University of Missouri Books

Veneer is a collection of nine short stories, eight of which have previously been published in various literary periodicals, and it is another winning effort by Steve Yarbrough. The bulk of his previously published work, two collections of short stories and the fantastic novel Oxygen Man, have been set in Mississippi where Yarbrough grew up. Some of the stories in this collection are set there as well, but he also branches his settings to California.

What he shows us in his writing is that setting only matters in terms of background material. The human condition is the same in Mississippi as it is in California, and one suspects we'd find it the same if Mr. Yarbrough set his next collection in Cuba, Russia, or Canada. We are flawed individuals with needs, wants, and varying levels of the confidences necessary to acquire those needs and wants.

As in his past work, decisions and actions make up a great deal of explanation for results. The title story should have more than one previously published listing, as there couldn't have been more than 10 stories this good whichever year it was originally published. It has the narrator and his friend, Emily, dining in a window seat of a café. He is married with two children, but away from his family as the Fourth of July is approaching as they are visiting his wife's relatives in Prague. There is some great foreshadowing early in the story when Emily asks him if he isn't worried about being seen together, won't people see them as having an affair. He says he only worries about reality, not appearances.

The story has him telling her the story of his worst Fourth of July ever. It involves cooking steaks on a grill for his mom, dad and grandmother. It involves disappointments for each of them. It also gets into the relationship between his mother and father. The story comes alive between the narrator and Emily and he ends the story with a thought that this will be his daughter's worst Fourth of July as reality and appearances are about to converge.

The story does not hit you over the head with the similarities between the various relationships. It also brings fourth small decisions throughout that the reader sees leading to the final results. As is typical in Yarbrough's fiction, the characters are well aware that they are making these decisions at the time they do so.

While this is the best story of the collection, there are at least five others that are just barely a notch below. These could have been mentioned at the back of an anthology the year they were published as just misses to being added to the collections. None of the stories seems unfinished; each has been refined to the best possible version they could be. They are all written with the skill and subtlety of the title story.

Yarbrough doesn't nearly have the readership he deserves. Do yourself a favor and pick up this 4.5 star effort.

This book is about the 1830s era steamer YELLOW STONE which during this early part of the age of steamer ventured from Louisville Kentucky to points north like North Dakota a considerable feat! this vessel a sidewheeler, having propelling wheels with rectangular boards attached to the wheels outward perimeter near the middle of its hull and housing as opposed to a sternwheeler which had large wide paddlewheel at its "stern" or back end played an important role in the Texas revolution although there are no plans of the YELLOW STONE in the book or anywhere for that matter very few plans exist of steamers of the early age of steam and not a great many exist for any later day vessels, there are drawings of the YELLOW STONE and a superb watercolor of this steamer by pioneer artist Karl Bodmer and a transcript of the original contract in its quaint english describing the dimensions of the parts of the steamer hull

This book will appeal only to people who have a keen interest in the University. Alumni, parents, students... that sort of thing. Dr. Morrow, who for years was an important professor and dean at the University, does an excellent job presenting the minutiae of university finances, governance and development. While this can be expected to be tedious for a general audience, it's good stuff if you're a prospective university president or dean! That said, student and faculty life get the short end of the stick. You'll learn all about what William Eliot, Robert Brookings and Arthur Compton did for Wash U, but you'll not get much exposure to what the students or general public made of the place.

Since it was essentially a commuter college for 100 years, the history of this university largely mirrors that of St. Louis. It saw its best days when the city was thriving, namely, after the Civil War and during the Progressive Era (aka from about 1910 to 1930). The first few chapters in which Morrow weaves together the founding and early history of the University with that of the young and booming city are the best in the book.

In the history of famous authors, the Bronte sisters, Charlotte, Emily and Anne, stand out. Firstly, that three siblings would prove to be so gifted in the same field. For example, we can only wonder what if Charles Dickens had had two such siblings?

Then, of course, there is the obvious factor that all three Brontes were female. At a time when wealthy British women had such circumscribed career choices. Ever since their lifetimes, many have thusly commented.

But apparently few have focused on how the Brontes depicted families in their fiction, and how these tied in with their own familial situation and the Victorian ethos of family. In retrospect, this is one of those analyses whose idea is stunningly obvious. But for some reason, a priori to this book, it has been little (none?) touched on.

Most interestingly, Lamonica suggests that while the Brontes never actually denied the prospect of a woman being content through her family, they never made this out to be the only choice. A very contemporary stance.

I stumbled across this collection of stories in the library one day -- I'm always on the lookout for new authors to experience -- and what a nice find it was. Joan Connor's stories are intelligently written portraits that draw the reader into their world almost immediately. The characters that populate them are not necessarily extraordinary at first glance -- and not necessarily likable as we get to know them -- much like the people we meet in our everyday lives. Their thoughts, and the choices they make -- the way they view their world and the people around them with whom they interact -- these things make them stand as unique individuals. It is Connor's skill at developing these characters -- almost without us realizing that she is doing it -- that allows me to feel that I know them on a much deeper level. Even in the shortest tales in this collection leave me with the feeling that I have learned much.

Also impressive are the author's descriptive skills when applied to the natural surroundings in which these stories take place -- the islands, hills, forests and small towns of New England. She has a way of applying human feelings and attributes to nature that evokes a soul and personality that is there in our environment that many people miss by looking too quickly. For example, take this short but effective passage from the story 'October': 'A few golden leaves drift idly down. October strips itself down to an essential solitude, the bare rough branches of a maple tree raised, pleading.'

My favorite selections here are 'The thief of flowers', in which the young narrator learns a lesson about giving and love; 'Ursa Major in Vermont', a rather mystical tale of a bear being repeatedly sighted in and around a small community; 'The Bowlville Cemetery', a wryly humorous tale about a man who is so mean that he won't stay buried; 'Summer girls', a touching recounting of a life-long torch carried by a man for a woman he knew he would never have; and 'Second nature', which I think is my favorite, revealing great unknown depth of character in someone generally regarded as a rustic, eccentric hillbilly.

A couple of the works here left me with a deep sense of strangeness, as if I had dreamt them. 'Bluebeard's first wife' is written as a fairy-tale allegory --- it starts out simply and winds up giving the mind quite a spin. 'The last native' also has this dream-like quality to it, but in a more hallucinatory sense.

The characters -- and their lives -- in many of these stories are dark, some suffering from alcoholism and depression. These feelings are well-depicted by Connor, but she never allows herself (or her characters) to wallow in them. The feelings are there, and are a part of them -- they are viewed, they affect their lives. I didn't come away from any of these stories with the feeling that I had been subjected to listening to someone bemoaning their fate.

I see from the notes on the author that there is another volume of short stories available by Joan Connor, HERE ON OLD ROUTE 7 -- I look forward to experiencing it as well.

[For readers who enjoy well-written fiction set in this part of the country, I can also highly recommend works by Howard Frank Mosher, Russell Banks and Ruth Moore.]

Professor Gottfried's book might well be titled "On Our Present Discontents." He provides an erudite analysis of multiculturalism and its causes, many of which Gottfried locates in a secularized version of the religious impulse for reform. The topic has drawn many authors, but Gottfried's work stands apart on many levels. It is openly conservative and deeply critical of multicultualism, while displaying a more sophisticated view and greater knowledge than others on the right who gained fame from talk shows or think tanks. Gottfried avoids the jargon that clots most academic writing, and makes a clearer case than such defenders of multiculturalism as Martha Nussbaum and Amy Guttmann. Unlike almost all other writers on both sides of the question, he places the American experience in a wider context and compares it with similar trends in Europe and Canada. Widely read in German, French, and Italian, he has a solid grasp of European politics. Few others works discuss multuculturalism in Europe so well or explain the populist movements that have arisen in reaction to it. For that perspective alone, the book is worth the price of admission.

The relationship between religion--particularly the "Protestant Deformation" Gottfried cites--deserves more attention than it receives. Historians have noted the role of the 19th century "Social Gospel" and Finneyite Christianity, while theologians have described many 20th century political movements as basically religious in their motivation. Gottfried describes multiculturalism as an American export, but he also discusses how the decline of traditional Christianity in Europe and European-derived societies provided fertile ground. On this point too, the book makes an important contribution that neither side of the debate can afford to neglect.

Gottfried describes this book as a follow up to After Liberalism, a more philosophical and historical work that addressed the question of how liberalism shifted from the "juste milieu" of 19th century Europeans like Francois Guizot and William Gladstone to the late 20th century welfare state. That volume was a modern classic of conservative thought, and the current book is a worthy successor.

This is a good book but there is not enough emphasis on the Jewish role in the rise and spread of multiculturalism.

Gottfreid does give a reference of the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald on page 42. This is contrary to the accusation in the review above "Not for the Literate, January 10, 2003." The reference is to "Culture of Critique" 1998 by MacDonald. The entire chapter on the Jewish role in immigration policy is posted is posted on MacDonald's website which can be found using a search engine.

Another discussion of the Jewish role can be found in a review of Gottfreid's book by Sam Francis in The Occidental Quarterly summer 2003 .

The oppression many of us feel comes, Mr. Gottried ponderously explains, from an Orwellian therapeutic state apparatus, determined to forcefully mold its guilty subjects into a subdued, penitent mass that not only behaves with all political correctness, but thinks only the pure thoughts of the virtues of diversity and the desirability of unconstrained immigration. He correctly sees that the welfare state has now become the transformative force throughout the West, using its powerful coercive tools of affirmative action, the school system, and the penal code to force all white European societies to strive toward a sort of utopian multicultural society, where "we all just get along."

After giving many examples illustrating the trends, he launches into his explanation. As far as I can make out, his argument is that secularism has weakened Protestantism, with all its rituals of guilt, penance and salvation, which, to satisfy our innate psychological imperitives, was transformed into a public expression of expunging our historical guilts with charitable acts toward the unfortunates of the third world--especially by letting them into our territories where they have full access to the cash in our welfare system.

The truth of his observations on the prevalent trends is clear to anyone who reads a newspaper.

And, I suppose, there may be something to this theory, ably set forth in this work, but I think Mr. Gottfried is plain wrong about the cause of the trends. My own inclination is to exonerate Protestants, and instead point the finger at the dominating force of the mass media, which Gottfried almost totally ignores. I don't think he watches TV much. The government, in realistic day to day terms, hardly ever talks to me, nor do the Protestant elite, but the media hammers away at me every day.

It seems to me that Kevin MacDonald has a much firmer grip on this. The cause is Jewish group solidarity, the tool is the media that they dominate, and their goal is weakening the West. They feel more safe and comfortable in a society with several other minoriities, rather than one with an overwhelmingly White, European culture. Pretty simple, really.

In light of the depraved nature of American culture, it's easy for any second-hander to catalog a bunch of disparate events and ideas and package them with a littany of canned-bromides about "multiculturalism" and "political correctness." (As an example, I just read a story the other day about "ethnomathematics.") On the other hand, it takes a scholar to make sense of the intellectual trends that are dominating the Western world.

Fortunately, the paleoconservative movement has such a scholar in Dr. Paul Gottfried. Prof. Gottfried focuses on trends such as "diversity," "multiculturalism," and "sensitivity" showing that there is a theology behind them. The Christian view of sin and redemption is replaced by a secular counterpart of "insensitivity" and psychological manipulation. Based on Prof. Gottfried's approach, the desire of the left (old left and neocon "right") becomes understandable. American foreign policy (which was historically based on the idea of American interest, however misguided at times) is now focused on fighting "intolerance." The love affair of the left with immigration likewise becomes understandable. What better way to apologize for your nation's alleged sins then slowly destroying your culture through a change in the population? This fact isn't lost on European conservatives, who - as Prof. Gottfried notes - realize that these new voters aren't likely to vote conservative.

For some reason, the Jewish holocaust takes center stage in this new religion, in which both liberals and their alleged opponents seeks to draw lessons from this event. That nearly three million Poles died at the hands of the Nazis is ignored. Likewise, Stalin's murder of millions of Ukrainians in the name of egalitarianism gets short shift. Whereas people are put in jail for denying the Jewish holocaust, even mainstream publishers will print books downplaying Stalin's evils.

Prof. Gottfried breaks from standard neoconservative and paleoconservative analysis by showing that although the "sensitizing" may be carried out by the managerial class, it appears to have substantial public support. The multicultural agenda has majority support in the United Kingdom, and perhaps close to that in the United States.

This work follows upon Prof. Gottfried's AFTER LIBERALISM, which is also highly recommended.

This book will be of interest to those who voted for Pat Buchanan AND who have a high tolerance for bad writing. If you are a libertarian but are uncomfortable with Buchanan's dull witted biases, this book isn't for you. Nor is it for you if you are seriously interested in history or philosophy. Libertarians and serious scholars interested in the subject of political correctness are better off reading books by Lynne Cheney ("Telling the Truth") and Roger Kimball ("Tenured Radicals"). If you are sympathetic to the Council of Conservative Citizens, David Duke and Congressman Jim Moran, this book is for you.

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
--Ulysses S. Grant

I suspect that Grant -Commander of the Union Army and President of the United States- had a better idea of what the War was about than those who would deny the truth today.

This book is yet another attempt to "prove" that the Civil War "had nothing whatever to do about slavery." Wrong.

Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote post-bellum books claiming that slavery was irrelevant to the War, that it was all about constitutionalism, etc. Problem: in 1861, speeches of Davis and Stephens emphatically place the blame for the War on slavery. They changed their minds from 1861 to the post-bellum period . . . could the fact that slavery was, you know, embarassing, have had an impact?

Also, the actual secession statements of the seceding states emphatically blame slavery as the root cause of the secession (available on the internet). There is no ambiguity.

The Confederate Constitution in Article I, section 9, subsection 4 prohibits the Confederate Congress from interfering with the "right" to own slaves. (Funny . . . modern-day Confederates uh, forget, to mention that!) The ban on slave importation is of small importance . . . enough humans were already enslaved to meet "needs". Slavery is completely protected in the Confederate Constitution. I urge all to read it; it is on the internet.

I will give today's Confederates a couple of points, though: (1) the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution did create a slaveholding republic (so much for their ringing endorsement of "freedom for all"!), and so did the Confederates, and (2) the Confederates were thoroughly in sinc with the God of the Bible, who throughout endorses slavery (Commandment 10 forbids covetting of a neighbor's slave -- "manservant" is the gentle language used in some versions of the Bible, but "slave" is intended, and appears explicitly in the NRSV, and in other accurate versions . . . God did NOT mean the gardener or the cleaning lady! Also, in Exodus 21 (directly following the first version of the 10 Commandments) gives some instructions on how to handle slaves.) God is mentioned prominently in the Confederate Constitution.

My advice is to check the internet for the documents appearing in 1860 and 1861, and not the latter-day fiction of writers who are embarassed by slavery.

One last note: The legal question of whether there was a "right" of secession was settled very early in the US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison; the answer to whether there was a right for states to secede is NO. Look it up; it, too, is on the internet.

I think Professor Gallagher at UVA summed up the argument that the Civil War was not about slavery nicely when he said,(I paraphrase here):

"Ok, if the war wasn't about slavery, but instead was about state's rights, please show me a comprehensive list of specific rights that the states thought were important enough to secede over. I submit that the central right on any list will somehow involve slavery - be it guised in the form of property rights or state autonomy or the questions of state-determination of laws, these all ultimatley revolved around slavery."

The argument makes sense. If you analyze period Confederate documents and take them at face value, especially government documents, you'll find little mention of slavery. To a trained historian, the absence of this topic speaks volumes about its role in the conflict. Why on earth would Southern politicians use slave rhetoric to validate a war when their "nation" was populated mostly by non-slaveholding whites and slaves themselves. There is no real body of evidence that Southern soldiers fought for anything but hearth and home; and in almost all cases, hearth and home did not include slaves. Period Confederate politicians were smart people (there were also mostly from the slaveholding upper class) so they understood that rhetoric of slavery would not win them support at home (or indeed abroad) so they instead couched their rhetoric in terms of rights, laws and propriety of self-determination; all terms that if accepted, would clearly suggest that they did have the right to own slaves.

I submit that the analysis provided by this book is valid and very much needed, however it must be taken in context. To "analyize" this work without placing it in context leaves one wondering why then Abraham Lincoln bothered to free the slaves; a rediculous sentiment. If we understand that the anaylsis here is directed at documents designed to justify the act of secession in light of the limited interest in the South of slaves, we can understand how the author might mislead others (or indeed be mislead themself) about what actually brought millions of men to war against each other and what cost Americans over 600,000 casualties - state's rights or something more, you tell me.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it. In reply to some of the points in conlawyer's condemnatory review...
1) Davis and Stephens, in their 1861 speeches mentioned by conlawyer, spoke of "agitation over slavery," rather than the desire to perpetuate slavery itself, as being the motivation behind secession. The slavery provisions of the Confederate Constitution of were designed to eliminate this "agitation over slavery"...that is, conflict between States which have emancipated and those which have not...not to protect slavery itself. It removed slavery from the realm of national government and placed it where it properly belonged, in the sphere of State legislative action. The Northern States had eliminated slavery when it became economically unviable in the North...not due to any moral outrage over slavery itself...and did so by the action of their individual State Legislatures. The Southern States, through the Confederate Constitution, simply preserved their right to handle the issue by the same means, and for the same reasons, which the Northern States had used.
2)The State Secession documents...actually, conlawyer is referring to the Declarations of the Causes of Secession issued by four of the States seceding from the Union (the rest did not explain their reasons)...do cite slavery as the prime reason for secession. Southerners often cite conflicts over high tariffs and other economic issues as the cause of secession, and a superficial reading of these Declarations of the Causes of Secession does seem to contradict this, as conlawyer points out. However, what these Declarations were doing was providing a legal basis for secession, just as the original Declaration of Independence set out the legal basis for America's secession from the British Empire. The Southern States needed a clear, unambiguous violation of the Constitution by the Northern States to justify their "breaking of the contract" represented by the Union. It was not unconstitutional for Congress to levy tariffs on imported goods bought by Southerners, or to spend the money thus raised on internal improvements and business subsidies for capitalists in the Northern States. So although the South might have liked to secede over these issues (the Republican Party platform called for high tariffs, internal improvements, and business subsidies, and indeed, soon after taking control, they passed the highest tariff in American history, which would have devastated the South economically), legally, they could not have justified "breaking the contract" between the Southern States and the rest of the Union on that basis. However, the Northern States were in clear violation of the Constitution by acts of their legislatures and decisions by their State Courts which nullified and prevented enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution (and the various Fugitive Slave Acts which were passed for the enforcement of said Clause). And it is this which is prominently cited in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. Also, it is noteworthy that the Declaration issued by the State of Georgia does, in fact, talk about the tariff issue as well as slavery...indeed, it states that it was the alliance of Northern anti-slavery agitators with the Northern mercantilist/high tariff faction (represented by the Republican Party) which had allowed the election of Abraham Lincoln, thus creating the need for secession. So slavery is not the ONLY issue discussed in these declarations.
3) Article I, Section 9, Subsection 4, of the Confederate Constitution does prohibit the Confederate Congress from interfering with slavery, as conlawyer says. However, despite what conlawyer says, slavery is not "completely protected" by the Confederate Constitution. None of the provisions of the Confederate Constitution prevent the States from abolishing slavery. So the intent was not to protect slavery, but to preserve the right of the States to handle the issue when it became advantageous for them to do so, as the Northern States had themselves done. Conlawyer doesn't mention that there are other provisions in the Confederate Constitution intended to prevent future conflicts from arising between States which have abolished slavery and those which have not. If slavery was "completely protected" by the Confederate Constitution, and the founding fathers of the Confederacy intended that the slaves never be emancipated, why would those provisions have been included?
4) Conlawyer states that the question of whether a State has the right to secede from the Union was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. This is not true. The said case mentions secession not at all. Like conlawyer,I encourage you to check it out...it can be found via an internet search.

Simply based on the laughable liberal's response I would like to ask him why he chooses to perpetuate his fallacy, but I fear there will be no reply apart from insults. To clarify to "conlawyer" I would like him to tell me why then if the South had enough slave labor was an unskilled slave worth hundreds if not thousands of dollars? Or for example why did many blacks fight alongside Confederate forces during the Union campaigns if they were the liberators? And if the war was truly about slavery, why then would the other 80% of the Southern population, who had no slaves or any vested interest in its survival, fight the war? Certainly if it was to "keep the black man down" they needn't have fought at all since that was the outcome due to this radical solution concocted by the GOP of which I am a part. Their solution, namely social engineering on the part of earnest Northern lunatics, caused more suffering and tragedy then a Southern victory ever would. As a person born and raised in California my bias is merely towards that of logic. A retort to my inquiry is much craved.

This book is how research should not be done! I am from Kansas City and know idividuals involved. Fleisher is not only biased but is completly unethical. He made promises that he did not keep and abandoned these kids when it suited him. I feel sorry that these kids trusted someone and were only taken advantage of once again. Very sad that this his "study" has been given any credit as being either scientific or even useful when it comes to gang intervention. If it would not boost his sales, I would recommend this book to any teacher who is trying to teach students what not to do. However, I would hate to see him profit off his exploitation of these kids.

If you feel the author of this book was irresponsible, then you have something coming. Go to college and understand how important research like this is. Then you will understand why is was important for him to preserve the culture in order to study it. The whole pretense of research, especially an ethnography, is that people trust you so you can study the truth and show your findings to the rest of the world. He found a lot in this research and this wouldn't have happened if he "told" on them.

The author handled the situations almost perfectly and I applaud him for that. Being a reformed gang member I was suprised that he even got these kid to trust him enough not to think he was the feds. People complain about how he allowed them to smoke and deal drugs but if he had tried to stop them he would have been dead.

I write this review merely to respond to allegations that Fleisher is irresponsible. First of all, before you make that claim, enroll in one sociology course. Research like this is vital to understanding how humans operate, and without such research (not just about gangs, but about many aspects of life) policy recommendations would not be accurate, and problems would not be addressed appropriately. Had Fleisher reported all of the crimes that occurred during his time there, his research would have ended. As it is, there is very little research done on girls in gangs. Second, if you had completed the book, you would have seen that Fleisher did have a friend report what he saw with Amy and RoniRo (p 247 -- second full paragraph.) Third, he didn't approve of the gang girls choices to sell drugs -- he said he understood it. Granted that is a choice that most people cannot understand, but after witnessing all that he did, how can you blame him for being disenfranchised?

Clearly, much more research needs to be done on girls in gangs, as this was a study confined to one city. But Fleisher has done a fabulous job explaining the motivations and lifestyles of girls in Kansas City, and purported to do nothing more. Before you so harshly criticize a writer, please make sure that you fully understand what you are discussing.

Fleischer desribes the awful conditions that these kids live in and then places the blame on the police, Division of Family Services, the Juvenile Court system, and finally the "entire community of Kansas City." He not only was irresponsible for his failure to hotline these kids, he actually condones their drug dealing. He said he didn't see any other option they had. Give me a break! There are four social service agency willing to help within walking distance of these kids and Fleischer never mentions that.

Overall, a poorly written book by an irresponsible professor.

I tend to read story collections in bits and pieces, but I couldn't put this one down. I read it as though it were going to save my life. It's that good--lyrical and funny and wise.

I disagree with the reviewer below. I found the interchangeable protagonists in most of these stories self-impressed, disconnected. In the main, the stories are overwritten and undersubstanced. In a few, like "The Guardian," the author shows what she can do when she steps back from the material. The result is a story that does achieve a Carver-like universality.

I disagree with the reviewer below. I found the interchangeable protagonists in most of these stories self-impressed, disconnected. In the main, the stories are overwritten and undersubstanced. In a few, like "The Guardian," the author shows what she can do when she steps back from the material. The result is a story that does achieve a Carver-like universality.

Writing that makes you stop every so often to sigh or to marvel -- stories that are always surprising. You know what the characters ought to do, you know what they want to do, but you don't know what they're going to do. You may think these are only stories about particular women trying to find their place in life, but as in the stories of Raymond Carver, you immediately care about these people, even when they're not "your kind" of people. Easy reading, fun reading, but most of all good reading.

I like boys as much as the next woman, and I found nothing bilious or bitter about this story collection. In fact, I was impressed by the author's ability to write wittily without veering into meanness. Although Ms. Frank writes coolly about her characters' predicaments, she clearly feels rueful affection for them. This is a good book.

Few have tackled the problem of atrocities on both sides of the Missouri-Kansas border disputes that preceded and continued through America's war between the states. For that reason alone, Mr. Fellman's work is worth careful study. It is a great resource for the historian but not an easy read for those who are not passionate about the subject. The content is invaluable and it is only the difficult reading that takes away from its overall rating. For depth of study, there are few like it and it is therefore very highly recommended for study.

The first book I have found that explains the whys and not just the hows of the slaughter that took place in Missouri during the Civil War. The author contends that, while most residents had pro-slavery sentiments, they were also pro-Union. Therefore, most of them were not pure enough ideologically for either side, and thus subject to punitive raids from both sides. I haven't finished it yet, but it is definitely the most incisive analysis I have read thus far.

This was a rather difficult book to read; not so much from any fault of the author, but rather resulting from an effort to comprehensivly cover a topic for which relatively little is known. I found this book provactive from an emotional point of view; the primary sources certainly make the reader appreciate the devastation that must have occured to the (not so?) innocent by-stander. However, the book suffers from a whopping lack of focus in areas, and becomes somewhat repetitive. In addition, the theses of particular sections are often obscure, as are the conclusions. Despite this, "Inside War" is a wonderful book to read, although I felt that it was stuck in a nether region between a descriptive listing of primary sources and a thesis driven examination.

I usually loathe any historical book which puts its subject on the couch, but this is a notable exception. Fellman infuses this book with his own spin on certain matters, but much of the interpretation is accurate! If you enjoy a "National Enquirer" approach to biography, then this is your bag, though a more intellectual, sobering and accurate analysis of events than a tabloid rag. Fellman delves deeply into Sherman's womanizing and the reasons behind it: Ellen, WTS's wife, was a passionless prig, obsessed with Catholicism and being the type of prim, straight-laced wife that Sherman would ultimately abhor. Can we blame him for repeatedly cheating on Ellen? Of course not.

There is a plethora of new information about Sherman's various affairs: he kept the handkerchief of one of his conquests after their rendezvous and wrote to thank her for the article. There are numerous excerpts from love letters to Sherman from his paramours and they make for some unintended hilarious reading.

Fellman is much weaker on the military end of the biography and his limitations show. There are numerous factual gaffes and the author is on safer ground when restricting himself to purely personal matters. This is hardly the definitive treatment of Sherman, try instead John Marszalek's biography (available on Amazon) for an exceptional and scholarly approach. But if you want a book focused primarily on the private life of Sherman, this nicely fits the bill.

This is a very interesting, useful study of mentalities in Civil War Missouri. It covers guerrillas (by which Fellman generally means Confederate guerrillas rather than Jayhawkers), civilians, and Union troops in all their various permutations.

I found Fellman's scholarship to be generally well-founded, though he is sometimes a little credulous of sources -- there's one case where he quotes an unsigned letter to a hostile newspaper as if it were good evidence for an event -- and he makes some mistakes with events outside his purview (misidentifying Early's raid on Washington as cavalry only). In general, though, I found the research credible.

What disappointed me here was the lack of conclusions. We have description, and some analysis, but the book seems short on results. Particularly in his analysis of the combatants' regular army and governmental reaction to guerrillas, Fellman seems to contradict himself: on the one hand he chastises the Confederates as elitist, perhaps prudish, for disapproving of guerrilla warfare, and on the other hand he makes every effort to show just how horrible such warfare really was. At times, he overanalyzes; I didn't find the characterization of Civil War Americans as "Manichaean" convincing. You don't need to be a Manichaean to dehumanize your enemies in a war.

Despite these quibbles, I found the book valuable, certainly worth looking at for the study of mentalities in a region where war was literally at every door.