Pacific University Books

My father served in the Southwest Pacific also. He very rarely spoke about what he experienced there. All I knew was he was in New Guinea and the Philippines. After going through his separation papers and old photos after he died, I learned he was in the 41st Division in the same places and at the same time as the author of this book. It was well written and described what the men of my father's and the author's generation had to go through. A true soldier's story from the "Greatest Generation".

This book is a brief, but solid memoir of a soldier who fought in New Guinea and the Phillipines written nearly fifty years after the end of the war. The battle descriptions are first rate and his prose is very readable. The author is honest in admitting when his memory of events is imperfect but the years have not dimmed much. The author comes across as a likeable guy who is rightfully proud of his contribution to the "Good War".

Excellent choice of well printed B&W photographs.
Aircraft, trucks, boats AND men from the Fifth; but also japanese people and weapons.
Haven't read the text yet, but already worth having !

Mr. Gallagher's book is the beautiful story of his experience in the Fifth Army Air Force. To tell his story (that of a simple communications officer), Mr. Gallagher has many personal photo's. While the text does a great job of telling Mr. Gallagher's experience in the Southwest Pacific, the photo's expand things greatly. Mr. Gallagher's photo's show the simple day-to-day life, the natives that helped, and a quite impressive listing of the aircraft used by the Fifth Army Air Force. Most importantly these photos are unique (I've never seen them prior to owning this book. My personal favorites are two with allied aircraft that have markings for the planes they've shot down. On has 5 Germans, 1 Italian, 1 Japanese, and 1 American, the other shows another ace's plane with 1 Australian flag. Also, the nose art is to die for.) and provide interesting insight into the war that took place in the Southwest Pacific.

Rating wise, for me this was a solid 4.5 star book due to the photo's. The down side was that the text is a little thin (but they're his experiences, not those of a historian bringing together many different sources). Because of the text being thin, I decided to only give the book 4 stars. Depending on which is more important to you, this book could be a 3 star book (if interested in personal accounts) or 5 star book if you're interested in the photo's.

It's a mystery to me why an experienced translator of Tolstoy chose Taras Bulba as an important project.He must have felt some regret at the novel's end,for here in precise and unvarnished English is Gogol's deep-seated hatred of all persons who do not fit into a dark and constricted view of Russian nationalism.In Hemingway,Jews are depicted as stubborn and unglamorous.In Gogol,they are vermin.Likewise,women are dismissed with a brusque wave (Gogol had no personal relationship with women in his lifetime).There is no character development in Taras Bulba.Indeed,Gogol has created such a narrow world-view that even his Cossack heroes are trapped in stereotypes of a brutal ideal.
It is known that Stalin was widely-read and he personally supervised the construction of a memorial to the author. The image of the Russian dictator reading Taras Bulba in the Kremlin should chill the thoughtful.

Peter Constantine's translation of Nikolai Gogol's Taras Bulba is the best I've read (although being the first translation of Taras Bulba I've read I may be a little biased) in that all previous translations seem to be lacking in verve and energy.

Constantine's version of Taras Bulba seems to differ also from other translations in that Constantine translates Taras Bulba's sons as sporting 'chub', a scalplock on an otherwise shaven head. All other translations (at least the ones I've read) translate 'chub' as sidelocks or "... long locks of hair on the temples...", much like the jewish peyots. Considering that 'chub' in Ukrainian means 'crest' it seems Constantine has got it right.

Anyway, I digress...

I recommend this version of Gogol's Taras Bulba to anyone interested in those land-pirates, the Cossacks, Ukrainian history and storytelling, and to anyone who doesn't believe religion can be made an excuse for thuggery and war.

This is probably the most unabashedly masculine novel I've ever read, chock full of bloodshed, adventure, drinking, feasting, carousing, bravery, horsemanship, swordplay and all manner of derring do, with hardly a woman in the entire story. Gogol depicts the harsh and brutal brotherhood of the Russian Cossacks with a romantic splendor that is fun and easy to read.

The book also serves as a great commentary on the lengths to which religious fervor and vengence will drive man.

If you're a teacher, beware of studying this novel, as it reads like a primer on prejudice, anti-semitism and even misogyny, and surely many parents will want to challenge your choice.

But that doesn't have to stop average readers from enjoying a great, old-fashioned adventure story.

Gogol gives us in this little book a romantic snapshot from Russian history. Essential reading for all lovers of Russian literature.

"Taras Bulba" is a magnificent story which portraits the life of the Ucrainian Cossacks who lived by the river Dnieper in the XVI Century. Taras Bulba is an old and hardened warrior who feels a little rusty by the lack of action. When his two sons return from school at Kiev, he eagerly takes them to the "setch", the camping and training island of the Cossacks. There they spend their time drinking and remembering old glories. It happens that the Cossacks are going through an uneasy truce with their Turkish hegemones and the Tartar horsemen. Taras Bulba, always the warmonger, harangues the Cossacks, engineers a change in leadership and leads them to attack the Catholic Poles (with religious arguments and some information that the Poles have shut down Orthodox churches and vexated priests). The Cossacks ride West, razing down everything they meet with extraordinary brutality, and they set siege on a walled city. It is there where the drama surfaces: Andrew, Taras's younger son, finds out the woman he loves is inside the city, and through her maid he learns that they are starving. He goes into deep agony, a moral dilemma, and finds himself in an impossible situation. I won't spoil the rest for you, but believe me this is one of the cruellest and bloodiest tales you'll ever read. It brings to life religious and racial hatred in all its crudity and absurdity. It reminds you of Tolstoi's story about the old Chechenian warrior, Hadji Murad (especially now that Shamil Basayev was killed). But even for all its brutality and sadness, it is masterful.

This book is a great resource tool. A fairly inclusive area guide with historical, geological and physical details. There are very few locality specific guides available for plant identification. This book has a fairly detailed plant section without falling into the text book category.

I purchased this book for helping us plan a 5 day stay in Stove Pipe Wells. Well worth the money spent.

This book provides a good general introduction to Death Valley, but lacks detail on hiking routes. If you're going to be hiking Death Valley, Michel Digonnet's "Hiking Death Valley: A Guide to Its Natural Wonders & Mining Past" provides better details. The Bryans' book covers more locations, but provides less detail on each.

We planned a week exploring around Death Valley based on this book. Not visiting the touristy places that you can find on any map, but exploring canyons that don't get nearly as much traffic. Maybe it was partially because the book hasn't been updated in awhile, but the descriptions of the places were wildly different from what we found on the ground.

This guy was a Superintendant there for a few years, and thought he'd write a book -- big deal. Coming out of one canyon where he described springs all over the place but we found only rock, we met some people who had another guide that was much better -- sorry that I can't remember the name. Anyway, my advice is to look around, and buy something else -- and something with maps in it, for one thing.

For a general introduction to DV and several of its scenic roadways, unpaved roads, and hiking trails, it's not bad at all. Of course, you always need a good topographic map(s) of the park as well, and the latest information from the rangers, as roads wash out, and trails become blocked or impassible. Only a fool would explore DV, even by car or 4WD, with only the tiny maps in a guide such as this.

While motor vehicle travelers can get by with plenty of water, a full-size spare, a recently checked-over vehicle and proper caution for remote areas of the park, inexperienced desert hikers would be well advised to acquire some additional knowledge on trip planning, equipment, first aid, and map reading. An excellent resource for this is The Ultimate Desert Handbook by Mark Johnson.

We picked up a copy of "The Explorer's Guide to Death Valley" and found this book to be a fantastic resource for our visit! The book is very comprehensive in nature, with detailed descriptions of drives along ALL the roads in the park. It turned out that during our visit in March 2005, a large number of the roads through the park were closed due to storm damage from this winter's record rains, so the book was truly a godsend in figuring out alternate routes through the park.

Another great feature is that the authors tell you pretty accurately the condition of the roads (most of the roads are unpaved), including such important details as washed out areas, how steep are the grades, and the like. We also really appreciated the details on what mining ruins were to be found at the end of the bumpy drives.

We found the information in this book to be very accurate and honest, helping us to decide what we wanted to see in our way-too-short visit to the park. This book is a great one-volume source for seeing the most when you visit Death Valley. Enjoy!

Great map of highlighted areas and pts to see. Just returned from a trip and the map is accurate, to scale and alerted us to a couple of interior island and coastal sights we would have missed with the conventional tourist maps - well worth the price and the vendor shipped it in two days to Rhode Island!

There are plenty of maps out there, this is the one my friend told me to get, he lives on Maui. My other friend and I planned to go biking on the Hana Highway, this map has lots of ideas for side trips, and close-up views of popular areas. Much more detail than the freebies at the tourist stops, up-to-date, colorful, easy to read, especially the topographical reference.

Please tell me that the price of this map has been entered wrong and that is is NOT really $99

This map and our Maui Trailblazer guide were essentials. Perfect combo for the drives we took circling this island.

A detailed map that we didn't use once during our visit. However, I suspect that if we lived on Maui or our stay was longer than 9 days, we may have used it to poke around into the back waters of Maui. For a short term stay, it's overkill.

H.P Willmott is a prolific writer of history, and I've read some other things he's written before this, especially "Battleship." I thought they were tough reads, but this one, um, "beggars belief." (If you've read the book, you know what I mean.)

I think my own views come down to three points:

1) There's nothing new here. I read history to find out something new, something I didn't know before that sheds new light on the subject. I saw nothing here that I couldn't have gotten out of C. Vann Woodward's 1947 narrative. (A 2007 reprint has just become available.)

2) This is a tough read. Really, really tough. As a couple of other reviewers have commented, there's no narrative here. This lack can make it hard to figure out what's going on sometimes, particularly if you're not completely familiar with the flow of the battle. Prof. Willmott tosses in a lot of Latin and French phrases (in British style) that I think unnecessarily breaks up the text. Worse are the run-on sentences, turgid prose, and repetition of tedious and annoying phrases, especially "beggars belief" and "by any careful consideration." Style can be an acquired taste, and I don't like the taste of this one. Apparently, "concise" is not in the cards, and the whole book reads like an outline that got filled in a little bit at a time.

Related to style, I found parts of the book like reading Henry Fielding's Tom Jones: a lot of noise around not much story. It needs SERIOUS tightening up, and a good editor could do that. Example: At one point, Prof. Willmott comments that while Agincourt had a Shakespeare play and Balaclava got a poem, the U.S. Navy didn't bother to finish their official history of the battle (insert derisive sniff). Annoying as that was, it took him half a page to make the point! Where was his editor?

3) There are errors. I'll mention two here. First, Prof. Willmott states that "The Japanese accounts, drawn from survivors, are definite" about the FUSO/YAMASHIRO confusion (p. 150). This is definitely NOT the case--Japanese sources are why there's still confusion about whether FUSO or YAMASHIRO was torpedoed early in the battle and subsequently exploded. If you read SHIGURE's action report, they say YAMASHIRO was torpedoed early, while MOGAMI's report says it was FUSO. (Tony Tully has a good analysis of this at combinedfleet.com.) Second, in the ticky-tack category, Prof. Willmott states that after the battle, a vital shipment of 40mm anti-aircraft ammunition arrived at Brunei (p. 226). This one's a no-brainer--the Japanese didn't develop a light automatic cannon in the 40mm range, like the Swedish Bofors, so there's no way a shipment of 40 mm ammo would do them any good. He probably meant either 25mm or 5 inch 40 cal, but I don't know which.

To sum up, this book is tough to read, somewhat uneven, confusing for the first-timer, has some errors that people familiar with the battle will catch, and has nothing really new. Obviously, some folks appreciate this style, but I don't, and I can't recommend it.

Let me first caution any would be reader of this book that this is NOT a combat narrative. This book is an academic study of the political and strategic events leading up to, during, and after the battle of Leyte Gulf. The purpose of the book is for the author to give his critical analysis of the tactics and decisions of the various commanders and the American effort in the Pacific itself. To those ends, and for only the most serious of scholars, I believe the author is successful. However, as an entertaining read for the lay history buff, this book fails miserably.

It is unfortunate, as this is easily one of the most compelling of all the naval battles of the Pacific theater of World War II. Other authors present the action in vivid and personal detail, but not Willmott. Here the actual combat is rendered in dry - I would go as far to say boring - and technical fashion. The author writes from a vantage point that does not put you in the middle of the battle; he write as if he is above it, looking down from his ivory tower. But perhaps that is what academic studies are all about. All I know is I found this to make for very tedious reading.

That said, if you're looking for someone to armchair quarterback the entire battle in an analytical fashion, all the while feeding you endless dates, times, facts, figures, and of course harsh critiques of everyone from Halsey to MacArthur, then this book is for you. But if you're looking for something that's actually enjoyable to read then I would suggest the following: for an overall picture of the battle and its ramifications, yet still with tactical detail, check out Afternoon of the Rising Sun by Kenneth Friedman. For a gripping and moving account of the action that reaches down to the level of individual sailors and pilots, check out Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors by James Hornfischer.

Willmott's fourth or fifth book on the Pacific War is perhaps not as groundbreaking as Empires in the Balance and The Barrier and the Javelin (both fantastic reviews of the early months of the war). And this is not one of those popular history seen and told through the eyes of the participants, like much of the junk popular trash at Borders and Barnes and Noble (Stephen Ambrose was the best known of this type). Instead, Willmott takes a long look at the strategic situation in the fall of 1944 with an especially welcome look from the Japanese side. Willmott does not follow the details of the battles but instead asks how the parties strategic and operational doctrines lead them to the battle, and how did the deal with the battle. Willmott thoroughly analzyes the options available to the decision makers and pulls no punches in criticizing many of the leaders. Willmott's style is not always easy to follow, but that is because many of his sentences are complex, as he tries to explain complex situations. I have over 1000 WWII books in my library and put this in the top 10%. I recommend it, as I do Empires in the Balance and The Barrier and the Javelin.

I spend a lot of time reading history, the majority (at least as of now) regarding the WWII era. Therefore, I was surprised when I found this book to be rather tough going. The book is a first class work of non-fiction, no doubt about that, but I must say that the writer's style is difficult. Certainly, the writing is not what I would call fluid or elegant, or enjoyable, or even just plain easy reading. Buy if you're interested in the Pacific War, but be warned that it will take a while to get through the book.

If you watch political pundints for the sheer pleasure of yelling back at the TV, this is the book for you. To call it annoyingly pedantic is overgenerous. The author offers little new research, but lots of new analyses. Unfortunately, he often dances around his analysis so long it becomes difficult to find his conclusion. Occassionally he takes the exact opposite approach by stating a concise conclusion without supporting analyses. Take for example the disembodied statement, that "...Kurita was the only person in the Pacific war able to make Halsey appear intellectually gifted."

The maps are too few and relatively elementrary. The photos you've seen a hundred times elsewhere.

The book does contain useful tables of formation compositions and overall strengths, and provides a solid basis for some points that are othewise vaugely obvious. An example here is the fact that a Japaneese victory at Leyte would not have changed the outcome of the war.

There are 4 good reasons to read this book. First, for the visceral pleasure of yelling back at the author in the middle of a crowded coffee shop. Second, for the intellectual excercise of discerning the author's actual point and then, as appropriate, building your case for why it is nonsense. Third for a few good analytical nuggets.

For these reasons, I found the book entertaining. However, Morison's volume XII, "Lete," is much more informative.

By the way, I didn't forget to list my fourth reason. I just decided not to tell you about it.

Lenin's State and Revolution is the most crucial analysis of the Marxian theory of the state and its relation to class struggle. Lenin was a revolutionary determined to reveal the provisional government's capitulation to the forces of imperialism and to revivify the revolutionary edge of Marxism that "socialists" had attempted to obscure. Lenin writes
"According to Marx, the state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another; its aim is the creation of "order" which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collisions between classes."
In Lenin's view, the aim of the revolutionary proletariat is to overthrow the state, and in turn, use it to redistribute the wealth and seize control over the means of production. The state will subsequently "wither" in time. State and Revolution is a powerful testament to the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as an excellent critique of the anarchists and social-democrats.

Considered a classic by most, "The State and Revolution" is a work of decisive importance to communist thought. The Marxist's conception of the state is expressed clearly and concisely by Vladimir Lenin, who consistently reinforces himself with the words of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

"The state arises" Lenin explains, "where, when and insofar as class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable."

If you are unfamiliar with the elementary concepts of Marxism, you may not be ready to read this book. It isn't a particularly difficult read, but the author assumes that you have a general understanding of Marxism. This was one of the first books that I read when I began to study communism, however, and I remember enjoying it thoroughly. It was easier for me to understand than "The Communist Manifesto".

If you haven't read "The State and Revolution" and enjoy learning about Marxism, then I highly recommend purchasing it, but I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the fundamental principles of Marxist thought beforehand.

Lenin wrote `The State and Revolution' as the task of achieving socialism in modern industrial society. He focused on the relationship between the state and classes both in the past and in the future. He asserted that the government and their subordinate agencies were not impartial in handling conflicts amongst classes. For him history was largely a record of class struggle and that the state in every society pursues the interests of the ruling class at the expense of society. The state for Lenin was a vehicle of exploiting the oppressed. No ruling class allows its rule to be abolished without armed struggle therefore revolutions should be expected to be violent. He professed the working class would have to engage in such struggle if it ever was going to gain power. The objective for this struggle would be for the eradication of all class based discrimination. After this privileges and antagonisms and conflicts, which they engendered, would be eliminated classes themselves would disappear.

Lenin affirmed the workers should dismantle the bourgeois state once power was seized; and then the state should be re-constructed after the bourgeois overthrow. The dictatorship of the proletariat would follow. An entire intermediate epoch would separate the destruction of the power of the capitalism and the inception of the fully classless and communist society.

He believed to rid the tyrants a violent struggle was needed. Contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx that socialist may be able to gain power peacefully. Lenin professed that the bourgeoisie state machine must consequently be smashed; this would be achieved with the removal of the standing army, the police, the civil service, the judiciary and the clergy. For him it was a campaign of through repression.

He believed that the freedom established in the freest capitalistic democracies was fully enjoyable only by the rich, who were not exhausted by the material and spiritual grind of poverty. Lenin contended that the economies of capitalism prevented most people from influencing the politics of any capitalistic society. Under socialism with the inception of dictatorship of the proletariat, the majority of the population would at least gain as distinct from purely formal enfranchisement. The majority would benefit from policies ending mass poverty and would take their unprecedented opportunity to engage vigorously in politics. The means of economic production would have stopped being privately owned. Lenin denied that the material equality was achievable in the first phase of transition to a communist society. The phase would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and would be typified by a pattern of wages rewarding individuals strictly in recompense for the work done by them for society.

I believe this is the best, concise revolutionary analysis of the role of the State ever written.
I find it very annoying that here in the US, while many students may cursorily read the Communist Manifesto in school, I have never once met ANYONE in my life who has read the basic works of Lenin except for avowed Marxists (and only a minority of these)....and being a Communist myself, I have asked several students, and often looked through university bookstores to see if any poli-sci or history professors would break the "no Lenin allowed" rule.
Consequently, there are many people on the "left" who pretend to understand Marx and/or Marxism, but still make the exact same errors to which Lenin here responded over 80 years ago.
For example, someone just this week argued to me than Lenin was "not a real Marxist" (!!!) because he "introduced" the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat", which was "alien" to Marx (hint: read Chapter 4 of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme for just one of many passages which prove this notion
totally false). State and Revolution gives many more examples of extensive quotes from Marx & Engels. One of the greates merits of S&R is that it restores the revolutionary essence to Marx, which was obscured and watered-down by the Social Democrat reformists of the 2nd International led by Karl Kautsky. Incidentally, the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been much distorted by capitalist demagogues and anti-communist "leftists" into something completely alien to its original meaning.
To all "Left academics" and others, don't assume (or pretend) you know anything about Marx or Lenin if you've never read them...If you have to be an academic "armchair radical", at least try to get the basic facts right instead of misrepresenting what they stood for...There's no shame in not having read Lenin (join the vast majority), but it's disgusting to just pass off what you've heard about Lenin from "bourgie" intellectuals as the truth (when the truth is those intellectuals never read Lenin either most likely).
There are not a few pseudo-Marxist fakers in academia, who do more damage to popular revolutionary understanding (in the name of Marxism) than do the outright enemies of socialism. NO WONDER these "Left" anti-communist professors don't assign a book like State and Revolution, they're still trying to pass off the same lies and distortions about revolutionary Marxism that Lenin and other genuine revolutionaries tear to shreds in works like S&R.
I dedicate State and Revolution to all the "Marxian" fakers who still try to paint Marx as a mere liberal humanist reformer, and strip him of his revolutionary essence.

V. I. Lenin wrote this book in 1917, while he was hiding from the Russian government. Lenin pointed out that "The question of the relation of the state to the social revolution, and of the social revolution to the state, like the question of revolution generally, was given very little attention by the leading theoreticians and publicists of the Second International (1889-1914)". He wanted to correct that oversight, and that is probably the main reason why he wrote this book.

"The State and revolution" is a very short book, well structured and not difficult to read at all. Initially this pamphlet was going to have seven chapters, but Lenin didn't conclude the seventh, due to the outbreak of the Russian revolution. In the postscript to the first edition he explains that, saying that due to the reasons already explained the conclusion of the seventh chapters would have to be put off for quite a long time, but that all the same "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the `experience of revolution' than to write about it".

The main idea in "The State and revolution" is that the State is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, and an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class (a "special coercive force" that rules through violence). The State of the bourgeoisie will disappear, but only through a revolution that will take the people to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat (the working class) will become then the ruling class, "capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system. The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians- in the work of organizing a socialist economy."

The dictatorship of the proletariat will be only a first stage in the path to Communism ("Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state"). According to Lenin, the necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with the idea of the necessity of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. All throughout this book, Lenin cites and examines Marx and Engels' writings, in order to explain and support his own point of view.

The importance of Marxism for nowadays world has diminished enormously, but I advice you to read this book nonetheless. It is certainly not a grueling task, and it will allow you to understand better some notions that many Marxist leaders believed with all their hearts. Ideas drive men, and men make history. "The State and revolution" will help you to get acquainted with some of those ideas, and that is not a small feat.

Belen Alcat

I believe that penchant for the moralistic (and add here more than a snipett of post-modern political corectness)from English-speaking readers has slighted judgements about this novel, which is a novel about people with sloppy morals in a time of sloppy political intrigue and sloppy moral standards offering a contrast with the philistine ambience of Thackeray's own age. I found the novel simply _lush_, and think that Hollywood has in it a treat in store for any filmmaker of genius who wants to emulate Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Get ahold of a copy and enjoy!

Although for some reason forgotten by the US public, "The History of Henry Esmond" is one of the finest books ever written in English language. May be it has lost its luster because it offers no excess of blood-spilling and sexual adventures, but instead finds its way to describe the deepest and most vulnerable chambers of the human heart. I have read a handful of books, be it in English, French, German or Russian, that described the human strengths and weaknesses while tying them to a character one can relate to with such skill. People who do not like it, it seems, are just shamed by the morals offered in such a book, and are quick to forget it. I read "Henry Esmond" when I was a young boy, and now, half a century later, it hasn't lost a beat.

This book has been called the greatest historical novel ever and I would agree that it is a really good book. The writing is clear, lively and beautiful, full of color. This is the first time I've read Thackeray and I really admire his prose. Like all novels that are close to 515 pages, the novel has some slow points, such as during some of the the military battles Esmond is involved in; or in the last part of the conflict between Francis Esmond the edler and Lord Mohun which is rather melodramatic. Sometimes the prose does get slightly unclear. The first few pages of the novel are rather unintelligible; I think Thackeray here was trying to make fun of the vapidly pompous storytelling of other writers of his age. Thackeray then indulges in some very confusing discussion of the family tree of Henry Esmond, but after this the story overall is pretty easy to follow and is full of some very interesting characters, Henry Esmond most of all. Don't worry about trying to grasp the particulars about who is related to who.

Thackeray throws at the reader a great deal of names and aristocratic titles and it might be hard for the reader to understand exactly who is who. Perhaps an introduction attached to the book would be useful for the reader to give a basic history of the noblemen and kings and princes whom this story portrays from late seventeenth and early eighteenth century Englund. This would have made the reading for me a little bit easier. The central event driving the turmoil described in this book was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when one Dutch Protestant faction of the British royal family invaded and overthrew James II who had given legal equality to the Catholic religion (or something).

But overall the story of this book flows very nicely and gives the reader a more realistic look than others might of British aristocrats during the period. A great many of the aristocrats portrayed here are dissolute, irresponsible and even brutish. John Churchill AKA the Duke of Marlborough is portrayed as somebody who while very brave in battle, will screw anyone high and low to advance his own material resources and has ever changing loyalty to anyone who will give him such resources, no matter what different political party or even enemy of Britain that might be. Esmond while engaging in pious rhetoric about military valor, mentions his disgust and alienation from the jingoist spirit in that that the battles in France and Germany he was involved in, usually ended with British troops engaging in rape and pillage, burning whole villages and crops, terrorizing helpless women and children, etc. One of the elector princes hanging out in France, was in line to become James III (or whatever number it was) if his sister Queen Anne would make peace with him and designate him as her successor. The whole Esmond family piously worships this elector but finds out when they smuggle him back into England that he is really a rather disgusting, vapid fellow.

Esmond's young lord Frank Esmond like his father is also a rather dissolute character. I enjoyed the blatant irony Esmond used in describing Frank telling his mother that he was very busy with harsh military engagements on the European mainland, thus he could not visit her back home in Englund. Frank was indeed trying to nock down fortifications in France and Belguim, but only the fortifications of hot young aristocratic ladies.

One can pick at little things in the novel--lack of clarity in some places, the lack of clarity of and the amount of time it takes the narrator to inform the reader of the exact nature of the secret told by the elder Lord Frank Esmond on his death bed to Henry--but I finished it with a great feeling of satisfaction.

This is a rich, complex, but ultimately unsatisfying novel about a young man of principle making his way in the corrupt and luxurious world of the 1700's English aristocracy.

Henry Esmond narrates the story of his own life, and the thing that sinks the novel is that he's always just a little too aware of his own virtue. He shows how venal, corrupt, and selfish all the other characters are, while refusing to admit he's secretly very impressed with his own demure Victorian primness. He's really Thackeray, the moralist with a guilty conscience, pretending to be shocked by the salacious 18th century, but all the time pandering to his own prurient desires.

The other characters in this novel all exist merely as foils for Esmond's virtues. His cousin Beatrice, as witty and seductive as Becky Sharp, is never given a fair break. Thackeray's man Esmond, while pretending to sing her praisies, actually hits her with every cliche known to man. Because she's clever, she must be evil. Because she's beautiful, she must be vain, and because she's vain she must be cruel. Because she has ambitions, she must be selfish. Never once does Esmond say anything good about her -- but supposedly he's heart broken when she rejects him time and again. It's more like, he hates her guts and revels in snitching her out behind her back. Esmond is supposed to be like loyal and loving Gatsby, and Trixie is his unattainable Daisy. But he writes about her like he's Nick Carraway sneering at Myrtle Wilson. It's not pretty.

Meanwhile, Esmond is debating whether to remain loyal to his family's heritage, and support the claim of exiled prince James Stuart to the English throne, or choose the winning side and support King George I. It would be a good dilemna, but Thackeray cops out by presenting the doomed and royal Stuart prince (who in real life was brave, generous, religious, and fair-minded) as some sort of creepy sexual pervert. Again, the Victorian Thackeray thinks he's being heroic by finding dirtiness in everyone and everything.

This book would have been so much better if it had been written by Sir Walter Scott fifty years before. Then Trixie would have been a real damsel, Esmond would have been a noble knight, and James Stuart would have been doomed but noble and good. Thackeray subverts the romance of Sir Walter Scott's historical fictions, but only in the meanest, most cynical way. HENRY ESMOND has less in common with IVANHOE and more in common with LESS THAN ZERO.

The History of Henry Esmond begins with the sweet Lady Castlewood stumbling upon the lonely abandoned Henry as she tours her new home. Her husband has inherited the estate and his illegitimate 11-year old cousin Henry, is fearful of the reception he will receive from the new owners. Will they throw him out? Treat him like a servant? When they instead embrace him into their family (which includes their daughter Beatrix and son Frank) he is overjoyed. What he slowly begins to realize (as he first becomes their almost-son, and later the de facto head of the household) is that this blessing is more complex than it first appears.

Throughout the book, Henry longs for a family, and although he is a part of the Castlewood's, he is also always an outsider. They come to rely on him because they know he will sacrifice more for them then any real son or brother ever would. With every page, the Castlewood family becomes increasingly complex - some relationships are strengthened and some are slowly destroyed in such subtle ways that when a catastrophe comes, it seems inevitable, and at the same time, surprising. True motives are hidden and twisted and everybody longs for a kind of love not given. Through it all, we have Henry's narration (although he speaks of himself in the third person), which casts a lonely and reflective tone over all the events. A beautiful book.

Like so many other ships, the USS Portland was one of the unsung heroes of the War. Author William Thomas Generous Jr. did extensive research yet correctly focused on the men, both swabbies and officers, as the real story within the facts. Personal experiences are interwoven with the larger story of battles and the War and sometimes with more personal analysis and opinion than many may think warranted, especially given the forcefulness at times. However, the reader will undoubtedly become attached to ship and crew alike as they progress further and further into the book. By the end, you want more, always the mark of a good book.
Steven Bustin, Author: Humble Heroes, How The USS Nashville CL43 Fought WWII Humble Heroes: How the USS Nashville CL43 Fought WWII

My grandfather TK Erickson served as a five inch gun "talker" on the USS Portland in world war two. He died in New Mexico about 15 years ago, and I've missed hearing his stories. In remembrance of him, I built a working radio controlled model of the USS Portland, but was never able to find any books about the ship.

When I ran across this book, I immediately had to purchase it. The book is a high quality, and it provides a true account of each battle star earned by the crew of the Sweet Pea. From the pre-war years when Portland escorted FDR on the USS Houston, to the final battles in the Pacific War, and finally the big Navy day celebration in Portland, Maine, this book lays it all out. My grandfather gave me a newspaper clipping from Navy day in Maine, and it was so cool to read more about that event, which obviously meant so much to the crew.

Like any other book about historical events, this one is not perfect, but regardless this book is a treasure as one of the few books about one of the most significant ships of the US Pacific Fleet in world war two.

A great book I cant say enough about it. When I came to the last page I was sorry the book ended.I wish there were more books like this.

"Sweet Pea at War" is seriously flawed. The author, William Generous, really knows very little about naval warfare of the period, with the result that his interpretations of events are misleadingly wrong. I'll give two examples:
1) Generous obviously has looked into the Portland's battle reports, but he does not have the knowledge level to interprete them correctly. In one, the commanding officer included a number of technical commentaries and complaints and suggestions from various crew members. Generous goes into a psychological rant about how this shows that the commanding officer was insecure, and how this reflected on his poor leadership style and why he was disliked by the crew, and on and on and on. Obviously he has not read other battle reports; if he had, he would have found that it was standard procedure for crew comments to be included in the reports, ver batim, when they were available. There are reports of AA actions that include the comments down to the seaman second firing 20mm guns. COs were instructed to sit their troops down and get written after-action reports from anyone with something to contribute - often not done because of circumstances, but still a required process. Thus Generous ends up trashing the reputation of an officer because he did not understand the procedures for naval after-action reports.
2) In one action Portland was off-axis from the line of approach of a Japanese air attack on a carrier. The Portland gunnery officer decided to put up a fixed barrage over the CV to deter / interfere with Japanese dive bombers. In the after-action report he claims that the barrage worked very well, and recommends that all CV escort ships follow the procedure. Generous then spends some ink telling the readers how this shows that the particular gunnery officer was so innovative and forward thinking and contributing to the advance of the art of AAA. This was, in fact, not the case. Barrage AA fire was an early technique borne of the lack of a good director. With the advent of the US mk 37, and good fuse setters, tracked fire was possible and more effective than barrage. The gunnery officer's "innovative thinking" was actually regressive. Generous does not know this; in addition, later in the history, when the Portland's gunnery officer again uses the barrage technique, and it fails, he is silent about this, ignoring the event, likely because it would undermine his previously-made case. Either we have a case where Generous picks out and highlights facts that support his positions and ignores those that do not, or Generous simply did not recognize that the later incident shattered his previously-made argument. In either case, we have a situation where the author really does not understand what he is commenting upon, something like reading a high-school paper on quantum theory.
There is lots of dross like that scattered throughout: Generous' analysis of Midway is sophomoric, and he continually makes editorial comments on things that just are not so, such as his statement that the .50 cal AA guns on the ship were replaced because they were "flimsy."
Given all that, you have to recognize what is available in this book. You are not buying Generous' expertice, obviously; you are buying the story of the ship, and the tales related by the crewmembers, **their** views and anecdotes and histories, along with the occasional direct quote from action reports, if one can assume that Generous quoted accurately, such as ammunition expenditure or AA aircraft kill claims.
From that approach, "Sweet Pea at War" is a worthwhile acquisition if you are savvy enough in naval warfare to separate the good from the bad, or if you are just looking for an interesting read on WW II in a cruiser mostly from the enlisted point of view. This book would be a worthwhile read for someone expert in naval warfare and the Pacific campaigns, but I would not recommend quoting the author on anything else, and I would not
recommend it as a casual read for anyone not an expert in the field.
Dr. Alan D. Zimm CDR USN (ret).

I am grateful for Generous' contribution of the details of the USS Portland and all the officers and men who served onboard her from launching to decommissioning. He is deserves praise for the efforts made to insure that those stories would not be lost to history. If he had just concentrated on this great task, I would have had no problem with his work. But he was not content with this. He seems to have taken this opportunity to project himself as a great naval tactician and analyst. It was bad enough that he proved himself nothing more than an amateur, but he did this at the expense of some great naval figures of the war. I, personally, cannot tolerate those who attempt to promote themselves at the expense of others, especially when facts are not properly researched or left out to accomplish this goal. His treatment of Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan, the Officer in Tactical Command (OTC) of the task force that met the Japanese at the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ("Night Cruiser Action") is the most blatant example of this. Generous seems to have had a grudge against this fine officer, who lived and died in the best of United States Navy tradition. He states that Callaghan "never had a major sea command before" taking on this task. It just so happens that he commanded the heavy cruiser USS San Francisco (a more prestigious command than that of the Portland) for a year before being promoted to admiral and being taken by the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief South Pacific Area. Admiral Ghormley had his choice of many who were senior to Callaghan, but chose him because of his competence. I would choose an admiral's evaluation for ability and competence over any academic historian of the following century. If, as Generous maintains, Ghormley was also as much a failure as he was, he would have sought out as his chief of staff one who he felt made up for what he lacked. Generous proved completely ignorant of the tactical situation that enveloped the days before this battle. He praised Rear Admiral Scott (well deserved) for his ability to train the ships in his force prior to his victory at the Battle of Cape Esperance. Generous leaves out the fact that Scott had weeks to accomplish this. He neglects to inform his readers that Callaghan only knew of his task and the ships that would be at his disposal the day of the battle. Escorting the supply ships and providing protection for them left him with no time to train or even meet with the commanders of all of his ships to discuss the strategy that would be employed. This was typical of the situations that confronted our forces at that time. While Generous again comes down on Callaghan for the placement of his ships, real naval analysis has never been able to come to such a conclusive conclusion. Generous, is so intent on destroying Callaghan's reputation that he also leaves out that he was killed in that action as a result of his not staying in the battle-hardened command and control station. He, as many other brave officers felt that they could not maintain proper perspective of the battle within an area that so restricted their observation. He died because he put his supreme duty before his personal safety. Generous exhibits such contempt for Callaghan that he even uses his receiving the Medal of Honor as a means of getting in a final stab. This is hardly what makes a competent writer of military history. Only his treatment of the crew of the Portland keeps it out of my trash can.
At the very introduction of the book I became concerned for what might follow when Generous admits that he had never even heard of the USS Portland until two years before he wrote the introduction. I knew then that the writer would not be of the caliber that normally writes on naval history subjects. Anyone who had not heard of the Portland could not have known much of the war in the Pacific. The rest of the book only supported my fears. I began to feel that I was not reading well researched material but what had been gleaned from interviews from crewmembers. This really comes out when the ship did not get a battle star for its one-ship raid on Tarawa in October 1942. He makes a major point of this at the event and then ends the book with a reminder of this neglect on the part of the Navy. Add this to his repeated effort to convince his readers that the turning point of the war was when the Portland played its most important role (where he blasts Admiral Callaghan) instead of the Battle of Midway. Both of those seem to be supported mainly from the tactical viewpoint of most sailors. There is nothing wrong with a crew seeing things as they do and judging events and their treatment from the perspective of themselves. But when a historian takes the same view, he misleads his readers if they are looking for the facts. He seems to think that a war's turning point is a tactical rather than a strategic event. This extends to the incident at Tarawa where Admiral Tisdale forces a cease fire before the captain wanted to. It is right for a captain to want to continue an engagement. But an admiral has a bigger picture of what the goals of whole operation encompasses. For Generous to imply cowardliness on the part of Admiral Tisdale is, once again, irresponsible.
After reading the first hundred pages, I reverted to just reading sections that talked about the ship and crew. By that time Generous had lost all credibility with me. By doing so, I enjoyed much of the remainder. As I said at the beginning, Generous is to be commended for his treatment of the ship and crew.

This book is a fine contribution, but does not stand alone and is in some respects incomplete.

It emerges from Harvard's Negotiation Project. If focuses on conflict resolution as a process that requires a checklist, an analytic toolkit, and an action plan.

The comment that got me past being a skeptic of this academic work:

"International relations should not be a spectator sport." The authors are right: IR is about your life and the future of all generations. Prior to 911 Senators and Congressman would brag about not having a passport because nothing oversees mattered to their constituents. 911 made their idiocy plain to all. See for instance, The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage).

They focus on points of choice, but overlook the point made by Howard Bloom in The Global Brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster and Smarter in a Networked World, to wit, by the time a generation is 30-35 years old, their minds, culture, everything is "locked in" and only force and persistence and waging peace can allow a new generation to be created from scratch.

I have two pages of notes on this book, so it is by no means inconsequential. I liked the part that illustrated how we think we are sending one message but in fact another message is received, one grounded in THEIR historical and cultural and current context.

They share the view that Greg Treverton taught me, that decision-makers are beset by multiple information and influence inputs among which secret intelligence is often the least important in part because it can be ignored.

The four quadrants of analysis are very general, but on page 83 there is an excellent list of ten different academic points of view and 10 different professional practitioner points of view, all of which must be understood and reconciled, and that alone moved the book up to a four.

There is a superb conclusion on morality, and the table on page 113 of seven ethical perspective to consider is righteous and worthy. I am reminded of

The Lessons of History: The Most Important Insights from the Story of Civilization
Understanding International Conflicts (6th Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science)
POLITIS AMONG ALL NATIONS
The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public, & Political--Citizen's Action Handbook for Fighting Terrorism, Genocide, Disease, Toxic Bombs, & Corruption

The authors end by listing four constraints:
01 Poor design of 3rd party activities
02 Limited staff, limited skill
03 Constraints on officials
04 Roles played by institutions

I am reminded of
Security Studies for the 21st Century
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It

There is no mention in this book of the impact of corruption, virtual colonialism, unilateral militarism, or predatory immoral capitalism. It is an essay with no bibliography or index, and thus limited to four stars, but certainly recommended.

At fewer than 150 pages, Beyond Machiavelli packs in enough ideas and advice to keep you busy for months to come. Fisher et. al. offer insights on how to better understand the people we are in conflict with. Also, Beyond Machiavelli shows us how to be able to influence people we disagree with, and how to legitimately analyze the situation to move towards problem solving. Regardless of what system or social structure you are in, there are ample skills that can be applied to face a multitude of situation. Though the majority of the illustrations in Beyond Machiavelli are from the political arena, the principles of the book can be used over a broad spectrum.

How many times we have been in a conflict with others may it be of a personal or business in nature. I find this text extremely useful in punctuating the loopholes and pitfalls to avoid in a conflict and means to manage it. When in a conflict we are always trying to send a message to the other party suggesting them that there is something else they should be doing. The text will help in the appropriate way to transfer this message across.

To identify the root cause of a conflict Fisher suggests that one must not be responsive but purposive. As an example when two children are fighting the adult who breaks them apart may ask "why" they hit each other. To this the most likely response may be "because he hit me first". But that response only explains the cause of the fight not its root cause.

Another key ingredient suggested by Fisher is keeping in perspective the situation and mind set the other side is facing. In a ball game it may be easy to not agree with a team change decision a coach has made. But understanding the dynamics and pressure faced by him, we are then in a better position to critique if the decision made was correct. If we had a chance him our opinion this added perspective can aid us to be sensitive to his situation.

Fisher believes that understanding how others view a conflict is knowledge that gives us strength. It enhances our ability to influence them. Through exploring and motivations leading up to a conflict we can increase our understanding of where their perceptions comes from.

No matter how much we disagree with someone we need influenced. It is extremely important that we maintain a level of dialogue; so that we may not push the party away and be faced with a situation we never wish to face. After the overthrow of the shah of Iran in 1979, the U.S unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the government for a hundred executions conducted by the new government. Ironically the U.S had overlooked the thousands of executions of political opponents done during the Shahs regime. It was in the best interest of the U.S to keep Iran engaged and maintain some working relationship to avoid Iran being driven to the Soviet block and preventing the hostage crisis.

This is not a book of answers and solutions to conflicts. The tools suggested in this book are intended to ask or simulate better questions. Better questions are not about who is right or who is wrong, or about one-hot solutions, but the process of dealing with conflicting views about right and wrong and for dealing with the inevitable changes that lie ahead. For e.g. Fisher suggests that instead of starting with the question "What shall I do?" you might want to start with such questions as "What would I like someone else to do?" and "What could I do that would make it easier for them to do it?".

Very decent book, with loads of good cases. It helps you understand the other side's position and options, and guides you to 'reasonable' negotiation.

If you liked Getting to Yes, you'll appreciate this one too. To me, this book is really about how to think clearly about complex situations. As the authors demonstrate, too often we don't think through the long term consequences of our actions. We react to the past without thinking how our actions will then be interpreted by those we seek to influence. Great book.