a certain description of a neighborhood in Seattle mainly inhabited by Scandinavians. The narrator explains the lack of trees in this neighborhood as a direct result of these Scandinavians' wish to emulate the "monotonous flat landscape of their homelands" and thus they proceded to cut down all the trees. Well, I can hardly think of a more inaccurate way to describe the mountainous and forrested countries of Sweden and Norway... After such a blunder, I became perhaps overly sceptical of the remainder of the story.

From the reviews it seems as if most people agree this is not Alexie's best book, and that his first work is far superior. I will therefore conclude that I need to read another of his books to appreciate his writing and popularity, and all I can offer is that if you are reading Sherman Alexie for the first time, this is defintely not a recommended start.

After reading other reviewers, I am amused and not a bit surprised. Sherman Alexie can't get a break - sure he is successful by many standards, but the critiques I read were watery. Useless, in fact. This book was a departure from Alexie's shorter stories - any why not? His short stories were a departure from his poems. His films have been departures in a sense, both from his texts, and also one from the other. His poetry bouts and comedy are also departures. What that says to me is you can't categorize Alexie, and thank goodness. Prolific and talented may be the two that could be applied most, and we are fortunate as his audience.
Why should Alexie make white people interesting? Though I would argue he does, this criticism is useless. White people reading his book will most likely be too busy emulating one or more of the characters.
I just finished reading the novel a second time. I read it when it first came out, and promptly gave my copy to my best friend. That was in 1996/7. I lived in Seattle at the time. Since that time I've had time to learn a lot of things from some really understanding and brilliant people. My recent reading of Indian Killer was mind-blowing. Alexie has a keen mind for detail - I am giving a lecture tonight with this text in hand, and the historical context makes my 2.5 hour class an easy one to teach. Adoption of Native children , sterilization of Native women, poverty, alcoholism, racism - all these are trends that were ultimately going to wipe out Native populations - something we know as ethnic cleansing or genocide. And these are just in recent history.
The wannabe Indian movement is where I was nailed, but thankfully schooled about in the early 90s. None of those folks I knew were wannabe drunks, wannabe in poverty, wannabe sterilized, etc. A huge trend in Seattle in the 1990s, with books like Women Who Run With the Wolves and Iron John. These movements were just another way for whites to "deal" with their complicity in how messed up the world is for over half its occupants.
Now everyone has found religion or Prozac. But its clear Alexie won't let us white folks burrow into our complacency without a fight. Thank goodness.

"The sheets are dirty. An Indian health service hospital in the late sixties, on this reservation or that reservation, any reservation, a particular reservation. Antiseptic, cinnamon, and danker odors, anonymous cries up and down the hallways..."

Aside from "David Copperfield," and a few others, this opening is one of the strongest I have ever read. The story itself revolves around two mysteries: the primary is the mystery of John Smith's heritage. Though he's a full blood Native American, he was taken from his birth family and raised by whites with no racial identity. The other is of a Seattle-based serial killer who's scalping his victims.

While the murder mystery is interesting, the true death is of the Native American culture by various means from adoption of Native children by whites, to subversion of teaching Native culture by handing it to white professors, and numerous other myriad means.

I haven't read anything by Sherman Alexie I haven't enjoyed, but in my opinion the true masterpiece of his is the young adult autobiography, "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian".

Rebecca Kyle, May 2008

Carrion Comfort is truly an epic horror novel that pulls no punches. The imagery, the characters (some dying unexpectedly), the action, the suspense...this book has it all!! Yes, the book could have been shorter, and yes, I'm not quite sure I bought into Saul Laski and his arc...but other than those minor nitpicks, I loved this book!!! Melanie Fulle, Willie Borden, C. Barent Fuller, Bobby Joe, and let's not forget the most despicable Hollywood producer of all time :) Truly memorable characters that engage in truly despicable acts of violence...exactly what one would expect from a true horror classic!!!! And I love the idea of these "mind vampires" and their abilities...creepy to say the least.
Highly recommended!!

I'd never heard of Dan Simmons until about four weeks ago. Based on what was said, I tried his first novel, Song of Kali, and was big time disappointed. But I figured there had to be SOMETHING good about him, so I picked up Carrion Comfort to give him another try. I didn't know it was his second novel, it was just the only book my bookstore had in stock. The first half of the book is a Wow!, exciting, scary, original. The second half is more exhausting than entertaining. While it is inventive and well written, Simmons escalates the story to the point it seems like a 1960s Bond film, with the super secret high tech lair on an island and enough plot reversals to fill another couple of books. Put me in the camp that thinks the book would have been greatly improved with a 100-200 pages knocked out. And despite its great length, there are a number of issues that are set up and then never dealt with. Still and all, it's worth reading and I'll definitely pick up more of his work. (And ignore those comparisons to The Stand on the cover; the books are nothing alike.)

I bought this book based up glowing reviews and the fact that it had won the Bram Stoker award.

The author introduces far too many characters at once and too quickly at that. No development or backstroy is given due to this. The description are overly detailed regarding the most mundane and pointless things

The characters are dull flat, and boring. They speak as if they were high class sophisticated nobles and because of this I was unable to relate to or even care about any of them. He tries so hard with cliches and sobstories to make us care about them but it's too easy to see through it.

The plot was much too predictable and only now do I see why it was about 900 pages. Simmons goes on and on without getting to the point or even having one in the first place. It could have been done in half the length and been better off for it.

If you like horror - get this book now. Years after I read it the book still comes up in my mind. This is Dan Simmons at his best! The possibilities of this book are endless.

Dan Simmons has produce a horror novel of the disturbing kind. The vampires in this book are of a different stripe, being mainly concerned with mental control and degradation, not your average bloodsucking.

A young man comes across them in a nazi concentration camp, and decades later is still hunting them down.

The are more than one of these mindsuckers, and they have an annual gathering to indulge their horrific appetites.

The protagonist of the piece wants to get in and put an end to it.

Written by Sherman Alexie, this fable about the hometown challenges of his own home town, makes a fine, sensitive novel.

This is the struggle of an Indian band - and it's this double entendre that is at the heart of his tale. Three Spokane Indians and two Flathead sisters form a musical group, which, in its character and pathologies, are a metaphor for Indians everywhere.

The band comprises two sisters, two lifelong friends, and a misfit. The sisters, Checkers and Chess Warm Water, members of the Flathead tribe, wrestle with the corruption of family. The friends, Victor and Junior, are brutalized by alcohol, crushed dreams, and aimlessness. Thomas Builds-the-Fire, a creative and sensitive man, suffers the terrifying indifference of his people. Driven by their individual ambitions, each makes their own deal with the devil in exchange for the promise of a better life.

Among a host of horrors Alexie parades before our characters, the greatest tragedy is their rejection by their own tribe, a consequence of their struggle to rise above the provincial dissolution of the reservation.

Yet some of Alexie's characters survive. For them, redemption comes from their capacity as individuals and as a band to thread a course between hopeless surrender and the ravaging predations of white culture. The heroism of Alexie's protagonists lies in their quiet self-awareness and the courage to be the individuals they are: neither white doppelgangers nor Indian cliches.

Side plots and supplementary characters shoot like the limbs of an unpruned tree: while their fruit is often lovely, the tree suffers from diffusion. But the writing makes it all worthwhile: Alexie is funny and pleasurable to read. The rewards of dialog and scene construction are, by themselves, worth the price of admission.

Alexie at his best. With humor, irony, and compassion, this novel mirrors the hopelessness of being born, raised and a resident of the reservation.

Every page of Alexie's Reservation Blues reads with the kind of portent and quake found in Alexie's great poems of love, fire, and loss. Humor and wisdom are interwoven to create a braiding effect as sharp with irony as it is quiet and confident with revelation. Alexie has expressed the anger and desire of an entire generation, unequivocally spat in the face of the elitist regime, and blessed society with a sacred sense of laughter, wholeness, and delight. Winner of the PEN/Hemingway award for The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, named as one of Granta's 20 Best American Novelists Under 40, poet, playwright, and basketball aficionado, Alexie's art is a grace to behold.

The use of music as a means to institute change in a lost society is a thematic element central to both plot and character development in Sherman Alexie's novel, Reservation Blues. The characters face a variety of complex decisions while at a crossroad in their lives. Discerning the often-blurry line between need and greed is vital for the young men and women to achieve personal success. As Native Americans, they must reject the skewed value system that prevents their brothers from rising out of a life of degradation. They must overcome hardships that accompany their ethnicity and embrace native tradition in order to spread the word of truth to others in need of salvation. Music and storytelling are tools for the protagonist to raise awareness in a society drowning in the evils of materialism.

As lead singer for the popular new age band, Coyote Springs, Thomas Builds-the-Fire must foster cohesion among the unlikely group of Indians. Each band member finds him or herself at a personal crossroad in the days leading up to the one shot at success dangling before them by two New York seedy recording executives that are appropriately named George Wright and Phil Sheridan. Ironically, their names are consistent with two deadly United States Army generals, George Wright and Phillip Henry Sheridan, who fought bloody battles against Indian tribes in the 1850's and 1860's. General Wright instructed his troops to descend unexpectedly upon the allied Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, and Palouse tribes in what was supposed to be a nonviolent meeting in 1857 on the Spokane Plain. General Sheridan became famous, in part, for his racist aphorism, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

Builds-the-Fire represents future possibilities for Native Americans. He is a lonely soul, a misfit both on and off the reservation. Storytelling is his unconscious attempt at holding onto native tradition. He is oblivious to the fact that he is a wise leader in the making. He lives in an unfinished HUD home, but loves the reservation, the land, the Indians. He expresses no bitterness toward the Bureau of Indian Affairs after cutting the funding mid way through his home's construction. Living conditions are grueling on the reservation. Jobs are scarce. Government positions go to the white community. Thomas' home is low on the long list of priorities for unfinished things on the Spokane reservation.

Word of Coyote Springs' talent spreads outside of the reservation and the band faces the real possibility of commercial success; but following the dream, Thomas wonders what the cost will be. Success will enable them obtain the riches known only to them via cable television; but, what if this is just another trick by the white man? The white man offers his friendship in order to move in for the kill, and then goes on his way laughing. He is becoming the leader that will build, or rekindle the fire for others. He will marry band member, Chess Warm Water, and produce more Indians to keep the word, the tradition, alive. Together they can make the world a better place.

Understanding the protagonists' relationship to folklore and the blues genre enriches the thematic element in the novel. Historically, blues music associated with African American suffering caused by white men during the days of slavery. African American character and real life blues musician, Robert Johnson sold his soul for success many years earlier, now he finds comfort in simplicity with a harmonica. Builds-the-Fire finds his release in relating stories as a way to keep tradition alive. It enables him to share his message with others and if he chooses the right road, his talent will afford him the opportunity to make the world a better place.

I read this book because my friend was reading it and what she reads, I normally like very much. I did like the valuable insight into the firsthand racism that the characters experience, the distressing conditions on the reservations and the true to life characters. I did not enjoy the elusive, spiritual Robt. Johnson character nor "Big Mom". For some reason, reading about those two made me uncomfortable and wanting to simply move forward.

Also, the story unwinding into the band Coyote Springs' evolution was too far-fetched and very much less than realistic. Seriously, Johnson's "magic" guitar? And the sisters, Checkers and Chess suddenly spring forth as superior singers - again too unrealistic for me. Fiction it is, but a little too much fiction for me.

I did not like Reservation Blues however I won't give up on Sherman Alexie. Alexie has good reviews so I will try again...

The Man in the Iron Mask is not actually a book -- it is the last volume of a very large book entitled Le Vicomte du Bragalonne or Ten Years After. Le Vicomte is divided into three parts, typically called "Le Vicomte du Bragalonne," "Louise de la Valliere", and of course, "The Man in the Iron Mask."

Thus, if you read only this book, don't be surprised that it sometimes seems you are catching only the end of a conversation.

The larger work, Le Vicomte, is named after Athos's son, and it follows the young vicomte through his life and love -- taking large detours to a young Louis the XIV's court. Our heroic musketeers, Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and d'Artagnan make only small appearances throughout, but these scenes are the most memorable of the musketeers series.

The Man in the Iron Mask brings our four fast friends together again, for one last adventure. This time, though, they are at odds with one another, divided by their own key character traits.

I have personally seen several movie versions of the Man in the Iron Mask, and I have never seen one I liked. Skip the movies -- read the book. And if you find yourself entranced, go get the first two volumes, and enjoy!

Before you start this book you should know that any resemblance between the book and the movies that Hollywood has turned out is completely accidental. The names of the main characters are about the only similarity that I could find and as is the norm, the book was much better.

This, the last installment in the Musketeer series, gives us the story of the final acts of our heroes, Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan. Unlike many literary characters our Musketeer friends have aged as the story progresses and have all retired but D'Artagnan who is still the Captain of the King's Musketeers. Athos and Porthos are quite wealthy and Aramis has attained the rank of Bishop. Aramis is not content with his station however and knows a secret that he thinks he can use to become Pope. This secret is the knowledge that Louis XIV has a twin brother who is hidden away in the Bastille and Aramis is quite sure that this brother would make a better King than the current monarch. Aramis is also pretty sure that the new King in gratitude will nominate his liberator for the office of Cardinal and then will scheme to make the new Cardinal Pope.

In this plot Aramis acts alone except for some help from Porthos who has no idea what he is involved in. The twins are successfully switched for a short while but then the plot falls apart and Aramis and Porthos flee for their lives although Porthos is still not sure what is going on. The "pretender" to the throne is left to his own devices by Aramis and is imprisoned in a new location with the iron mask added to his discomfiture. Aramis does not come across in this book as much of a hero and in many respects this story is much darker than it's predecessors.

Given the advanced age of the Musketeers, there are not nearly as many swashbuckling adventures as one is accustomed to but on occasion Porthos in particular will rise to the challenge. The political intrigues of the Court of Louis XIV and the decline of the Musketeers are in fact the main plot lines of this story. In the end, only one of the four is left and to find out which one you will just have to read the book. Athos, by the way, only seems to play a side role in this story and is neither involved in the plot against the King or in his rescue.

As is always the case, Dumas' writing style is superb and is filled with historical fact. He does tend to be a bit wordy and his books are often much longer than necessary but even with this slight drawback he ranks as one of my all-time favorite authors. In this book Dumas closes out the careers of his most popular characters and he does it with style.

The entire Musketeer series is a great read mixing adventure, comedy, and history. It tells the story of the lifetime friendship of four heroes and how that friendship is tested by ambition and conflicting loyalties. The Man in the Iron Mask is the book in this series. In this book the four musketeers have aged considerably and engage in their last adventure.
The story takes place in 1661 in France, and as usual Dumas creates an intricate plot. Aramis is not content with his position of bishop and knows a hidden secret of the Royal family of France, which he tries to use to become Cardinal. Aramis knows that King Louis has a twin brother suffering in the Bastille or prison, and he attempts to switch the two. The novel details his fascinating and rather intriguing plan to try to pull this off. In this plot Aramis acts alone except for some help from Porthos, who has no idea what he is involved in. The twins are successfully switched for a short period of time, but then the plan falls apart as the real King is rescued. Aramis and Porthos flee for their lives, although Porthos is still not sure what is going on. The `fake king' to the throne is left to fend for himself by Aramis and is imprisoned in a new location with the iron mask added to his figure.
Aramis does not come across in this book as a hero but rather an enemy to the crown of France and in many respects this story is darker than its predecessors. Another conflict occurs King Louis XIV of France has his minister of finances, Nicolas Fouquet, arrested for misappropriations. Also, Louis successfully falls in love with a young handmaiden named Louise, which causes a stir, as she is not royalty. One of d'Artagnan's friends also loves this handmaiden.
As is always the case, Dumas' writing style is superb and is filled with historical fact. He can be quite wordy, drawn out, and his books are often much longer than necessary. However even with this slight drawback, he is one of my favorite historical fiction writers. In this book Dumas closes out the careers of his most popular characters, and he does it well. If you love literature, if you love stories with a complex plot, and especially if you love the Four Musketeers, you have to read this book!

- Garrett Rodrigue
Age: 15

Oh wow, what a great end to an incredible ride, the story of the Musketeers. I haven't been so engrossed in a series of books since I picked up Diana Gabaldon's Outlander. Athos, Raoul, Porthos, Aramis and of course D'Artagnan are going to be in my thoughts and dreams for some time, I hate to let them go.

If you are expecting the story as told by Hollywood, forget it. While I haven't seen the latest version with Leonardo DiCaprio (forgive me if I spell it wrong), I looked at the reader reviews and was quite surprised at how different the book is from Hollywood's version. I also recall a movie done in the late 70's/80's that is nothing like the book as well. I would pick it apart point by point, but that would include spoilers. The Man in the Iron Mask is actually the last third of a huge novel by Dumas originally titled The Vicomte de Bragelonne. Because of the size of the book, English publishers have divided into three books, The Vicomte de Bragelonne (Oxford World's Classics), Louise de la Vallière (Oxford World's Classics), and The Man in the Iron Mask.

Suffice it to say that TMITIM is the final chapter of our heroic Musketeers, as well as Raoul, the son of Athos. While we all know the story of Louis XIV's twin and the plot to substitute him, that is a minor part of the whole story, as the action then becomes centered on the aftermath of that plot and Louis' revenge. It has been a grand, glorious ride reading this series, The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de la Valliere and The Man In the Iron Mask. And do have your box of tissue handy for the last 20-30 pages. You'll need it.

One side note, some people are purchasing this as a stand-alone book, which it is not. You could probably get away with that, but you'll spend so much time looking back at the footnotes trying to figure who is who I doubt you will enjoy the story as much. Also, this version didn't have the list of characters that the VDB and LDLV did. Go for broke and read the whole thing, it's well worth it.

Having just spent the last few months reading all five books in the Three Musketeer series, the following are my suggestions.

1. Read all five books in order. The Man in the Iron Mask is probably enjoyable on its own but reading the four books that proceed it help place the story in its proper context. Think of the Man in the Iron Mask as the dessert in a five course meal. Dessert is great but the four proceeding course are also enjoyable. Getting to the end of the book was especially enjoyable knowing that I was finishing a 3,500 page experience.

2. Read the Oxford University editions. There are wonderful end notes that help the reader keep track of the characters and events. When you read 3,500 pages you need that type of assistance to keep things straight. The Introductions are also very well written and help the reader get back into focus before beginning the next chapter.

3. If you really like any one book in particular, go to the internet and purchase a well illustrated used hardback edition for your collection. I purchased a used Three Musketeers with illustrations by Maurice Leloir. The three hundred plus illustrations make that edition especially enjoyable.

Along with Sir Walter Scott, Alexandre Dumas created the genre of the historical adventure novel. I have been reading these types of novels my entire life. Beyond a doubt, Alexandre Dumas is the master virtuoso of this genre.

I expected biography and military analysis; it's Victor's personal opinion of 3 military leaders, filtered through his PC ideology. In fact, he doesnt like the military at all. What he likes are unwashed armed mobs who prevail over people who bathe.

He has few kind words for the great military leaders of history.

This is the sort of twaddle pedagogues cobble together today.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking book. It brings to light little-known facts about three important warriors, and is probably the most coherent account of WIlliam Sherman that I have read, more insightful even than the excellent biography of Sherman, "A Soldier's Passion for Order". There is perhaps a willingness to push opinions to extemes - it seems unlikely to me that Alexander's campaigns, or those of Napoleon or even of Julius Caesar were entirely expressions of their commanders' egotism without any moral component, for instance.

Hanson's views of Spartan society and of antebellum Southern society are dark indeed, but I think that he supports them well enough. The evil of Nazi government needs no elaboration.

Hanson, as one might expect, writes well, and yet ... I wouldn't say that he is exactly repetitious, but he will discuss a subject, go off on another, and then circle back to the first, adding new information and insight. It is an imperfect style, but it does get across a complex of information in a way that a more linear approach might not.

In The Soul of Battle, Victor Davis Hanson traces the historical development of Western methods of battle and also of the free Western societies from which great democratic armies have arisen, starting with the Greeks. If you are interested in the sources freedom and prosperity in a society, and the way wars have been fought, and won, by free democratic armies since the Greeks, this book is illuminating and essential.

In The Soul of Battle, VDH describes the military campaigns of three commanders who led the army of a Western democracy: Epaminondas in ancient Greece, William Tecumseh Sherman in the American Civil War, and George S. Patton in World War II. VDH describes the military tactics and strategies in fascinating detail. He describes how each commander led an army of free, independent individuals, well-trained to act with consummate levels of discipline and camaraderie, to destroy their opponent's ability to wage war, thus to end each war sooner, and thus actually to save lives. He describes that they fought with ingenuity and discipline because they wanted to preserve the freedom they had at home, and to make it safe for their freedom-based way of life to continue.

But perhaps more importantly, VDH describes the social conditions that allow the creation of this kind of democratic army: freedom, self-reliance, property ownership, individualism, civilian control of the military, ability to innovate, freedom of self-expression and inquiry, and equal protection of private property, to name just a few. VDH describes how these conditions created societies of strong, individualistic, freedom-loving citizens, who, when stirred by great urgency, became soldiers, who came together only for the purpose of winning a war as quickly and completely as possible, then disbursed immediately thereafter to their homes to go on with their lives.

This book reveals the line of civic freedom that started with the Greeks and runs through Rome, to Europe, to America and all the western-style democracies we have in the current day all over the world. This book shows how war and battle have fit into the picture through the centuries. Perhaps most importantly, this book helps the reader to see which parts of our laws and customs help to ensure freedom for the future, and thus must be cherished and protected.

All Victor Davis Hanson's books about battle and society are excellent. His thesis that freedom in a society and the ability to win wars are inextricably linked to traditions of liberty, independence and free inquiry, is illustrated by different battles and different adversaries in each book. VDH argues convincingly that these keys to freedom and liberty also account for the prosperity, commitment and know-how that create the ability to win wars in societies that inherited or adopted the traditions of Western culture. In his books, he traces the development of the traditions of freedom, self-expression and individual innovation from ancient Greece through the development of battle techniques and civic traditions in Europe and then to the United States and the rest of the world.

The Soul of Battle is an awesome book, wonderfully interesting, about fascinating events, told so that the reader can see what is important to preserve freedom in our current times. I highly, highly recommend it. Read it. It is simply outstanding. Then read Carnage and Culture, another VDH book. I think you will love it.

Victor Davis Hanson's "The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny" is a thought-provoking, interesting, but too-lengthy study of three great democratic military leaders: the Theban Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton. Hanson argues that the democratic armies under these three leaders, engaged in noble fights to save the oppressed and end tyranny, used their moral soul to defeat enemies that most considered superior.

Hanson devotes one section to each of the leaders, giving brief biographies as well as highlighting their major campaign: Epaminondas' successful campaign to free the Spartan helots; Sherman's march through Georgia; and Patton's breakout from the Normandy beachhead. Hanson eschews traditional narrative history and tells the stories of these campaigns in a random order, sometimes starting at the end and working backwards, hopping around at other times, and never leaving any doubt or suspense about the conclusion. The book reads more like a discussion of the subject than actual history.

Hanson harps on his thesis that, by fighting to free the helot slaves in Sparta, black slaves in the American South, and Jews and many other minorities being exterminated in the Greater Reich, the democratic armies' moral ascendancy translated into ascendancy on the battlefield; and that great military leaders with a vision, leading these armies, can ignore traditional military tenets and crush enemy forces: Epaminondas' army of farmers attacked the heretofore invincible Spartan professional army and homeland; Sherman cut his supply lines and marched through the heart of enemy territory; and Patton succeeded when all other Allied generals were too timid and could have ended the war in 1944 if he was not held back.

Despite Hanson's eloquent writing, he is numbingly repetitious: at times it feels as if he's repeatedly beating you over the head with the same point or quotation. Readers familiar with his writing will again see his sweeping generalizations repeated while he ignores or belittles opposing viewpoints without giving them due consideration. (And anyone with any sympathy for the Southern viewpoint in the Civil War will not like Hanson's vitriolic condemnation of almost every aspect of the antebellum South.)

As sympathetic as I am to Hanson's argument that a democratic army fighting tyranny is superior to all others, I found this book intriguing and persuasive, but ultimately unconvincing. Hanson could have made the same ambitious arguments without the lumbering repetition or overstated conclusions, expanded his narrative history to tell the whole story instead of part of the story, and still written a much shorter book. Ultimately, despite these shortcomings, this is a stimulating book that anyone with a serious interest in military history should read.

I openly profess a lack of any military history, but in recent years, since 9/11, I've been drawn to questions regarding leadership in battle. George S. Patton consistently ranks at the top of my list of individuals I wish to study. Coming across "Soul of Battle" has now added William Tecomseh Sherman and Epiminondas to that list.

Hanson does an excellent job painting a comprehensive historical picture of these 3 military leaders for those of my ilk who do not possess the depth of knowledge of history's finer nuances. For those of us who did not study Ancient Greece and dedicated our lives to other trades, Hanson's work is a welcome friend.

What is most impressive about how Hanson portrays these leaders is that he not only spends time talking about the battle itself and the campaign but the more global reasons of how and why the battles were brought about. What forces a group of free men to bear arms and attack with such force a tyrannical government or an enslaving society??? This is the tapestry that is the back drop to why we go to battle and why we fight today. We must know and learn why our preceding generations would pick up a weapon and willingly die. I highly recommend this book.

Nora Rowley is a highly gifted student, but you'd never know it by looking at her grades and test scores. She decides that the focus on grades and state test scores does nothing good for kids after watching how her best friend, Stephen, is discouraged by his not-so-great scores. Nora hatches a plan to start a rebellion that will end testing forever.

An interesting commentary on how much state mandated, high stakes testing sucks for everyone.

Mr. Clements hones in on some important educational issues--particularly the emphasis on test scores as measures of potential college aptitude. I know a lot of teachers who have become disenchanted with the teaching profession because of all the emphasis on standardized testing these days.

Fifth-grade genius Nora is quite charismatic and her cohort Stephen is equally charming in his own way. Nora takes issue with the importance of grades and test scores in determining students' assessments of themselves and others and she is especially concerned about her friend Stephen who does not do well on standardized tests and has consequently decided that he is not very smart. I found this a delightful read and I would think it could lead to some great classroom discussions.

My favorite book is the `The Report Card' . It is a really good . When you start reading it , you can't put it down . The author is Andrew Clements. He is my favorite author. The book is about a girl named Nora Rose Rowley . She pretends to be dumb , but she is really smart. Why do you ask? Because everybody is making a big deal about grades. The kids are dividing into the `smart' kids and the `dumb' kids. She wanted to change that. I think every age group will `Love'' this book, I did . Go check it out at your local library.

This story is about a girl with a genius IQ who figures out at a young age that being smart will put more pressure on her than being average. So she puts all her efforts into being "normal" by mimicking other kids in her classes. In her 5th grade year, she intentionally gets bad grades on her report card to make her friend (who got B's) feel smart - she has been very concerned for him because he feels dumb even though she knows he isn't. This brilliant little girl soon comes to realize - and makes her teachers and parents and fellow students aware - that grades do not make a person and should not cause kids to be labelled smart or dumb. Really inspiring read, great for kids and adults alike.

This is a book about a girl named Nora that is a genius but has fidden it from everyone. She loves to learn and knows that she is really smart but she just wants to be normal. She has a good friend named Stephen that does not do well on his test and it makes him feel dumb and this bothers Nora. She decides to make bad grades and does really good at it with all D's and 1 C. She decides to show everyone that grades don't matter as much and then everyone gets involved. The librarian finds out about the sites that Nora is visiting and uncovers her secret and this puts her in the spotlight that you wanted to stay away from.
I thought that this was a good book but not the best one that I have read by Andrew Clements. It did not seem as fun as some of his other books like Lunch Money and Frindle.
The book does a good job of showing that smart people don't have to be geeks. You can be smart and take advanced classes and still play sports and be a normal kid. Some kids don't do well on test but that dosen't mean that they are dumb. Grades are important but they don't mean everything. It is real important just to be a kid sometimes.
This is a really good book and I think you should read it. I enjoyed it and I think you will too. It would not be my first choice of Andrew Clements books but you should add it to your list of books to read.

These are awesome short stories. They have a humanitiy about them that hits the heart. And Alexie is smart and funny too. He's got the whole package. A couple of the stories were a bit too fantasy for me, but that's ok. The rest were fantastic. Reminded me of Leslie Marmon Silko's "Ceremony".

"The Toughest Indian in the World" is one of Sherman Alexie's collections of short stories. It comes before his most recent collection ("Ten Little Indians") but before "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven" (which features many of the characters who would later appear in Alexie's novel "Reservation Blues"). It is also the first one I read. Unfortunately, I feel like it may not have been the best first choice.

Alexie is a wonderful writer, of whom I am a huge fan. His writings usually revolve around the lives of various Indian ("bow and arrow not dot on the head") characters and their complicated feelings about the reservation they love while being desperate to get away from it. This collection of stories follows a similar theme.

The thing about short stories is they're short. Writers only have a limited amount of time to explain everything and to develop characters. I don't know how other readers feel, but I'm of a mind that I like Alexie better as a novelist because there is more time to get to know his unique characters and understand his (at times) complex plots. I found "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven" to be more engaging because different stories clearly refer to the same characters--making them more dimensional.

Back to this collection:

As is true with any talented writer, Alexie does have some gems here. "Saint Junior," "One Good Man," and "South by Southwest" are especial favorites of this reviewer possibly because these stories most resemble the combination of acerbic humor and gravity common to Alexie's novels. To take "Saint Junior" as an example: Alexie examines the relationship between a married couple who met at "Saint Junior" university and continue to choose each other every day. In the story, the husband goes to take his SAT's wearing a traditional dance costume while, later in the story, his wife preserves the tribal tradition of making Salmon mush.

These stories are not passive. If anything, they are visceral. This collection combines elements of magical realism with painfully real moments of sadness and hardship in the lives of Alexie's modern Indian characters.

The main problem I saw with this collection is that it remained distractingly distant. Most protagonists go unnamed, sometimes barely described, which makes it difficult to connect with either the characters or their stories. Worse, the stories alternate between nearly absorbing to disturbingly jarring. "The Sin Eaters" hauntingly presents an apocalyptic world where Indians are put through their own kind of Holocaust. This story is angry and, no doubt, important. But by the end it is too angry and too horrific, so that it became a chore to read the remainder of the book for fear of what other catastrophes it might describe.

Any fan of Sherman Alexie's writing will want to read through "The Toughest Indian in the World" to get a better sense of Alexie's work on the whole. That said, readers unfamiliar with Alexie would be better off beginning with one of his novels or perhaps a different story collection.

Alexie is a masterful storyteller, delivering an original and strong voice. His characters are not victims, but they're not superstars either; Alexie uses satire to unburden us from his character's racism. Each story tells many stories in order to develop character--from external details to caustic internal psychology. Often, Alexie repeats himself to cement an idea and create through-line. For instance, in "One Good Man," Alexie repeats the question: What is an Indian? and answers it in different ways to develop intimacy with the narrator and help us bridge the relationship with the narrator's dying father--yet always answers a question with a question, as though he is using the technique to discover the answer himself. He ends the story with the same question, but this time answers it for us, as he comes to closure within himself. "What is an Indian? I lifted my father and carried him across every border." Exquisite.

The Toughest Indian in the World- a collection of short stories beautifully written. As someone who was raised on a reservation I found his stories candid and endearing.
The story 'South by Southwest' follows Seymour and Salmon Boy on a nonviolent killing spree. Their journey to find love is exactly how my daydreams tend to write themselves...even though you know what you are searching for- the path to get there is often hidden and confusing.
'Saint Junior'- a story that tells of the way our passion sometimes takes us on a road we weren't sure we wanted, but in the end is right. The main character is Roman, an educated and world traveled Indian- a man that loves his wife, basketball and Michael Jordan. I believe his thoughts and fears emulate that of every modern day Indian.
I recommend this story to people who like the Sherman Alexie-style prose. The stories are entertaining and yet just elusive enough to be regarded as poetry. Sherman Alexie is an amazing storyteller.

I don't have too much to say that other reviewers haven't already said with far more detail, but I'd just like to add that the effect of the overall collection is stunning.

The initial stories all depict people struggling with 'Indian' identity, groping toward some (usually false) understanding of who they are. They usually get it wrong, or are too caught up in convention to see their own blind spots.

Later stories in the collection present a positive vision for both Indians and whites seeking to understand them. There is something valuable about being comfortable in your own skin, about hanging on to love, about resisting assimilation to some degree However, whites would be mistaken in thinking this collection reveals the secret of being an Indian--this is made explicit in the story about John Wayne's former lover. You can't read a book of short stories and expect to understand an entire race of people.

Regardless, it's nice to see a collection of individual stories, each of which provide their own emotional impact, whose collective vision transcends the formidable power of the individual stories themselves.

I recommend that you read this book twice. The first time, read it for the stories themselves, and the second time, try to grasp Alexie's overall project.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn the true story of the Sherman in WWII, written by someone who was actually there. This book and writer is endorsed by Stephen Ambrose.

The criticisms posted have run the gamut from inaccurate statistics, to "commenting on areas outside {Cooper's} direct knowledge". I think these people are missing the point. As an engineer I can share the frustration that the armoured soldiers must have felt being presented with inferior equipment under the worst conditions. It is one thing to argue we "won the numbers game", unless you were one of the numbers. The bitter fact is we traded crew lives for tactical gain. The pure stupidity of carrying an inferior tank across an ocean only to have it defeated in its first hours of action simply belies belief. Mr. Cooper points out the futility of using up well trained tank crews in their first engagements, only to replace them at times with barely trained infantry. Many authors have commented on the Soviet penchant for wasting the lives of their troops in frontal attacks or across mine fields. You might contend from "Death Traps" that we seemed to have a similar blind spot when it came to the M4. Cooper had a unique view point as a maintenance officer to be able to see first hand the results of encounters between the M4 and superior German tanks. Perhaps he digresses at times with overall strategic commentary, or statistics which bear some degree of inaccuracy. Never the less, his direct accounts of the inferiority of the M4 should not be ignored. This is an object lesson for those in leadership positions who think that doctrine will prevail against the hard realities of combat. We should never allow ourselves to field equipment that is so inferior to our opponents that only the sheer ingenuity of the troops in the field can compensate for the difficiencies.

There are some nice observations, personal observations that perhaps just make the book worth reading (at the price of $7).

But there is little about the Sherman and why it was a death trap other than it had thinner armor and initially an under-powered gun. I was hoping for more insight into how the Sherman was used and perhaps what the soldiers did to overcome the tanks disadvantages.

As others have said there is a lot of repetition, I think he repeats that the Germans fired on a tank until it burnt and therefore could not be recovered. This is mentioned twice on one page in one place and he seems to be annoyed at the Germans for stopping him being able to repair the tank!! How inconsiderate of them.

Then there are pages about troop movements and battle formations, nothing really to do with the tank and covered more accurately elsewhere.

After you have read the better books in this category, you might get this to complete your collection, but really there are much better books available.

The title will get your attention but all the numbers will run together after awhile.It does have it's merits as the author details his life in the maintenance divison.The awful job of cleaning out a tank with the blood/tissue from battlefield casualties,a smell that never leaves that particular vehicle.And over & over to the point the story just repeats itself.I really had to struggle to finish this book.

I agree that the best understanding of history comes from primary source documenation where the source has first-hand knowledge of the facts. This is exactly why moments of the book are quite insightful and moving. For example, the scene where Cooper shares a fox hole in combat for the first time after receiving heavy fire. Listening to a soldier tell of crying himself to sleep while reciting the 23rd Psalm and taking comfort from Paul's words in Phillipians is touching and honest. Moments like this are what make this book worthwhile.

I will not comment on historical inacuracies concerning the US tanks v. the German tanks as it appears the foregoing commentators know a lot more than me. I would encourage readers to recall, however, who this writer is and what his job was during the war. Cooper raced across enemy lines in the cover of darkness regularly to report to his commanders who and what was recently destroyed. He then made every effort to get fresh supplies back to the front lines. In doing so, part of his daily routine was witnessing his peers wash the blood and guts out of semi-destroyed tanks - the blood and guts of their friends - so that young, often inexperienced soldiers, could take their place.

I suspect witnessing this bloodshed day in and day out for about two years would cause any person to long for tanks with more protection and more offensive power.

This aspect of the book needs not be forgotten. Sure, it could have done without the editorialism concerning events Cooper was not present for, but perhaps those digressions come from the unique suffering Cooper experienced during the War.

TAM