McDonald's Books

Toland is an excellent historian. He's put together a lot of different lines of evidence to insinuate that the United States was indeed aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. That's the gist of this book.

Does he prove it? No. There is no absolute evidence that proves FDR and the State and War Departments knew that Pearl Harbor was about to be hit. Toland's circumstantial evidence IS very strong, though, and if what he writes here is true (and he documents it all), then it is very difficult not to reach the same conclusions he does. I've always found it difficult to believe that, with the threat of war obviously hanging over the United States and Japan, we had no idea where the Japanese Navy was. But, again, there is no absolute proof, no documents that say "FDR knew." But no other historian, not even Prange, brings up the evidence that Toland does.

FDR apologists will hate this book. FDR haters will believe Toland has proven his case. Fair readers will wonder. Historians (and that's the way I make my living) will conclude Toland hasn't proven his point. Not absolutely. But he does do very good investigative work. We'll probably never know for sure what FDR knew or when he knew it.

John Toland was an excellent writer. 'The last Hundred days' 'But Not In Shame' are both excellent books and are highly recommended. 'The Rising Sun' is good, very good in spots but the author was already losing his objectivity, clearly and sometimes blatantly. Toland was 'spinning' the story i.e trying to protray the Japanese as good intended ( the war was anti-communist not really imperialistic, yeah, right)culturally indoctrinated 'wrongheaded'( beheading POW's fits into Shinto, how exactly?). Even then He was trying to shift blame over unto the Americans as if the 'poor' Japanese had been duped by the manipulative Americans into war. But this book is almost a farce, come on, Roosevelt would let 'His' beloved navy get massacred so the American Public would permit us to go to war to save Europe? Sure there were hints clues signs there that the 20-20 vision of hindsight of history allow us to say that they could or should have been picked up on. Read Gordon Prange exhaustive series of books on Pearl Harbor for the real truth about the attack. Or read John Costello's book 'The Pacific War' for a very objective and much shorter recount of 'they knew what when' game that Toland weaves out of discredited and, in some cases, imaginary bits of psuedo facts. A good summation from that book is "The Japanese didn't want war, they just wanted Asia. And they were willing to go to war to get it." Toland has clearly lost his ability to to distinguish betweens facts and 'belief as fact'.

Due to his impressive body of work including "The Last Hundred Days" and "Adolph Hitler," John Toland will always demarcate the gold standard in history writing.

Thorough going in his research, dogged in pursuing surviving sources for their versions of meetings and moments and recollections, Toland's work shows what really good history writing can be.

In this way, it should probably be equal parts troubling for Roosevelt supporters and detractors that Toland has taken up the gauntlet that Roosevelt knew and allowed the Pearl Harbor diasaster and that even with his considerable talents he still makes a case that in the end amounts to such thin soup.

Spoiler alert! Those wishing to let Toland makes his own case should pick up his book so that this author does not make it for him.

For those still reading, Toland's case essentially boils down to his assertions that US code readers had received and deduced the significance of a one line message from Japan being "East wind, rain." Apparently code for "war with US is on," the message -- according to Toland -- boded additional significance based on prior intelligence reports indicating the likelihood of an attack on the US.

However, and this where the devil gets into the details, one of those prior intelligence reports reportedly went to J Edgar Hoover, then FBI Director, who according to Toland, sat on the message without forwarding it to Roosevelt. Such a state of affairs would have been believable because, at least in one other World War II case, Hoover's FBI sat on potential evidence of Axis wrongdoing. Certainly, to be complicit, it would have been better for Toland's thesis if there was some assertion that Roosevelt himself had gotten word.

Toland's thesis also stops at the level of indictment and not conviction because even if his evidence is taken at face value and given the weight intended it by Toland, it still fails to make any other argument than that because Roosevelt should have known that he did in fact know and that because it seems like Roosevelt intended and intentional loss of US forces that he was in fact complicit in the purposeful loss of US forces.

Still the same, Toland seems incapable of bad writing and like his other works he manages to produce a story complete with almost novel like nuances and character development.

The only problem is that in this book he may have finally succeeded -- albeit inadvertantly -- in writing fiction.

I agree with those who have already noted John Toland's superior research and writing skills, which are very much in evidence in this gripping, masterful account.

But as a lawyer I wanted to highlight how enjoyable and fascinating are the behind-the-scenes accounts of the various Pearl Harbor tribunals, which pinned guilt perhaps wrongly on some of the accused. I was particularly interested in famed Boston attorney Charles Rugg's defense of Admiral Kimmel, and the legal tactics employed to best make use of the otherwise secret cables and testimony that Rugg assembled on Kimmel's behalf.

A great account, and an inside look from a master historian of WWII, this one is a no-brainer for anyone interested in WWII history.

John Toland has done an excellent job in punching holes in the U.S. cover-up about Pearl Harbor. While it is still unproven that FDR positively knew, it is becoming harder to believe he did not. The Japanese did not maintain radio silence as Toland proves, and Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" leaves no more doubt on this subject. Why people here appeal to the "authority" of Gordon Prange is beyond me. His stonewalling is simply unconvincing and written before much of the Pearl Harbor material was de-classified. Not to mention the fact that Gordon Prange was dead before his books were published! Or even finished! Ghost writers helped that project out. We'll know more when the government finished de-classifying. And if they have nothing to hide, WHY is so much material about Pearl Harbor still classified? The mere fact that Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet from its normal anchorage on the west coast to Hawaii in 1940 (over the objections of some admirals) has got to make you wonder too.

I have several reasons why I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. The first is the abusive and crude language. I particularly dislike books that rely on cuss words to express frustration and hate.
The second is that there is no redemption in the story. Someone has already mentioned this, but I think it's worth repeating. Gabriel, the main character, gets in with the wrong crowd of friends. They form a gang and plan to vent their anger against the people they hate by destroying things. Gabe is obviously very troubled by his conscience, and has many opportunities to get out of his bad situation. After his first theft, he could have gone to the police and made restitution for his crime when it was still small. Instead he keeps hanging around the others in his gang who he intensely dislikes. In my mind, I kept shouting, "You know where this will end up! Get out NOW!", but he never does.
In the end of the book, he is charged (as an adult) with lots of bad stuff that I can't recall. I was wondering what the punishment will be, but the book never says. In the end, the four main characters lives obviously are destroyed by their crimes, but there is nothing in the book about making things right. I only made it all the way through the book because I was waiting to see how things would be made right again.
Another reviewer, A. Luciano, says, "...they used that [anger] as an excuse to hurt others who hadn't done anything to them. There was no redemption for any of the characters at the end; there was no sense that any of them had learned anything or had grown in any way, or even that they had found peace." and I think he's dead on.
Very Depressing.

When Gabriel's family moves to a secluded area in western New Jersey, after his brother is murdered, Gabriel finds himself involved with three other teenagers in a series of increasingly violent acts. Each teenager has his or her own problems. Hollis is the leader and instigator of the most serious acts, and forces the others to remain involved in the group, or else.
This book should be for mature readers only because of the mature subject matter and the offensive language.

Gabriel is angry. His brother was murdered in the city, but his family doesn't talk about it. Instead, his father simply moved the family far away to a house in the woods in a tiny town. Gabriel's mother deals by spending most of her time back in the city, even getting her own apartment there. Gabriel's sister deals by changing her hair into an attention-getting style. Gabriel deals by spending every night in a small abandoned shack with three other high-schoolers.

Lydia's father is a paranoid survivalist who is convinced that his family needs to prepare to a massive attack. Therefore, he forbids Lydia to make friends and he refuses to let her learn to drive, wanting to keep her under his thumb.

Alec has always been in trouble, and has even done time for his crimes. He is obsessed with Gem, a girl who thinks he is incredibly creepy and tries to avoid him at all costs.

Hollis is very strange--he is an overweight and nerdy student who has skipped two grades and is on track to begin at a prestigious college at the age of fifteen.

All four students are lonely and have deep-seeded anger that needs an outlet. When they all happen upon the abandoned shack, they start spending time there together. Before long they are committing petty acts of vandalism. Then Hollis comes up with a plan for increased mayhem. The others aren't sure about causing the amount of destruction he proposes, but almost without them realizing it, he has gained power over the rest of the group.

I didn't have any sympathy for a single one of these characters. They seemed to think they had really good reasons for their anger, and maybe they did, but they used that as an excuse to hurt others who hadn't done anything to them. There was no redemption for any of the characters at the end; there was no sense that any of them had learned anything or had grown in any way, or even that they had found peace.

I suppose my major problem with the book, though, was that the author pointed out several times that Gabriel's brother had been murdered over a leather jacket. She then mentioned several times that Alec was wearing a leather jacket. I expected there would be a nice connection of stories. Instead, there was nothing. I was so disappointed that I expected this payoff that never materialized.

I understand that this book tries to reflect real teenager's feelings and that the ending is considered realistic, but I found Shadow People depressing. Four teenagers - Lydia, Hollis, Alec, and Gabe - start a group called Shadow People, where they plan to go out and release their fury on the unsuspecting town. I don't believe that the feelings and actions of the characters are accurate reflections of teenagers. Sure, we all get angry, but most of us do not blow up buildings because of it. When I read this book I was looking for an intriguing thriller, but the book is neither interesting or suspenseful. I wouldn't waste your time on it.

Shadow People by Joyce McDonald is a book I would recommend for young readers. It is very interesting and the format of the story is unique.

In Shadow People, Gabriel Hart is a teenage boy who moves to Knollwood, an urban town, with his family after his brother Ben was murdered.

He then encounters three other teens, Alec, Lydia, and Hollis, who share the same feelings as he does, anger, lonliness, and frustration. They all meet by accident but are all drawn together by a strong force which they can't explain. Each of them have their own seperate lives and seem harmless to other people, but when night falls they become violent. They destroy as much as they can every night.

However when Gem Hennessey comes into Gabriel's life she becomes all he can think about. She then falls in love with him.

Will Gabriel change his wild ways and chose a calm happy life with Gem or will he stay in his life of destruction with his new "friends". He will have to make his decision when one of his wild nights goes too far and he'll have Gem's life in one hand and his own life in the other.

Which will he chose?

This book was very interesting to me and I enjoyed reading it. I also recommend by Joyce McDonald, Swallowing Stones. That was also a very unique book in my opinion and I believe alot of people will enjoy her novels if they take the time to sit down and read them. They'll be happy they did.

Story:
Jean and Edward are your typical medical students circa the early 1800's in London. Having studied for some time at St. Albans medical school they have come to the point of having to do their own "hands on" research. Unfortunatley in this time there is no such thing as medically donated cadavers and they have to procure a recentley deceased body from the local "resurrectionist". They employ a local lad who does the deed but they notice that the body they received died by someone's hand and not natural causes. In an attempt to bring what they thing think is a common thug to justice, they track down the man that found the body for them and and find themselves in the middle of mystery that could leave them with a case of rigor mortis if they aren't very careful.
-------
To start off I did enjoy this book by the end of it. It was just the getting there that was the problem. The characters talk like they proably would have talked back them, very verbose, very big words thrown in there and a *lot* of speculation back and forth between the two main characters. The idea (and I'm sure it was the point) is that this is a slightly more moderen sherlock and watson, which can be slightly annoying sometimes when it gets to be obvious that Jean is the fast / smart one and Edward is the slow / everyman one. For the most part it works and there a bunch of twists and turns to keep the reader guessing and the last two chapters make up for the long road it took to get there. I would recommend this book to those who like the History in their Historical mystery books and for those like their mysteries to have a lot of twists and turns in them.
m.a.c

The Anatomists is a riveting mystery. The characters are well-developed, and by the end of the book, I felt as though I really knew them. The plot is unique and is also well-developed. I had a knot in my stomach, and was on the edge of my seat by the end of the book. I enjoyed The Anatomists from the beginning, and couldn't put it down until I had read the final page. The ending was more suspenseful than I could have predicted. I can't wait for the next book from this author! I hope there will be many more to come.

Well, "this" book had "a" lot of potential. "There" were "an" awful lot of "quotation" "marks" that had "absolutely" no reason "for" being there. "If" the author is really "a" professor of "English" ---- Well, I "just" don't know "what" the future "of" our young people "is" going "to" be. Besides that, the dialog just went on and on and on and on..........

I just happened by this one in the local bookstore and was so happy to find it exactly what I was looking for. It is a fast read and thoroughly enjoyable- I have now passed it on to my Mom who is enjoying it just as much as I did. We were big fans of Bruce Alexander before his passing, and I find this book to have the feel of a combination of the Sir John Fielding books and a bit of Sherlock Holmes. Along with Legard and Montague, I am really hoping that McDonald will bring back Jimmy- he's a good addition to the cast of characters.
More please... we're waiting. :)

THE ANATOMISTS was the winner of the CourtTv (now TruTv) "2007 Search for the next great Crime Writer" contest. This novel was chosen out of over 900 submissions. I think it's a very enjoyable read if you like traditional mysteries.

This novel takes place in 1824 London, and it's two main characters are medical students of that time and place. Back in those days, medical students were routinely forced to rob graves in order to find cadavers for study (shocking but true). During one of their robberies, the medical students discover that their corpse has been murdered. They devote themselves to finding the killer, and the rest of the nvoel is devoted to their investigation.

THE ANATOMISTS has an intriguing setup, and McDonald does a good job of keeping the story interesting. I also enjoyed his re-creation of 1824 London. The major downside of this novel is the somewhat bland characterization --neither of the medical students is particularly interesting. One of them is supposed to be a "Sherlock Holmes" type character, but McDonald fails to make him the least bit memorable.

Overall, this is a fun book, especially if you like the old Sherlock Holmes mysteries or Agatha Christie's work.

While I understand where some others believe this to be a wee pedantic, I believe this comprises only a small part of the book. On the whole the book is highly believable, the skewering of intellectualized misbehavior spot-on, and the humanizing of and, one might say, redemption of "Grover" is worth the price tag alone. Unless you are fond of dry police procedurals, you have to take some of these fictional detectives with a grain of salt to enjoy them -- sure, Flynn's world is idealized, else he wouldn't be Flynn!

I find this book to be the perhaps the most enjoyable of all the Mcdonald books I've read so far, and highly recommend it. You've got to read it, if you're a fan of Flynn.

Interesting to see Flynn back after all these years.. definately a more seasoned MacDonald, but not his best. I would think Wise Saws to finish off the time compendeum novels might be better, but last i checked that was onoy available in e-book, for a high price. This novel brought back favorite characters, but ended up being a bit too didactic (preachy). Buck passes Flynn was my fave, along with the original Flynn, and then of cause the intro to Flynn in Confess Fletch. Flynn's Inn being the most contrived..and hardly worth the print in my estimation.. no.. if you want more Macdonald.. i actually think he was at his best in his early days.. find some of the earlier prints, than this.. Safekeeping.. M.E. Love among the Mashed Potatoes..

This book was my first experience with the intrepid Inspector Flynn, who poses as a (sort of) police officer while acting as a secret agent for an unnamed international do-gooder organization. While I enjoyed reading the book, I'm not sure I'd recommend it.

If you are a fan of hard-boiled crime fiction, then this book ain't your cup o' hooch. It is not so much a mystery as a comedic political/social commentary that's been gussied up as a whodunnit.

The all-knowing and all-too-perfect Flynn must solve three different mysteries: (1) who nailed the ear of his daughter's beau to a cemetery tree (with the stoic boyfriend still attached); (2) who is threatening an old-school Harvard Professor; and (3) why is a wunderkind cop arresting only minorities? Ultimately, the answer to each of the mysteries is underwhelming and hardly seems worth the effort. The racist cop subplot feels particularly forced and out of place. It's almost like McDonald was trying to pad his word count in order to keep this from being a novella rather than a novel.

The real star of the book is the witty dialog. It takes some getting used to at first--the characters prefer to converse in olde-timey, Victorian-style dialog. I've never been to Boston, but I don't think that they talk like that. But once you fall into step with the rhythms of the speech, however, the book (much like the Fletch books) seems to glide along at a witty and amusing pace.

If you enjoy clever banter and witty insights (and who doesn't?), then you might want to give this book an afternoon of your time. If you're looking for a good story (and who isn't), then this book won't cut the proverbial mustard.

Unfortunately, this book is basically a political tract and not any kind of mystery. Even worse, the politics presented just reinforce my belief in how miserable this world is due to PC. To add insult to injury, the mysteries Flynn is trying to solve are trivial (essentially there for McDonald to wrap his politics around) and Flynn's wry attitude are taken to such an extreme that they go right past "two-dimensional" and into "one-dimensional" (i.e., the characterization are worse than flat). I suppose if you're a die-hard Flynn fan, you'll want to read this. But otherwise, I'd suggest staying far away: it's just too depressing to read.

Francis Flynn, Boston's only police Inspector anticipates another ordinary day--setting a judge straight on a police frame, getting fired by the police Captain, and involving himself with his family. He's surprised when his daughter rousts him to rescue her boyfriend--whose ear has been nailed to a tree. The boyfriend refuses to tell who nailed him and quits the wrestling team leaving Flynn with a mystery. A second mystery soon comes foward. A Harvard professor, once a star but now out of style, has been receiving death threats. Flynn is directed to look into it by his spy-boss.

Along with hapless sidekick Grover (call me Richard), Flynn learns that Harvard has gone downhill, descending into internal dissension and value-free studies. The aging professor's old-fashioned beliefs that certain ideas are better, that certain (well educated) people make better leaders, and that professors have a mission to teach are considered elitist and outdated. Especially by one assistant professor who openly mocks the aging don while letting his own children grow up in a value free and hazardous environment. Flynn's large family, by contrast, is composed of well behaved and nearly perfect children.

Gregory Mcdonald's writing frequently left me laughing out loud. Flynn's wry comments and sly digs are appealing and certainly anyone would like to have Flynn's perfect family rather than the horrible life of the assistant professor (whose wife, unsurprisingly, is a child psychologist). Still, I think Mcdonald carried his message farther than the story allowed. Age-tested concepts and ideas may be fine, but then again, infant sacrifice, female mutilation, and witch-burning are age-tested ideas that survived for generations. Age and survival cannot be the test of an idea. Since Flynn is naturally perfect, he could certainly be our Platonic philosopher-king but, unfortunately, Flynn is fiction.

Mcdonald tried to tone down his message a little by introducing a neo-nazi cop--apparently intent on showing that Flynn (and Mcdonald) are not the elitist white males that the young professor would make them. Perhaps Flynn's contempt for 'Grover' is also intended to demonstrate a general contempt for the less educated, regardless of race. I found, however, that Flynn's treatment of his assistant was cruel and undeserved as Grover had his eyes opened by spending time with the professor and developing a real humanity--something that Flynn doesn't seem to share.

It's hard not to enjoy a Gregory Mcdonald book. His writing is very strong and compelling. His wit sparkles. It's hard to put FLYNN'S WORLD down--I read it in a single sitting despite the lateness of the hour. But it left an uncomfortable aftertaste.

Is it just me or does the author seem to take special delight in seeing black come out on top in many of the lines he provides? He seems to be cheering everytime black is doing well and shaking his head with disdain every time white tries to create some fun and magic with the King's Gambit. I think if we pin McDonald down we can get a confession out of him "okay okay, I admit it, I hate the king's gambit! It has the giant balls that I'll never have!" Gallagher's book is much better, more complete from a guy who plays it regularly because he believes in it and it doesn't come with all the heavy cynicism.

This book is pretty brief in the lines it covers and it doesn't even cover many lines. McDonald makes the presented material clearly legible, but should have considered making an "Accepted" book and a "Declined" book. I bought this with book with the intentions of learning an opening that would stun my opponents right off the bat, but McDonald almost convinces one to try a different opening. The King's Gambit is meant to be an all out aggressive win or lose approach to chess and McDonald fails to emphasize this. At the end of most of his variations he gives unclear positions where it looks to me like black might even be better. If you are considering taking up the King's Gambit I suggest that you learn the Bishops Gambit (3.Bc4). This is an ultra aggressive variation that Neil reluctantly mentions in his book. If you don't mind sacrificing material for development then this opening is for you. I have used the King's Gambit successfully on several occasions and those wins remain as my most exciting. I suggest taking up the King's Gambit if you like exciting chess but do not recommend that you start here. This book is mostly for a player who is looking for a little more on a specific variation. This is not a good book to try to get an overall feel for the King's Gambit.

I agree with the other reviewers...McDonald simply didn't seem to find much excitement about playing/discussing the opening. His basic assessments were usually favorable towards black in the critical lines - even in some of the lines that Joe Gallagher judged good for white. A few times in these spots he would only leave a "I prefer black" backed by no analysis.

What's also disappointing is that when white did reach a difficult position, McDonald offered no real possibilities for improvement. It's as if he had given up long ago, and was merely documenting his reasons to abandon the opening.

It was fun seeing some of Gallagher's opinion about the new lines for black in Nunn's Chess Openings. In fact, there were more new ideas for white in three pages of numbers (albeit with no analysis) than there were in the whole of McDonald's book.

That said (and I'm obviously biased as a proponent of white in this opening), there was some decent analysis and some enjoyable games used. McDonald also resisted the temptation to copy many games from Gallagher's earlier book so it does get a rating of 3 stars from me. It probably deserves fewer, but I eat up anything about this opening.

Well, there are some good things here; the explanation of the ideas behind Shirov's 5. . .d6 in the Kieseritsky gambit sticks out in my mind as very helpful. But McDonald just isn't a romantic; he's one of those guys who, if he's playing say a Modern defense, erects a light-square blockade, trades off the QB for a N, and hangs on for dear life. This book betrays similar instincts. Far from stirring up your enthusiasm, it is actually in danger of convincing readers that the KG is unplayable! And it isn't. Oh ye of litle faith!

This provides an interesting update on the opening. Contains reasonably good descriptions of various lines as illustrated by latest games played by top players, but still cannot remove the general doubt that the King' Gambit is quite over-ambitious and risky in modern times.

I thought the book was good and didn't follow the normal formulate. Very dark and depressing. The only fault I found was that it was badly written. There were places where there was no period to mark the end of a sentence so that it seemed two sentences were one. This required me to go back and reread it as two sentences. I noticed these strange punctuation problems throughout and found it suprising since I've heard of other works by this author (Like FLETCH). There was one part where (I think) it was PICK spelled as PIKC. The story is good one but I was wondering while I was reading this if there was an editor for the book or if some company just took the author's first draft as is and printed it as a book.

This book was awful in every way - dry, boring, short, flat characters, predictable - simply awful.

I read this book because I'm a big Fletch fan, and wanted to read more of Gregory McDonald. But I just cannot understand what happened to this author. The Fletch & Flynn books were full of snappy dialog, interesting plot twists, gripping mysteries. This book had none of that.

I do not agree with the other reviewers, that this was brutal and not for the faint of heart. Sure, one chapter discussed "snuff" films, but it wasn't any more gory than your average Mel Gibson movie. Not to mention, the violence that was included (in chapter 3) was really unnecessary. I think he might have been trying to make a social statement about poverty, but if that's the case, why choose such an obscure topic as victims of snuff films?

This was far from gore or horror - unless you're very sheltered. Also, I have not seen the Johnny Depp movie - in fact, I'm a huge Depp fan but had never heard of this movie before picking up the book. I suppose I will check out the movie - it received two positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But this book was a real snooze.

Not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach.
I picked it up while browsing at a bookstore. I didn't "get" what it was about until it was too late. I had never heard of snuff films before and this was a very rude awakening. After I ran to the restroom to throw up (no kidding) I had to skim the book to see how it ended. I was disappointed at the tragic, sad ending. I cried. I was appalled to find out that human beings could do such awful things to one another. This book was a real shocker for me and I am actually sorry I ever picked it up, because those vivid memories have never left me. Had I understood what the subject matter was, maybe I wouldn't have mistakenly subjected myself to those ideas.
There is enough evil in the world already- I advise you to leave this book alone and find something more uplifting. If you miss this book, it is no big loss. If you read it, don't complain about the emotional trauma you experience, because you have been warned, and once you read it you cannot undo the damage. If you have ANY kind of depression do NOT read this book!! It is beyond sad, beyond tragic. It is truly sickening and wrenching.

Is a masterpiece! It can be found on DVD on Ebay for reasonable prices. Not to be missed.

The usually fast-paced, light-on-his-feet, full of sarcasm McDonald undergoes a complete transformation here. After FLETCH, FLYNN and their offspring, I would never have expected such a wrenching and UNHAPPY book to come from this writer. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy McDonald's work. I stumbled across this book in a remainder bin and snapped it up. Read it basically in one sitting at an airport...it's a slight book, like all his others.

It is indeed wrenching. As others have said, the chapter running down the horror's our hero will endure prior to being "snuffed" on film is horrific. McDonald succeeds in making us see the world through the eyes of this EXTREMELY simple man...a man for whom life has not held any pleasure in a long, long time. We realize, even as our protagonist does not, that his family isn't going to get all the money they've been promised. His tiny glimmers of hope for a better life WILL NOT COME TO PASS, and that's the real tragedy of the story. We can almost understand how he could lay down his life for his family, with the hope of providing them something better. But to understand that this hope will be in vain and that his family will be WORSE off after he's gone makes the story almost unbearable.

There's another scene that sticks with you. The producers of the film give the Brave (he's got Indian blood...hence he's a "brave"), a little bit of money in advance, and he takes the family on a painful shopping trip to a bargain department store (like a Wal-Mart). For them, it's like giving us $10,000 bucks to spend at the Mall of the Americas. But imagine spending that money knowing you will be tortured to death soon!!!

This is not an easy book. But I can pretty much guarantee you won't have read anything like it before. I can't imagine what inspired McDonald to write a book with such a wretched world view (the life of poverty he describes for The Brave and his cohorts is squalid beyond belief), but for a few hours, we're sucked into it nonetheless. Give the book a try, if you can find it, but keep it away from the kids!!

(By the way, Johnny Depp made his directorial debut with the film version of THE BRAVE. Apparently the movie was awful...not worth a release, even. It goes for very high prices on ebay now. I'd love to see it!)

This is an admirable biography of an important figure. Cottret opens up a world to readers and takes them for a tour of Calvin's life. Reading this was pleasurable because it opened up 16th c. Geneva and, as far as is possible, portrayed a very human John Calvin. My only negative issue with this book is the prose. Perhaps it's because of French styles of narrative. It read as though one were having a conversation. So, given the book's good qualities that such a style lends--warmth combined with good scholarship--, it was not tightly conveyed, thereby dropping the prose into a style of loosely strung thoughts at times. However, the book's good qualities outweigh such criticism. The scholarship is excellent and the subject is examined with care, presenting truly a portrait.

This is the fourth book I have read on the subject of "The Refomation" (two books by that title), then Luther, now Calvin. Since Calvin did not write much about himself and not a lot is know this book concentrates on the folks around him that incluenced his style. The most interesting revelation in reading all these books is that the three primary "influencers of opinion" during the Reformation, Erasmus, Luther and Calvin were not priests but primarily humanist academics. Some speculate it was the printing press that was the most important factor with ELC providing content.

Cottret does give an abundance of interesting historical and biographical detail, his description of the early years of reform in France (e.g., the affair of the Placards, 1534) is wonderful, and his portrait of Geneva is fascinating (Parts I and II of the book). But when it comes to Calvin's theology (Part III), he does a shockingly poor job.

In treating Calvin's theology, Cottret deals first, and at rather greater length, with Calvin's polemical works and sermons (chapters 12-13), and only then does he turn to a brief analysis of the Institutes (chapter 14). Cottret thus gives to an apparently random sampling of Calvin's occasional pieces (especially the treatise On Scandals, 1550) greater interpretive weight for Calvin as a theologian than to Calvin's life-work of systematic theology. This is absurd. What's worse, we get no real consideration of Calvin's theology as expressed in his commentaries. Does Cottret think that, because he is portraying `a historian's Calvin' (p. x), and not a theologian's, he can simply ignore this source? What's still worse, when Cottret does finally get to the Institutes, he totally arbitrarily, without explanation, and against the entire consensus of Calvin scholarship, selects as his basis of exposition the 1541 French edition as `the most significant version during the Reformer's lifetime' (p. 311)! Never mind that Calvin himself continued to refine this work through 1559-60, and that these final editions of the Institutes (not that of 1541) were the standards that fed subsequent Reformed theology.

When Cottret does speak of Calvin's theology from the Institutes (and elsewhere), he is surprisingly clumsy and extremely condescending. According to Cottret's Calvin, the Old Testament patriarchs have `a right to salvation' (p. 317). A right to it? Can anyone so grossly misunderstand Calvin's soteriology as to speak of human `rights' before God? (But perhaps this is just a very poor translation.) In Cottret's estimation, `"election," "faith," "vocation," and "conversion" are practically equivalent' in Calvin's theology (p. 322). Well, that just simplifies everything, doesn't it? Calvin, we are assured, was never fully convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is exegetically warranted (308), and his disagreement with other Protestants over the nature of the Lord's Supper `was linguistic before it was theological' (340). Eh? Calvin's commentaries (look no further than that on the Prologue to John's Gospel) are by no means lacking in trinitarian confidence (or did Cottret check these?), and simply because Calvin debates the meaning of words does not make the debate a matter of linguistics. We learn that, in his entire teaching about predestination, Calvin was `not wise', but was `carried away by polemics and his authorial vanity'; moreover, he took a `malign pleasure' in this `system of death' (p. 322). `Poor Calvin, a victim of his system' (p. 323)! One may certainly disagree with Calvin's doctrine of predestination, but so to caricature both the doctrine itself and Calvin's intention in teaching it hardly counts as good history.

As a final example of Cottret's carelessness and doctrinal confusion, take his statement on p. 337: `Calvin's Christ is "at the same time the God who elected and the man who was elected."' Cottret footnotes here Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics II/2, p. 1 (in the French edition-no thanks to the translator). Apparently, Cottret thinks that, because Barth is classed as a Reformed theologian, what Barth says must be what Calvin said. In fact, Barth chastises Calvin on precisely this point, that Calvin saw Christ as the prototype of elected man, but did not see the implications of the fact that Christ is also the electing God (see, for example, pp. 110-11 in the English edition of Barth's Church Dogmatics II/2). If Cottret had perhaps read Barth's preface, he might have caught the following hint: "I would have preferred to follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically" (p. x). So not only does Cottret think he can make statements about Calvin's theology with no reference whatsoever to Calvin himself. He also thinks he can glance over a few pages of a recent work of `Reformed' theology and assume he's getting pure Calvin. This is inexcusable negligence.

Yes, Cottret does give an abundance of interesting historical and biographical detail, his description of the early years of reform in France (e.g., the affair of the Placards, 1534) is wonderful, and his portrait of Geneva is fascinating (Parts I and II of the book). But when it comes to Calvin's theology (Part III), he does a shockingly poor job.

In treating Calvin's theology, Cottret deals first, and at rather greater length, with Calvin's polemical works and sermons (chapters 12-13), and only then does he turn to a brief analysis of the Institutes (chapter 14). Cottret thus gives to an apparently random sampling of Calvin's occasional pieces (especially the treatise On Scandals, 1550) greater interpretive weight for Calvin as a theologian than to Calvin's life-work of systematic theology. This is absurd. What's worse, we get no real consideration of Calvin's theology as expressed in his commentaries. Does Cottret think that, because he is portraying 'a historian's Calvin' (p. x), and not a theologian's, he can simply ignore this source? What's still worse, when Cottret does finally get to the Institutes, he totally arbitrarily, without explanation, and against the entire consensus of Calvin scholarship, selects as his basis of exposition the 1541 French edition as 'the most significant version during the Reformer's lifetime' (p. 311)! Never mind that Calvin himself continued to refine this work through 1559-60, and that these final editions of the Institutes (not that of 1541) were the standards that fed subsequent Reformed theology.

When Cottret does speak of Calvin's theology from the Institutes (and elsewhere), he is surprisingly clumsy and extremely condescending. According to Cottret's Calvin, the Old Testament patriarchs have 'a right to salvation' (p. 317). A right to it? Can anyone so grossly misunderstand Calvin's soteriology as to speak of human 'rights' before God? (But perhaps this is just a very poor translation.) In Cottret's estimation, '"election," "faith," "vocation," and "conversion" are practically equivalent' in Calvin's theology (p. 322). Well, that just simplifies everything, doesn't it? Calvin, we are assured, was never fully convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is exegetically warranted (308), and his disagreement with other Protestants over the nature of the Lord's Supper 'was linguistic before it was theological' (340). Eh? Calvin's commentaries (look no further than that on the Prologue to John's Gospel) are by no means lacking in trinitarian confidence (or did Cottret check these?), and simply because Calvin debates the meaning of words does not make the debate a matter of linguistics. We learn that, in his entire teaching about predestination, Calvin was 'not wise', but was 'carried away by polemics and his authorial vanity'; moreover, he took a 'malign pleasure' in this 'system of death' (p. 322). 'Poor Calvin, a victim of his system' (p. 323)! One may certainly disagree with Calvin's doctrine of predestination, but so to caricature both the doctrine itself and Calvin's intention in teaching it hardly counts as good history.

As a final example of Cottret's carelessness and doctrinal confusion, take his statement on p. 337: 'Calvin's Christ is "at the same time the God who elected and the man who was elected."' Cottret footnotes here Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics II/2, p. 1 (in the French edition -- no thanks to the translator). Apparently, Cottret thinks that, because Barth is classed as a Reformed theologian, what Barth says must be what Calvin said. In fact, Barth chastises Calvin on precisely this point, that Calvin saw Christ as the prototype of elected man, but did not see the implications of the fact that Christ is also the electing God (see, for example, pp. 110-11 in the English edition of Barth's Church Dogmatics II/2). If Cottret had perhaps read Barth's preface, he might have caught the following hint: "I would have preferred to follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically" (p. x). So not only does Cottret think he can make statements about Calvin's theology with no reference whatsoever to Calvin himself. He also thinks he can glance over a few pages of a recent work of 'Reformed' theology and assume he's getting pure Calvin. This is inexcusable negligence.

Calvin has long been misunderstood and misrepresented! The author portrays the man as a mortal, and as a sincerely devoted Christian. His teachings are still as clear and wise as the day they were written. John Calvin was a genuine saint and this biography really does him justice. Thank goodness for biographers who care to objectively and accurately portray their subjects!

There seems to be a tendency toward anachronistic uses of terms such as "canon," "scripture," and "tradition." It seems a particular malady from the perspective of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone). So eager are they to hold fast to their views that they find it difficult to accept any historical evidence that would weaken that view. Professor McDonald seems to have avoided most of those anachronisms. But his honest and detailed study may raise the ire of some fundamentalists who seem to favor pet doctrines over objective truth.

Though one should supplement this work with others like, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible or the work of another Protestant scholar, A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future). In addition, the astute student should also take the time to study two works from Dr. Scott Hahn: Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy for an overview of the importance of liturgical use in the formation of the canon, and The Bible Alone for the most biblically sound treatment of the sola scriptura doctrine. In addition, the classic work, The Meaning of Tradition would be very highly recommended.

Overall a fair and balanced study.

McDonald's "The Formation of Christian Biblical Canon" should be on every bookshelf. McDonald has provided a well-documented history of how several OT and NT canons were filtered before the presently accepted canons came into being after several centuries. Many will be surprised to learn there were several different canons in use by early Christians, and that the Scriptures of the apostolic era were more inclusive than those ultimately selected for inclusion in modern Bibles.

McDonald's book provides an excellent overview of the topic at hand. Reads a lot like a textbook, which I suppose is how it's often used. He does a very good job of bringing in all appropriate evidence, but staying very methodical in his assessments and in getting his points across. You'll probably wish for more depth in some areas, less in others, but this book should at the very least point you in the right direction toward more in-depth research.

Perspective is always important when you're talking about books on this subject. The field seems to be dominated by highbrow apoligists (like Metzger and Bruce), whose glossing over of problematic (to the orthodoxy) canonical issues makes for limpwristed scholarship, or by the more deconstructionist liberal school of the Jesus Seminar and such. Motives and scholarship often become difficult to differentiate. McDonald, however, is a Baptist minister, and a scholar, and, in my opinion gleaned from this book, he wears both hats with aplomb and distinction. Hard core fundamentalists (like a previous reviewer) may find his conclusions troubling. I'll let McDonald respond in his own words, from the last paragraph of his "Final Thoughts":

"My aim in this study has not been to destroy the church's Bible, as if that could be done, but to bring some light to the often dimly lit corridors that led to the formation of our Bible and, in that process, to remind the reader of the true canon of faith for the church: our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is still the church's book without which the Christian faith would be a blur. I believe that a careful study of the biblical message in its historical environment and in the community of faith where it was first acknowledged as scripture and canon will prove invaluable to the church. Lessons learned from this approach will not only free the church from inappropriate loyalties but also will help the church to focus more clearly on the true object and final authority of its faith: Jesus Christ."

Perhaps the book might be more aptly named "Doubter's Guide to the Bible". He not only puts forward many of the more radical modernist theories, he basicly puts his stamp of approval on most of them. For example, that Paul didn't write the Pastoral epistles, and many of his other epistles like Colossians, Ephesians and others are also doubtful. That John didn't write all the books in his name. That neither did Peter write 2 Peter, or James write James, perhaps Jude either.

Furthermore, that the bible does by no means present a coherent consistant theology. Rather every book has a somewhat different theology that can't be reconciled. Rather we have to prioritise the more important ones. Furthermore, we need to read the gnostic writings to really get as close as possible to what Jesus actually taught.

I suppose if you want to know what the modernists are thinking, this gives some insight, but is this the Christian point of view?

Very well written. Indepth, with plenty of references.
May be a hard read for the novice though.

I purchased this book because of a cruise I will be taking in the fall. I was looking for background on all the countries I would visit in Europe. This book has nothing on Poland--only listed on the map. Otherwise I felt there was a lot of excellent information.

I know it's difficult to discuss and review all of Europe in one book, but this book was boring. It was easy to read, but not very fun or interesting. It did hit the highlights of the major sights, but it acts more like a reference than an exciting guide.

A good travel guide. Read it before you go and it will save you time and money

Def not a good book for those who don't like to travel to just the big cities. It has a basic synopsis of 2-3 major cities in each of the countries. It mostly focuses on hotels and restaurants instead of sights. A better book to buy is Lonely Plants On a Shoestring, it at least gets cities that aren't complete tourist attractions and gives you some sights to see. It's sad that I now have to buy a book specifically for each country that I'm going to visit and so far that's gonna be over 7 books to tote around. Def save your money and do internet research or get lonely planets book

Gave this as a gift to a friend who traveled Europe for 3 months on a study abroad program with her college. She used it every step of the way. Some people just don't think to buy something like this for traveling because they don't know that it even exists!

Just returned from a 2 month trip using the 2002 guide. I found the recommendations for the restaurants to be excellent. After realizing that the Frommer's writers and I had the same tastes, I made it a point of seeking out all of their 'starred' recommendations for restaurants. The sightseeing descriptions and recommendations were also quite good. The hotel recommendations were not as good. A few of the hotels we stayed in that were not 'starred' or listed as a 'Find' were not as comfortable as hotels in other books.

We traveled with this Frommer's, Rick Steves, Lonely Planet and Rough Guides through France, Belguim, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Italy. We liked Rick Steves' recommendations for lodging, Frommer's for restaurants and both for sightseeing. Lonely Planet and Rough Guides were not used if in a Frommer's city. If in a Rick Steve's city (but not Frommer's) we used Lonely Planet for restaurant recommendations (not as good a Frommer's but better than Rick Steves).

Background: Two travelers, professional, early 30s with enough money to stay out of the hostels, but did not want to blow the bank of 5 star lodging. Rick Steve's packing philosophy. Both traveler's love to eat!!

Coming from a person who thought that I was against travel guides, Frommer's was great. The restaurants were tasty and their descriptions were accurate, and the general information and tips about each city were very helpful. Often it was useful to have hotel information in the book so that you could call ahead of time from another city and make a reservation. I am a 22 year old semi-budget traveler, and many other young travelers that I talked to were disappointed with Lonely Planet.

I have had mixed results with Frommer's books. I like their maps and guides to attractions... BUT... The hotels they recommend in the lower end category often fall short. I especially did not like their recommendations for Rome.

The book has a great layout but the hotels need to be rechecked. I would make sure to balance this book with another guide like Karen Brown's or Fodor's... I make sure any hotel I stay in has a good rating in at least two sources....

Thorough, Comprehensive and well-put together.

From all the travel books out there on Europe this one is not a compilation of mere facts, photos, phone numbers and page-fillers.

What sets Frommer's apart is the information provided and the style in which is presented. You will find lodging options for various budgets, a list of most important sites to see and even suggested ways to spend time in a city if you have only 1 day or as much as 5 days, great places to eat and great places to splurge if you can stretch your dollar. Be aware that this is not a book for the ones on a shoestring budget. Frommer provides a good introduction to Europe without being overloading you with mass amounts of information or pictures, a truly well-balanced book.

When I backpacked 4 months through Europe I had a copy of the Lonely Planet for Europe (a thick and heavy book) because it covered more cities and esoteric towns, a ripped chapters of all the international youth hostals Europe of the countries I visited, and as primary guide for nominal cities and capitals I used Frommers (ripped the book and kept only chapters of countries planning to visit - so I can keep the weight down).

I recently returned from a 3 month tour of Europe and took this book with me. While it did have a number of major European cities in it the actual information about them was definetly lacking. I found my self usually better off with out a book at all as opposed to only having this one. Several other travelers we met felt the same way and some were lucky enough to have Lonely Planet guides. For the money spent I'll stick to them or Rick Steves in the future. i.e. This book would take you to the train station/ subway but then fall short on what the heck to do to get a ticket!!! Which is important information stranded in 20 different stations/ subways a month each with different customs. Frommer's did do an excellent job of pointing out all of the gay and lesbian districs and bars in each city and the gay friendly hotels and shops... but they also have a strickly gay guide to Europe as well. The amount of space used for this information could have been better allocated for more pertinent information. I'll have to give a thumbs down on this book. Take something else with you or take nothing at all.