Truman Books

Truman knows how to surprise me with her books. I have read most of her work. This was another winner.

This is her best book yet. A great read. first rate.

I guess I'm the only one who thought this was the worst in her Capitol crime series. Perhaps it was the subject matter, but the entire plot seemed contrived to me. I finished it, but I had trouble. I wish it had been a page burner for me, because I have loved and always look forward to each new book in this series.

This edition of Capital Crimes Novels features Max Pauling, an ex-CIA agent who has retired to New Mexico with his lady love, Jessica, to give flying lessons. He is persuaded to take on what is supposed to be a small job which is to fly some medical supplies into Cuba. His real assignment will be to discover if an American pharmaceutical company is using a German company as a front for buying information on cancer drugs which are being developed in Cuba. His contact promises Max an easy time, but of course, that is not to be. Pauling is caught in the cross-fire between pro-Castro and anti-Castro forces and someone tries to frame him for murder. Added to this is the attraction he feels for a Cuban female operative, so he is in trouble from all sides. Truman spins a good tale with believable characters, and neatly resolves the complex plot strands at the end of the book.
She maintains high quality writing in her series.

The main problem with this book is its lack of "Cubanosity" in the way that the Cuban characters act and talk and behave - they are depicted as the way Truman imagines Cubans would act, and as a result, while the book delivers an adequate thriller plot, her placement of the action in Cuba, without much knowledge of Cuban culture and mannerisms, and social issues (such as racism) gives this book some pretty big holes. For example - Cubans refer to themselves as white or black or mulatto, etc. not as "Hispanics" and Truman consistently misuses this term as a racial delimiter (a very common American mistake) rather than a cultural amplifier. The book failed to make me believe that the story was actually set in Havana.

This book is just the thing for a long plane flight, or a series of quiet evenings at home. Its strongest point is excellent plotting. The character development and scene-setting seemed a bit thin to me. Unlike the Smiley series by LeCarre, the writing seems much more commercial -- and it is hard to really feel (and intensely care about) the characters. (There are the usual romantic/sexual/love interests stirred in, but they seem superficial, reflecting Collette Cahill's shallow personality.) On the other hand, Truman's characters outshine Ludlum's stickmen; hers seem like real people (though just acquaintances, not friends). On excellent attribute of 'Murder in the CIA' is that one doesn't know who the 'bad guys' and the 'goods guys' are until just before the end of the tale. I would strongly suggest that readers who don't want to lose track of everyone really should keep a pad to jot down the names of each of the characters. This 303-page potboiler brings in quite a large cast, and many of them are important to the plot. This book was written during the Cold War, and younger readers may have some trouble connecting with the anti-Communist motivations behind a lot of the action. Also some of the devices (post-hypnotic recollections, for example) seem both contrived and dated. Things have changed a lot since 1987. --- In short, 'Murder in the CIA' is not great literature, but it is a fun read.

Who did it? ask the president's daughter. She can simply say who is the murder. Great suspense. Wonderful characters to get along with. You will not want to stop reading any of her books. I wanna read 2 more of her books. The queen stays unbeaten.

She did a great job in this book I simply could not put it down! Great suspense and a dry sense of humor go a long way in these great mysreries. who did assk the President's Daughtewr she knows. Great all the way!

This is the first book I've read by Margaret Truman and I had high hopes. The book did not live up to those hopes. I found the book easy to put down and forget, the plot and characters didn't hold my interest and....kiss of death....the ending didn't make my heart race or send even a single chill down my spine. When I read a good book, I tend to get lost in that book - I forget that I'm READING a book. I never got that feeling with this book. I was always just reading.

Maybe I've come to expect too much since devouring Michael Connelly, Nelson DeMille and David Baldacci.

The best I can say is that it wasn't a totally boring read, just mediocre.

This was my first read in the Capitol Crimes Series, and it won't be my last. While being an easy read, it wasn't too easy that I became bored and lost interest. The main character was someone I could relate to, and have sympathy for . It was very surprising who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. This is a good escape book, better than TV in my opinion.

I became interested in Cyrus the Great after reading my daughter her history lesson from Susan Wise Bauer's "Story of the World, book 1". In Bauer's version Cyrus's grandfather was told his grandson would grow up to take the throne from him, so he sent him off to be killed as an infant. Instead he was raised in the country by a shepherd who had a barren wife. He converted to Judiasim at an early age and his future was shaped by his belief in one God.

In this version (and I don't know who is to blame - Xenophon or Hendrick) he often refers to the lessons he learned from his father, the King, and his youth hunting with the "peers" - i.e. people of the highest social class. Which is it? Raised by a shepherd as a commoner or in a life of privelege? Because it makes a huge difference on the rest of the story. He was a hero of the common man, saving peasants from becoming involved in the battles, etc. This book puts a very elitist spin on the entire story - he does these things because he is the best of the best and has such great virtue that he learned from his father the king.

Other than that, and the fact the vocabulary seems suited to a Junior High reader rather than an adult, it is a pretty good book. I usually don't like reading war strategy type things but it had me hooked. I think it is definately a much better choice for High School/college than Machiavelli's "The Prince" which is somehow supposed to be styled after this.

Wanted a copy of Cyrus the Great. This has "leadership" headings like it were a Steven Covey book. Would prefer the original.

This book is fine as a modernization of an ancient classic but several things need to be understood. Xenophon never intended to write a biography of Cyrus. He was writing an idealized portrait of a long dead Persian ruler. He combined what he knew about Persia, a few facts about the historical Cyrus and a fictional vision of a what he thought was the ideal ruler. The original is much closer to Maciavelli's the Prince in purpose than it is to Plutarch's Lives. So when credit is being given for the wisdom in the book, it must be given directly to Xenophon, not Cyrus. You learn very little about Cyrus and Persians in the original and a lot about Xenophon and Greeks (particularly Sparta, Xenophon's real life ideal.)

I enjoyed reading this book for many reasons. The two primary reasons I recommend it highly are:
1) It is a great leadership/management book. It shows you how you can have great power through respect and understanding of the human nature.
2) It provides many people who are not familiar with the history and culture of Persians and Iran an eye opening vista of the contributions of this civilization. I believe it is important for Persians and non-Persians to know more about this heritage and how far away form this the country has come today in the hopes of learning from the past leaders.

A very readable version of one of the most remarkable books ever written. Hats off to Mr. Hedrick for making this ancient text seem so contemporary, without undermining the historical integrity of the work. I am a big fan of making the classics accessible to the average reader and Mr. Hedrick has done that. This would be a great gift for the recent high school or college grad. We can only hope that he is working on something similar for Xenophon's Persian Expedition, another ancient text that is rich in contemporary lessons.

The title of Steve Neal's book is a bit misleading. The working relationship between America's 33rd and 34th presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, wasn't quite a first-name buddy relationship or one between close comrades (although they collaborated on the Marshall Plan and key initiatives of the first Cold War years.) But assembling formal documents, letters, speeches, telegrams, and even early TV appearances, Neal accurately if dryly (few personal interviews) charts 15 years' key dialogue between two of America's revered post-war figures.

Neal successfully shows how key events of 1945-60 (culminating in JFK's election) serve to unite, than divide the men. Truman admires Eisenhower's early work helping rebuild Germany's economy, while Eisenhower supports formation of NATO and SHAPE, (buttress against post-war Communist aggression.) Both agree on early attempts to mitigate Soviet and Chinese threats, leading to histories of 1950-53's Korean war and Douglas MacArthur's controversial dismissal (with both men agreeing on their dim view of the revered military figure).

Neal also makes the case for Senators Joe McCarthy and William Jenner's divisive Senate tenures changing Truman and Eisenhower's relationship, in Neal's words, "from one of bitter words into one of mutual contempt." Eisenhower enters 1952's campaign election after years' reluctance as a stand against US isolationism, only finding himself supporting unpopular senators along party lines and not fully supporting Truman cabinet members (such as Gen. George Marshall) against McCarthy's attacks. But Neal also shows Truman's political expediency as he first dismisses the younger John Kennedy in 1960 before endorsing his candidacy more enthusiastically than Eisenhower did his vice president, Richard Nixon.

You sense the awe in which Neal holds both men, honoring their respective contributions to society. He spends Chapter 29's first paragraphs explaining how each administration's agendas (for national security, infrastructure, and economic growth) blended into each other, thus turning making their eventual quarrel more personal. (It was notable enough then to receive media coverage and even a quip from David Brinkley.) This chill slowly thaws after 1960 to warm greetings between both men and their wives in the aftershock of John Kennedy's 1963 funeral.

The book could have used more personal reflections; admittedly few may have been actively available for discussion, but only Eisenhower's son John is extensively quoted apart from written correspondence. Nonetheless, "Harry and Ike" is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the key post-war years, allowing us another look at the seismic events of the early Cold War through the eyes of two of America's most beloved presidents. Recommended.

Hitler, Hitler & Stalin, FDR & Stalin, FDR & Truman among others.
Some with no connection. Obviously Naploeon didn't know Hitler. I'm kinder that most reviewers. But this was cooperation, not a partnership. The author strains for similarities. They were both poor boys growing up at the same time in mid-America 200 miles apart.
Childish & paranoid come to mind in decribing their relationship after Ike decides to run in 1952. Truman's problem was he idolized generals such as Pershing, Marshall, MacArthur & Eisenhower. He would have stepped aside for MacArthur or Ike if either had wanted to run as a Democrat in 1948. Then he became paranoid that Ike might take him up on it. Ike said he wouldn't run & Truman thought that meant forever. When Ike did run as a Republican to deny Robert Taft the nomination Truman felt betrayed, even though Ike was doing him a favor. He attacked Ike & his character viciously. Of course Ike responded in kind. There were other issues mostly personal. Their foreign policy was seamless from one administration to the next. They basically ignored each other until Kennedy's funeral when they had to sit next to each other. Good history of two great Americans leaders 1945-52 & slightly tarnishing their image after that.

Harry was wild about Ike, until Ike gave him hell, sending Harry on a crusade in Illinois. I have read a dozen or so books by and about Harry and Ike, none of which adequately explained the root causes of their falling out or their eventual reconciliation. This book fills that gap. Ike was politically naive, as Harry feared. I agree with the author that Ike would have been a better President if he had followed the advice of more of his friends, including HST, and less advice from his political handlers. This is an excellent book.

Steve Neal's historical biography "Harry and Ike" nearly fails right from the start by building on a premise that is non-existent: the `close' relationship between Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. It's well known that Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were never close working partners, even prior to the epic, decade-long feud that began during the 1952 election. It's a stretch to building a book on the premise of such a partnership and Neal does very little support his theory. Harry and Ike were two men who initially had great respect for each other and occasionally worked together on issues of common interest, but otherwise had little to do with one another. The failure to make a case otherwise should have torpedoed this book. What saves it, however, is that, even with the flawed premise, it is a fascinating historical record.

While Neal is unable support his premise, he does an excellent job and revealing the histories and backgrounds of these titans among men. He tracks their lives and developments independently until their disparate paths crossed during the last, mad days of World War II. From there, Neal uses the framework of this supposed friendship to provide informative and interesting accounts of history as it happened during that era. He covers moments like Truman offering to step aside and run as Eisenhower's Vice President in 1948 if Ike were to run as a Democrat (possibly the foundation of Neal's assertion of a `close' relationship). He covers the major events like the hostile 1952 Presidential election, the beginning of the Korean War, and firing of General Douglas MacArthur. Neal uses these events to show the impact it had on each man and the reactions it prompted.

"Harry and Ike" serves as a good primer for studying the historical events of that time. It has the effect of making the reader want to probe deeper into those events. Reading this book led me to seek out and read the incredible Douglas MacArthur biography "American Caesar". Given that strong historical narrative of "Harry and Ike", Steve Neal should not be penalized too much for his flimsy premise. There's no doubting that it still serves as an effective historical record.

Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower is the partnership that shaped the post World War II world. Their impact is astounding. Steve Neal does a commendable job of charting the friendship that turned sour imcoperating the background material necessary to tell the complete story.

Truman and Eisenhower both started as military man, but it became a career for Eisenhower. Truman returned home after World War I to work in the government through a political machine eventually landing in the senate. From the senate he filled a void of urgency, FDR's vice president in his final term. It was somewhat expected that FDR would not finish the term so it would important for FDR to have a capable repalcement waiting. Truman would serve little more than two months as VP before leading the country through the completion and rebuilding of World War II.

Eisenhower would never reach the battle lines of World War I, but he commanded the allied forces of Europe. Eisenhower won great public approval for his victory over the Nazis at home and abroad. Even in 1948, there was popular sentiment that he should run for president. Eisenhower had no desire to run for political office, instead he supervised the rebuilding of Europe. He felt his work was of far to great importance to abandon at that time.

Eisenhower work so closely with Truman during this time, most people assumed he was a Democrat. However, Eisenhower never declared a party. It strained the friendship when Eisenhower ran on the Republican ticket in 1952. It strained their friendship even more when Eisenhower shared a political platform with Senator Joe McCarthy, head of the communist witch hunt. In addition to McCarthy's open criticism of Truman, Eisenhower's political maneuver caused Truman and Eisenhower not to speak for most of the Eisenhower's presidency. Partisan bickering continued throughout most of Eisenhower's term.

It was only through the tragic events on November 22, 1963 that their friendship was renewed. As both men survived through the end of the decade, their correspondence would continue. While the book starts slow and burried in fact, the middle and end of the book finish strong. Toward the end, I could not put the book down.

Some years back we started reading this series when it first became available. I probably disagree with my wife on this one, but I did not find it as enjoyable to read as the earlier books in the series. Perhaps it is just being tired of the political scene as well as the change character focus.

Good book, keeps moving and although the moment you realize a lobby group is involved, you know that they are probably the bad guys, however, it keeps your interest and has a good ending.

M. Truman has written one of her best books - it held my attention. The story moved right along without being too wordy and praising the cast too much which she had done in past novels saying cast members were too perfect. The story had good detail and good description. Yes, it was not too short and not too long.

This is truly Margaret Truman's Best. It has everything suspense,drama and lots of intrigue. It's starts with the murder of Jeanette Simmons the senator wife and also Rotondi friend. There's suspects galore! There Annabel and Mac Smith who aides in the investigation. This is truly a great political drama one you won't be able to put down.

This is Truman's 23rd Capital Crimes novel so one may perhaps forgive her for offering what seemed to this listener to be a retreaded material. There's little to surprise in the story line but pleasure to be found in the reading by actor/director/producer Phil Gigante. His voice is deep, resonant, falls easily upon ears as he moves easily between characters.

Our story opens with senior Senator Lyle Simmons returning home after a fundraiser. His homecoming is a shocking one as he finds his wife, Jeanette, brutally murdered. Does he call 911? Of course, not. He immediately contacts his friend and attorney, former District Attorney Philip Rotondi. After all, Simmons has presidential aspirations, and a murdered wife isn't an asset in most campaigns.

Rotondi lost Jeanette to Simmons during college years and also knows that the Simmons marriage, well, while it may have been made in heaven, it was hell on earth.

Now, toss in a daughter with no love for dear old dad Simmons and a passel of devious lobbyists at work, and there you have it.

Easy listening - fair to middlin' story line.

- Gail Cooke

This is the first of a fantastic series of novels featuring Blackford Oakes, a CIA operative during the Cold War.

With hardly a wasted word, William F. Buckley, Jr., deftly moves through the early years of Oakes, which sets him on the dangerous trail of rescuing the English monarchy from a fellow traveler - a British war hero - who manipulates his royal connections to gain vital information for his Soviet handler on the manufacturing of the hydrogen bomb.

Oakes ultimately is snarled in this secret war, where heroes may be seen as villains and the scoundrels as victims in the eyes of the public. With pointed commentary on world politics of the early 1950s and the bumbling inside The Beltway during the post-Watergate era, Buckley, Jr., sets a solid foundation for what became a classic hero in spy fiction.

I liked this book; it is informative and funny, but the ending is overpathetic.

Appreciation for William Buckley's rich vocabulary and operatic metaphors is required to enjoy this book. And it will help if you are a fan of "alternate" historical fiction: imagine there was an English Queen named Caroline after World War II . . .

This is for when the mood is definitely not for John le Carre, I suspect this was written with a strong dose of Buckley's "tongue-in-cheek". Give it a try, might be just the thing to relax with after an evening at the Metropolitan.

William F. Buckley Jr. showed he had a talent for fiction, as well as non-fiction writing, with this enjoyable espionage novel, the first of his Blackford Oakes adventures. Buckley unashamedly brings his old-boy background to bear in creating an Oakes who plausibly finds his way from Yale to Windsor Castle within a few months. Buckley, who served as his fictional Oakes does in the CIA of the early 1950s, has me now wondering how much of this is autobiographical.

A World War II ace graduating from Yale in the early 1950s, Oakes joins the CIA. He establishes a deep cover identity as a wealthy American postgrad doing engineering research in London, where his mother and English stepfather live. The Americans suspect secret hydrogen bomb research is leaking to the Russians from a source embarrassingly close to the fictional Queen Caroline. It is so close that the affair must never be known beyond a tiny and non-English group. The CIA finds Oakes its best option, and orders him to climb socially and root out the palace spy.

Buckley's detail on life among the British royals is one strong suit of the book. . You get the feeling he himself has probably been a royal guest at one time or another. (All in the name of literary research!) He delightfully characterizes Caroline - beautiful, married, lively and suddenly acceding to the throne in one of those accidental-death scenarios political novelists rely upon. Caroline is more of a Di than an Elizabeth. Oakes, of course, is merely serving his country in, uh, getting as close to her as his mission requires.

With Buckley's own spook background you don't know what he's making up. His allusions to the mysterious Rufus, the veteran spy called in to fix the leak, are tantalizing enough to make me wonder if such a character truly existed. His backstory here includes having been charged with deceiving the Germans that the D-Day invasion would take place at Calais rather than Normandy. Was there a man to whom Eisenhower actually gave his own dog tags in gratitude? And who wouldn't take calls from Ike or Winston Churchill?

Buckley's climax is a bit over the top but his resolution of the main characters' moral dilemmas, flies.

Saving the Queen is the best of the Blackford Oakes spy novels. It's the only one that is light hearted and totaly unlike Buckley's columns. Blacky is at his best in this fun and exciting spy caper. What a shame this delightful book is out of print.

I REALLY LIKED THIS LITTLE BOOK BECAUSE THERES NOTHING LIKE READING ABOUT SOUTHERN PEOPLE AND SOUTHERN WAYS. IT WAS JUST A WONDERFUL LAID BACK MOOD. VERY RELAXING TO READ.

The reviews of this book vary widely from Capote fans that treasure every shred of information to those that feel the book recycles known information to others critical of the co-author. I am a Capote fan and do treasure information on Truman. The book is short but I found it well written and fascinating. The text also captures the Southern frame of mind so common among those raised in the South (as I was). In addition, the hardcover is an attractive book and will stay on my shelf for years to come. It has a high quality binding; the dust jacket and interior are handsome and well made. Given the price, not only is it a fine volume for Capote fans but it is a good value.

This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie

This book is simply a rehash of information which has already been published. I am a big fan of Marie Rudisill's and loved FRUITCAKE and SOOK'S COOKBOOK. I advise she work on her own and not coauthor with Simmons again--her books with him just don't allow her wit and humanity to show through.

This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie

According to our documented family tree, Dr. Rush was a distant relative relative for whom our grandson, Bengamin was named. This book let me know even more about this man, physician, diplomat, the first Surgeon General of the United States and signer of the Declaration of Independance. Compared to some of the "guick on the scene and as quickly out of favor, contemproray "heros," we presently have, our county and world would do well to encourage the development of simaliar heros today!

I feel bad saying this, but I was severely disappointed with this book. As a physician and early American history buff I was really looking forward to learning more about Benjamin Rush.

In general it seems that the author, despite putting out what appears to be a finished, presentable biography, never really dug into source materials to find out who Benjamin Rush was and why he was important. Repeatedly, we hear of Rush's fame and accomplishments and influence, but the details are missing.

We hear what a great doctor Rush was, considered the preeminent physician of his times, according to the author, but all the author writes about is how Rush tortured his patients with medical treatments we now know are harmful, such as bloodletting, giving cathartics, etc. Rush is known as the "Father of American Psychiatry", his book on psychiatry was bible for many many years, and his observations on mental illness were in many ways way way ahead of his times...yet not a word of this is mentioned except in the last ten pages of this 365 page book. This subject desperately needed to explained. This is why he is important for heaven's sake.

Furthermore, I think it would have been fascinating to have gotten a better feel for what bloodletting and giving cathartics was about, we needed some good old source material, firsthand observations and then-current thoughts, as well as an expose of the tools employed, etc. Rush, it is clear, considered himself first and foremost and physician. He dedicated his life to the practice of medicine, he was considered a top academic lecturer. We are told all the top American physicians for the next half century were either disciples of Rush or disciples of his students.....but we don't really get a feeling for why.

His political contributions and inolvement were similarly neglected. Although he wasn't the political calibre of Hamilton or Jefferson, he was definitely a major player. Much of the earlier portion of the biography seemed to focus on explaining the political events occurring around Rush during the fight for independence. The focus should have been Rush. There's a lot of negativity surrounding Rush early on in the book, but how he seems to know all the important figures in the Revolution and why they respect him is not explained.

There also weren't any pictures or illustrations. I could go on. On the bright side, at least the book reads well. If you want to learn more about Rush, you should probably choose another book. Sorry.

In addition to a number of factual errors, e.g., that General George Clinton had been a governor of N.Y. in pre-Revolutionary times when it was Clinton's father who had served as governor, and the occasional disparagement of Benedict Arnold as a military commander, the picture which this biography paints of its subject is much too flattering. Rush was not a very pleasing personality nor was he particularly influential in any positive sense as a "founder". Moreover, many details of his life have been omitted. For example, there is no mention of the relationship between Rush and Paine or what became of the son that was institutionalized. Rush's medical practice, in light of the general ignorance of the subject at the time Rush was practicing, does not warrant the extensive treatment which the author gives it. I wrote to the publisher on these subjects and pointed out a number of editorial errata but received no reply.

Benjamin Rush: Patriot and Physician draws a fascinating picture of one of the United States "Founding Fathers" and "Founding Physicians". Although from humble background, Dr. Rush was able to get the best possible medical education in the world and practiced in Philadelphia for the majority of his adult life. In addition to teaching at the new Medical College in Philadelphia and thus training a whole generation of physicians, he actively participated in the deliberations of the First and Second Continental Congresses and signed the Declaration of Independence. He was a tireless writer, contributing articles on the need of independence from England and the structure of the new government. His contributions were in his own name, but often under another name, in part because of the strength of his beliefs (religious, medical, and political). Rush was a prolific correspondent and he played a crucial part in the reconciliation of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after their retirements from active politics. Alyn Brodsky presents a sympathetic, but critical, appraisal of a key figure in the emergence of the United States. Further, the history of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War is wonderfully told through the eyes of one who participated in the Revolution first hand.

Modern day Constitutionalists, in their passion to defend this document against ill-conceived modern-day dilutions, sometimes make the mistake of viewing the Founding Fathers of the United States as a pantheon. They were heroes, to be sure, but they had feet of clay and sharp disagreements. Some of the issues for which a compromise was found in the Constitution are worth revisiting today.

Alyn Brodsky has done a first-rate job of portraying this complex individual---Benjamin Rush, a curious combination of man of peace and man of war. He was one of the firiest firebrands in the pre-Revolutionary War days (his prolific pamphleteering helped to persuade those who had been obedient servants of the monarch, bringing to critical mass those who considered themselves defenders of the God-given right to liberty.) On the other hand, his humanitarian side is demonstrated in his pioneering work in the abolition of slavery, his visions for publicly funded schools (at which girls would study the same acedemic subjects as boys), his selfless work among the poor afflicted with Yellow Fever Plague in Philadelphia, his compassionate treatment of mentally ill patients, and due to his insight into the link between criminality and mental illness, his outspoken championing of prisonhouses as centers of reform rather than humiliation.

Particularly moving was the revelation, through letters Benjamin Rush had written to both men, of the antagonistic rift that developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the years after the War. It pained Benjamin Rush, who worked hard to reconcile these close friends. A testament to his success at doing so, and to the character of Benjamin Rush himself, is found in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams when Benjamin Rush died in 1813: "...a better man than Rush could not have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finer genius, or more honest." Adams reply to Jefferson: "I know of no character, living or dead, who has done more real good in America."

If you buy this book you should have bought the previous 3 books, then you'll understand the art and the stories. You won't regret to have this one if you have the previous ones.

It seems that some poeple tend to think this was the lesser of this volume, but I think that is unfair. This is a excellent continuation that I feel has a great sense of building up for the next installment. A lot of things happen, and though you can certainly tell where Mignola contributed, it still feels like a true Conan story throughout. It just wasn't as rip-roaring as some of the previous ones. I eagerly look forward to the next installment.

The fourth volume of collected Conan comics from Dark Horse is a good read. But if you've been following the writing of Busiek, you will be a little disappointed in this collection. Mignola picks up the reins and does an adequate job but he isn't able to capture the vitality that Busiek was able to portray. Personally, I am not a fan of Mignola so I was disappointed when he was chosen as a replacement. To me, his work in the past has always had a disjointed chaotic feel which hindered the telling of the story.

Physically, the book is pretty but not as nicely done as when Cory Nord had more control. I am a huge REH and Conan fan, so I grabbed the book as soon as it appeared on Amazon. I, however, did not notice that I had picked the paperback copy. After two readings, the pages started to come unbound. So, get the hardback if you can.

It's not a bad book, but it's not as good as the previous three. If you're a fan, it won't matter a lot but you might feel a little uncomfortable with the adaptation of REH's outline. I sure wish REH had actually written it.

This 4th volume will be hard to beat. Unlike a complaint I read that the art is not Cary Nord's best, that it's "sketchy", well I cheerfully disagree. In fact I'd say this was Nord's most solid looking work to date. The coloring affects created by Dave Stewart are also the best so far. These tales are an uncluttered stream of the closest attempts at Getting Robert Howard's feel into these stories yet. What's funny about that is that other than the fragment, "Hall of the Dead", an unfinished Conan tale that has been finished almost masterfully by Mike Mignola, there not a lick of Howard's prose in the lot. Kurt Busiek, sadly, finally comes into his own at the end of his run. His writing feels downright channelled by Conan's creator and author. Even Tim Truman delivers a gutsy tale of Nestor coming to Conan's aid when you least expect him to do such a thing. The focus on Mignola's tale finishing out the fragment was a natural selection. His Hellboy and BPRD tales are very evocative of H.P. Lovecraft cosmic horror tales. Robert Howard was very much an admirer and also a colleague of Lovecraft's and this tale is one of the the best invoking that spirit of the ancient horror which Lovecraft loved to weave his tales around.
I have a prediction: despite the best efforts in the future I find it hard to believe this will ever be done better. I know that sounds pretty arrogant and cynical but this machine was really rolling despite having three different writers. The fact that these stories flowed so seamlessly is an example of a good vibe, a sound spirit and a solidly shared, creative effort.
For me this series could end right here and I'd be happy.
Here's hoping I'm proven wrong.

Robert E. Howard wrote a number of fantastic Conan stories in his lifetime but The Hall of the Dead was not one of them. Not that The Hall of the Dead isn't fantastic, but rather Howard didn't write it, at least not in full. Years after his suicide in 1936, numerous Howard material was found, which included a number of unpublished stories as well as various fragments and outlines for other stories. Among those was a brief outline for The Hall of the Dead. This story first saw publication in 1967 in Conan, the first in the series of paperbacks published by Lancer books and later reprinted by Ace Books. The story was credited to both Howard, and writer L. Sprague De Camp.

De Camp is a bit of an anti-hero among Conan fans...On one hand, he played a pivotal role in renewing interest in Howard's work in the 1960's. De Camp, for a time, was the overseer of Howard's works. Conan might have been a mere pulp footnote were it not for De Camp. On the other hand, De Camp set himself up as a posthumous collaborator of Howard's from which he benefited greatly. But he also took it upon himself to edit Howard's original work. Those Conan tales in the Lancer and Ace versions were not pure Howard, and it would still be decades before these tales would be reprinted in their pure forms for the first time since originally published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in the 1930's.

That now brings us to the Dark Horse version of the story, with its own unique take on the tale. Kurt Busiek, Mike Mignola, and Timothy Truman share the writing chores, while Cary Nord handles the art. For those interested in chronology, this story takes place shortly after the events in Tower of the Elephant, one of Howard's most famous Conan stories. This is fairly early in Conan's life, he's around twenty years old at the time and already has made a name for himself as a capable thief.

The story is set in spider-haunted Zamora and its infamous City of Thieves. Conan is fresh off a daring robbery of a rich magistrate and added insult to injury by sleeping with his wife. The Magistrate sets a trap for Conan but instead captures another thief, Nestor the Gunderman. Nestor negotiates his release by pledging to capture Conan which the magistrate enforces with a sorcerous bond. The two thieves eventually set aside their rivalry when they discover the ruins of a forgotten civilization, rumored to hold a vast horde of treasure. But the treasure has powerful guardians, and no one who has visited there has ever returned.

What Busiek and Co., have done is take the basic Howard plot and bookend it with a meatier beginning and end, all told collecting eight issues of the monthly Conan comic series. Mignola, who handles the middle portion of the story, infuses it with distinct elements of H.P. Lovecraft lore. While perhaps not intended by Howard, he was a fan of Lovecraft's work and wrote a number of stories that were heavily influenced by Lovecraft.

Nord continues to improve as a Conan artist and his work here is very solid and bolstered greatly by color artist Dave Stewart. Two minor complaints about Nord's art is the sometimes goofy facial expressions of his characters in close-ups which sometimes border on caricatures. The other minor complaint is the inconsistency of Conan's physique. He will sometimes look broad and brawny in the Buscema tradition and other times nearly as slender as Barry Smith's interpretation.

No one can ever truly say how Robert E. Howard might have completed Hall of the Dead, but Busiek, Mignola and Truman have given readers an epic, book-length adventure in the best Howard tradition.

REVIEWED BY TIM JANSON

Comparisions are inevitable. But that doesn't diminish the excellence of this whole-life biography by Robert Farrell. He does take a different tack. It is not quite as personal or intimate as McCollough. I might even venture that it is a bit more scholarly. David McCollough write for the masses & is the best writer/historian we have.
Farrell digresses, sometimes at length. He discusses animal husbandry & crop rotation during Truman's farm years, the economic & banking system during Harry's haberdashery years & the blizzard of agencies & crooked cronies that populated them during his second term as president.
I must confess I did read McCollough's but listened to the unabridged audio version of Farrell's book, which admittedly is easier. Still, I found McCollough's marginally more entertaining. Obviously both men liked & respected Truman. Farrell might be a little more critical. Two faults stood out to me. Truman was thin-skinned & touchy on some subjects. His bitter relationship with Eisenhower was a a good example. They both acted very immaturely for men of such stature. Farrell did not tell the story of Truman's threat to punch a reviewer in the nose for a bad review of his daughter's recital, except in passing. He had a habit of writing scathing letters to someone who displeased him, even his wife. Then he would not mail it. Some of these letters survived in his papers. He didn't have much use for Churchill until much later when both men were out of office. The other shortcomming could have been a virtue & that is loyalty which he carried to ridiculous extremes. He developed a blind spot for anyone that was ever a friend, a member of his army unit, (he was the captain), a mason (he was a past master), or was affiliated with the Pendergast machine. They all got a lifetime pass. This came back to bite him in several minor scandals & charges of cronyism in his second term. None of these dust-ups touched him, with one exception. While in the Senate he had his wife Bess on the payroll, until it was discovered. They needed the extra income. He was extremely bright & a quick study, an honest politician, with integrity & character. He revered & honored the office of the President. He separated the office from the person who happened to occupy it. Mr. Farrell brings this all up very well. He has written other books on aspects of Truman's life as well as "The Dying President, FDR" which I will check out. This work is not a second rate biography merely a close second place.

In "Harry S Truman", Robert Ferrell gives the reader an introduction to this ordinary Missourian who lived such an extraordinary life. The reader is treated to an overview of this extraordinary life from childhood through the farm, the army, courtship and marriage, fatherhood, politics and retirement. Ferrell has managed to keep the book moving apace while providing sufficient detail to satisfy the readers curiosity.

An obvious fan of Truman, Ferrell does not hide his hero's faults or short falls while discussing his accomplishments. Truman's days as County Judge and his relationship with Boss Pendergast show a man who maintained his principles while taking advantage of a few opportunities, both political and financial, which may have been a bit on the shady side. I would think that a story centered in Jackson County politics could get boring really fast, but in this book even that stays interesting. He depicts of the marriage of Bess and Harry as a true love match which overcame interference from Bess' mother and periods of separation when Harry was in Washington. His election to and service in the Senate make for an interesting prelude to the Presidency.

The White House years, naturally, get the heaviest attention. Truman's relationships with and opinions of FDR, George Marshall, Dean Atcheson, Eisenhower and MacArthur, Churchill, Nixon and others too many to mention give the book a greater breadth than is found in many biographies. The leading issues of those years, including the Atomic bomb, the end of World War II, relations with the Soviet Union, labor unrest, the economy, the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War and Sen. McCarthy are all shown from the White House perspective. The reader is given an insight into Truman's loves, likes, beliefs and hatreds. The narration of the 1948 election, both the nomination and election segments, are fascinating reading. Truman was left with plenty of scores to even, baggage which could have impaired his performance, had he allowed it.

Questions I have long entertained include "Why Truman?", "Was he better than people said?" and "How Well Did He Perform?" This book provided some answers but some questions remain unanswered. Why out of 300 Democratic governors and members of Congress did the Democratic Party select Truman for vice-president to an obviously dying FDR? That one remains a mystery. I now believe that he did a very good job for someone with his limitations, but that he was limited by his time and world view. Maybe as he said, there were a million Americans who were better qualified to be president than he was, but he had the job and did the best he could. That is the conclusion with which this book left me. Read, think about it yourself, and enjoy!

Harry did not want to be President and was not tied to corrupt political influences as President. This book misses the essence of Harry Truman badly. I suggest reading Harry's own books to understand Harry, at least this author knew Harry intimately.

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history. In this engaging biography, Robert H. Ferrell, who has authored and edited eight previous books on Truman, does an admirable job of presenting the life and presidency of Harry S. Truman. Although one can detect Ferrell's admiration for Truman, one senses from the extensive notes, bibliography, and research conducted at the Truman Library as well as his willingness to criticize Truman for his mistakes, that Ferrell has written a very balanced biography of Truman. Ferrell's book is a good introductory biography of Truman's whole life; the first eight chapters are devoted to his life prior to his ascendancy to the presidency in 1945 after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One gets the sense that Truman was the last president of an earlier and simpler time in America. He was the last president who was not a college graduate nor was he well--off financially. Ferrell's biography captures the essence of what type of a man Truman was and what history and his fellow citizens perceived him as.
"A plain-speaking, straight-talking, ordinary fellow (people thought) who did what he saw as his duty without turning his obligation into opportunity for personal gain" (179). Ferrell also exposed Truman's flaws such as being overprotective and too loyal to friends that had done wrong. Often he took it as a personal affront when anyone differed with him.
Ferrell presents a few experiences from Truman's early years that formed his character. From farming, Truman gained a work ethic that served him well throughout his life. His experience as an artillery captain and battery commander during WWI was instrumental in proving to himself and others that he was a very capable and caring leader of men. This experience was instrumental in putting him on the path of a political life. His experience as a failed haberdasher and bank speculator in the 1920's caused Truman to be a fiscal conservative the rest of his life and a good steward of the government's money. In addition, he learned about and came to understand and respect ethnic minorities, such as Catholics and Jews, from his Army and haberdashery experiences. Thus, Ferrell astutely proved that understanding Truman's early life experiences are instrumental if one wants to properly analyze Truman's decision-making process in the domestic and foreign policy arena.
"The Buck Stops Here" placard on Truman's desk has become legendary in presidential history. One of his secretaries of state, Dean Acheson, admired Truman for capably understanding the complexities of a situation and his willingness to make a hard decision without vacillating. Truman was adept at gathering all of the facts in a timely manner, listening to people's opinions and turning the options over in his mind, and then when he arrived at what he thought was the correct decision, he made it and stuck to his guns. Truman wound up making many important decisions that have affected America to this day such as, using nuclear weapons against Japan to end WWII, integrating the military in 1948, recognizing the state of Israel, creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and involving American military forces in the Korean war.
One of the first, most momentous, and most often debated decisions that Truman had to make as President was whether to use two atomic bombs against Japan to hasten the end of WWII. Ferrell and other historians have made a very convincing argument to support Truman's decision-making process to use nuclear weapons to end the war. The Japanese military, who effectively controlled their government, were fanatics in their prosecution of the war. The Japanese people had suffered through numerous fire bombings of their cities in the months leading up to the end of the war, in which hundreds of thousands of their citizens were killed. In addition, the military had lost many battles and virtually all of its island holdings in the Pacific, and yet the government was strengthening its homeland forces and preparing for invasion instead of seriously considering surrender. Ferrell, relying on information gathered by Edward J. Drea, who wrote about the American military intelligence estimate gathered in July of 1945 mainly through the deciphering of Japanese radio traffic, showed that up to 600,000 Japanese were being prepared to fight in the event of an American invasion. Even this estimate turned out to be too low, since after the war American intelligence learned that the Japanese actually had some 900,000 prepared to fight against the invasion. American military estimates of the cost of life in the event of an invasion of the Japanese home islands were at best sketchy, and many historians who have written against the use of atomic weapons have used the unreliability of the estimates as one of their examples why Truman was wrong to use the nuclear option. However, Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar in their book, Codename Downfall, which detailed the plan to invade Japan, wrote that Truman was presented with an estimate that showed that there could be 238,000 American casualties and possibly the same number of Japanese casualties. This information coupled with the very real evidence of how tenaciously the Japanese people had fought was no myth, and convinced Truman that dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was the right decision. One only had to look at the horrific casualty figures for American battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name a few in order to understand just how fiercely the Japanese were capable of fighting. Ferrell aptly showed that Truman's decision has come under criticism throughout the years partly because of how he had stridently defended it and was so dismissive of the critics of his decision. "The president's critics, one suspects, were ready to accuse him because they did not admire other things he did or approved. They were critical because of his well-known decisiveness, which sometimes seemed offhanded" (214).
Truman, almost by necessity and circumstance, was forced to alter America's foreign policy of isolationism to one of internationalism. Truman realized the Korean War left him in a predicament. If he did not defend South Korea in the wake of North Korea's attack, he then would acquiescence to the Communist North Koreans, and ultimately the Russians. By not defending South Korea, American prestige in Asia and the world would undoubtedly would be tarnished. Yet, if he did attack, he risked a world war with the Chinese and the Russians, and ultimately a nuclear war. In light of the Truman doctrine, and America's stance on communism, Truman decided to defend South Korea. It was a widely unpopular war, which ended in a stalemate. Yet, Ferrell entertains a notion that America did not become the world superpower after WW II, but rather during the Korean War because America intervened to defend a non-communist nation, in essence, America became the police and protection force for weaker non-communist countries in the face of communist aggression. Many historians would agree that the year 1945 and the history after irreversibly changed the world. The cold war, America's role in world affairs, and the question of nuclear weapons all contributed.
Truman initially set about reorganizing the bureaucracy, conducting a complete overhaul of cabinet and staff. In addition to creating the Budget Bureau and the National Security Council, he created the Council of Economic Advisers, which he staffed it with both conservatives and liberals and regarded it as an advisory committee. Ferrell positively describes Truman's intellect, honesty, and integrity throughout the book but one of the places where it shines most brightly is in his civil rights efforts, which is rarely given the credit it deserves in historical accounts. Ferrell examines possible reasons behind Truman's change of heart on civil rights and concludes that much of his perspective came from his principled sense of fairness and his belief that the duty of the office of the President was to represent all Americans. The Truman-appointed Civil Rights Commission presented a frank report, entitled To Secure These Rights, with a ten-point agenda of civil rights reforms. Lacking congressional support, he turned to the power of executive orders to start the desegregation of the armed forces.
His second administration was marred by scandals, including the Hoey Investigation, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue illegal activity, for which the president was criticized for failing to take appropriate action. Another one of Truman's domestic challenges, which cost him politically, was labor strikes. To avoid a steelworker strike, Truman invoked what he believed to be the inherent powers of the president to seize control of the mills and was rebuffed by the Supreme Court. As the 1952 election loomed, Truman bristled that the emerging Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson, was distancing himself from Truman's administration. Although they reconciled and Truman even assisted with campaign speeches, it was to little avail. Eisenhower won 55 percent of the popular vote and Truman finished out his lame duck presidency.
In his post-presidency years, Truman returned to Independence and his quiet life. He solicited donations to build a presidential library, which he donated to the federal government, a convention which later presidents have followed. Likewise, he refused endorsements and placement in corporate payrolls because he believed that accepting financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the office of President. As a result, Harry and Bess Truman lived out the remainder of their lives without the safety of financial savings. He established a precise daily routine at his library, which included writing copious amount of letters and receiving many visitors. Ever the politician, he remained connected with Washington life and accepted invitations to the White House in both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In his final years, bothered with health problems, he took refuge in music and books. He died the day after Christmas, 1972 and was buried at his presidential library in Independence, with all the pomp and circumstance fitting a former President.

Thus, Ferrell does a very convincing job of making one believe just how important and interesting it is to study Truman, especially since he was so very different from the presidents who had come before and after him.
Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, foreign policy, Cold War history.

Poor Ferrell. Did anyone realize there was a second scholarly biography of Truman published in the 90s? Ferrell presents a different Harry Truman than David McCullough. His Truman is less romantic and less the accidental president. Where McCullough seems to put Truman on a pedestal, Ferrell presents a more realistic view. McCullough captures much of Truman's day-to-day thoughts and actions through his letters to Bess and Margaret, which obviously provides much greater insight into the President's personality, while Ferrell captured them through the comments and diaries of staff and contemporaries. While still portraying him as an honest and very capable (and underrated) president, he does not shy away from discussing his missteps and weaknesses.

I think a perfect example of the juxtaposition of the two authors is how each describes how the Marshall Plan got its name. McCullough says Truman wanted to give General Marshall credit for his ideas; Ferrell says Truman knew a bill called the "Truman Plan" would never make it past the Republicans in Congress. Both statements are probably true, but each author has a different emphasis.

Ferrell provides good analysis on world and national events happening around Truman with some interesting digressions and observations, such as with Stalin, Korea and its aftermath, McArthur, etc.. In fact, it becomes more of a history book than a biography of Truman. Because of this emphasis, the reader does not discover the real Truman, what drove him, his intimate thoughts and fears, etc. Bess, Margaret, and Mama Truman are bit players in this bio, although there were core to Truman.

Truman's 1948 election win was indeed result of a miraculous 11th hour great burst of energy by the incumbent president, but Ferrell does not shrink from showing Truman as the typical politician, slinging a little mud and showing partisanship against the 80th Congress, which he lambasted publicly and complemented privately (they passed the "Truman doctrine" and were as good with New Deal legislation as their predecessors and successors).

Despite his reserved countenance and mousy presentation, Truman was his own man. He stood up to Pendergast, FDR, labor, big business, domineering cabinet members, and McArthur. He was the true moderate ... while busting the miners and railroad union strikes, threatening to draft them to stop the strike, he also fought "Big Steel" and vetoed Taft-Hartley. Ferrell sets straight Truman's record on civil rights giving it the credit it never really received. Truman was the true vote-your-conscience legislator. Ferrell closes with the last couple of years of the second administration, which were ripe with scandal, although not the result of improprieties from Truman himself.

If one can only read one Truman bio (and has the time to digest), read McCullough's tome. That author obviously reveres Truman, but is still a balanced account, and is more comprehensive and personal. That recommendation does not, however, discredit Ferrell, especially if one is more interested in the United States under Harry Truman than Truman the man.