Oklahoma Books

I've just finished Marks' book and was very impressed. The readers who will most appreciate the book are those with a researcher's heart, who aren't looking for simple good and bad, right or wrong but simply wanting to sift through as much of the available information as possible in one place and come to their own conclusions. For those who have already made up their minds about the characters involved, find a different book that suits what you wish to see.

As with any historical event with multiple witnesses, there are a lot of contradictions in the stories given. Marks sifts through the various versions, gives the readers the facts of who recounted what and also ties together information to let the reader have a better idea what might be true or not. For example, if one person is supposed to have killed another and this information is from hearsay sources, she will offer what other factual evidence is known to let the reader know that this event is likely to have happened or unlikely to have happened (as in one case where the story had someone killed three years before another event they were known to have been involved in actually happened).

Having read the entire book, I don't see the claims made by some other reviewers that the book attempts to be politically correct, but politics does play a part in helping explain how different factions chose sides. Marks lays out the local politics that helped to split the town. The Earps are not presented as good, bad or indifferent. They, and the other cast of characters are presented as people, with their own goals, their own agendas and those agendas are not presented as either good or bad. This is a story of people in a time and place where the common rules for living together that we take for granted in today's modern civilization were still in the process of being developed. The events of the book appear to be scrupulously researched and documented. An outstanding book that doesn't tell you what you want to hear either way, but instead tells you what was said, what others reported happened and then tries to lay out what most likely happened based upon all the evidence available. For those who say that the book is derivative, the nature of the book is that Marks has taken what is available on the people and the events, tells where the information comes from and makes no assumptions that the stories told to those biographers were 100% accurate and true. She compiles the information and lays it out in such a way that the reader can make his/her own decision.

I have received and commenced reading this story. After going through the first 50 pages of the hard-to-let-go narrative, I am inclined to say that the topic is very well-researched and written by the author - Prof. Paula. Many books and movies have been produced about this ugly confrontation in the frontier days of United States. Each seems to claim that its version is more authentic than the others. But result speaks for itself and the reader at large is the best judge of this abbreation in American history. The gunfight and subsequent death of several cowboys were inevitable given the chaotic and gun-totting period and the final showdown or shoot up in the OK Corral reflected the conditions and society of that time.
Wyatt Earp and his two brothers including the former's sidekick Doc. Holliday were determined to take law into their hands when they shot Bill Clanton and McLaury brothers. The feuding group reached its tensionable climax at OK Corral showdown could not be avoided and both parties insisted that they were right and other was wrong. For the book it provides all the evidence and background development until the shootout. As for the movie, I think the best was TOMBSTONE. I highly recommend this book and the movie to all readers of Amazon.com...so go for them while the stock lasts. Thanks.

I strongly recommend this book. It is not only about the infamous gunfight. It also covers the political and economic conditions that led up to the incident and the events that followed. The actual gunfight, which does not occur until the middle of the book, was part of a larger picture of the times. Marks has done a great job. My only complaint, and it is not really a complaint as much as a comment, is the lack of a photograph of Wyatt Earp's wife Josephine Marcus. Many of the other players covered in the book, both major and minor, are shown. But Marcus is curiously absent.

When I began reading this book, I was quite favorably impressed. The author had obviously done her homework and wrote widely about all manner of happenings in the early west and about the Earps' early days. Gradually, however, I noted that she was cherry picking her facts and was choosing her words quite carefully so as to depict the Earps, in general, and Wyatt Earp, in particular, in the worst possible light. It occurred to me that she must be setting them up to be the villains of the piece when she finally got around to the subject of the book, "The Gunfight at the OK Corral." As I continued to read, I looked forward to seeing if this would prove to be the case. I was not disappointed.

It was hard for me to believe but, in spite of her apparently extensive research, the author had somehow concluded that the Earp brothers were the cause of the problems in Tombstone, and (if I understand what she wrote and I read) that they initiated the action at the corral. She even went so far as to hypothesize a number of scenarios, leading up to that event, all of which reflected badly on Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and Doc Holliday. Strangely enough, however, although she had inadvertently set the stage for an even more likely scenario, she failed to mention it. I refer to the fact that, a number of pages earlier, she had quoted Ike Clanton as telling Wyatt Earp that if his associates ever became aware of the fact that he had conspired with Earp to capture three stage robbers, his life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.

What, then, would a cowardly Ike Clanton do when faced with the possibility that that information was, or was about to become, known? Of course: he would get drunk and go on the warpath against the Earps, which is exactly what he did. Add to this the fact that several of Ike's friends and associates, including his younger brother, just happened to arrive in town shortly after his widely known threats and the stage was set for a deadly confrontation largely based on a serious misunderstanding. In this scenario, Ike Clanton, by his threats and blustering tirade, would inadvertently have caused the gunfight at the OK Corral. This, to me, is a real possibility.

But with regard to the Earps and their reputation: does this author seriously believe that men who had been law officers in Wichita and Dodge City over a period of years, with minimal blood shed and with stellar reputations, would suddenly become outlaws? And does she seriously believe that a sickly dentist, who had made his living as a gambler, would all of a sudden decide to become a stage robber? A more likely scenario is that the "Democrats," as she termed them, i.e., those opposed to law and order in Tombstone, would use the same approach that Democrats use today. The best defense being a good offense, they would simply accuse the Earps of doing what they, themselves, were doing. Which is exactly what they did. Furthermore, if one considers the Earp brothers friends and associates, and their accomplishments over the years, as opposed Sheriff Behan's friends, associates, and posse members, Curly Bill Brocius, Ike Clanton, John Ringo, etc., one must conclude that the Earps, although flawed in many respects, acted in accordance with the law and that Sheriff Behan was either an outlaw; an associate of outlaws; or was somehow beholden to them, possibly for voting him into office.

So, although I found this book to be interesting in many respects, I find the author to be on the wrong side of the fence. And I can't help but wonder: How could someone seemingly know so much and understand so little. (For a better read, try "Murder in Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp" by Steven Lubet, "Famous Gun Fighters of the Western Frontier" by Bat Masterson, "The O.K. Corral Inquest" by Alford E. Turner, "Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend" by Casey Tefertiller, "The Earps of Tombstone" by Douglas D. Martin, "The Tombstone Story" by John Myers Myers, or Tombstone's Epitaph" by Douglas D. Martin.")

If you want tall, rangy, squint-eyed men in dusters standing in the center of the street at high-noon, go elsewhere. If you want some real information on what the old west was like including the nitty-gritty of Republican vs. Democrat as a part of the troubles in Tombstone, this is the place.

I've read a biography of Wyatt Earp and several articles from various sources on this topic prior to reading Paula Mitchell Marks book. I wish I'd come here first. There's more good information (well documented too) packed into each page than you're likely to find in other sources. She doesn't just tell the story of the Earps, Clantons, Mclaury's and Doc Holliday (not to leave out Ringo & Curly Bill and all the rest), but sets the scene, showing what kind of society these people were operating within as part of a mining town in the old west.

Best of all, the author doesn't take a side. She's not out to paint anyone as a villain or saint. Therefore we're presented with both sides in their full glory, warts and all. Yes, the Earps were, to a degree, duly appointed wardens of the law. They were also gamblers, grifters and probably confidence men, not to mention thugs. Yes, the cowboys were rustlers and hell-raisers. They were also hard working cattle-men providing a service to the community. Both groups may or may not have been stage coach robbers. Each group broke down on party lines showing a fractious American political landscape not too discimilar to our own (although ours involves a bit less gun play). She even outlines how the treatment of the Apaches in the area played a part in the atmosphere and attitudes.

I enjoyed this book and I can recommend it if you're looking for a good set of information about the old west in general and the infamous Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

'The Mountain Meadows Massacre' is a story in which multiple factors came together at exactly the same time to produce an epic tragedy. If one or two of these factors hadn't been present, it wouldn't have happened. First, there was the antipathy of the Mormons for the 'gentiles': Second there was the antipathy of the settlers for the Mormons: Third, there was the immense of a war between the Mormons and the Union: Fourth, there was abusive language directed at Mormon leaders: Sixth, there was lethal opporunism on the part of Utah Indians: and Seventh, there was the willingness of John D. Lee and members of the Iron County militia to placate the Indians and destroy Mormon enemies. All of these things added up to produce one of the most destructive pioneer massacres in the history of the nation.

Still, all of the above doesn't quite explain what happened. Civilized white men--under the guise of protectors--gunned down civilized white men, women and children. How did it happen? Fear of an Indian war? Hatred for the anti-Mormon settlers? Anger at the government? I really don't know.

Years ago, while traveling through Southern Utah, I decided to visit the massacre site. Asking locals the location, I only got hard stares. Using Brooks' book, however, I located it. I had to open gates and drive through grassy pastures with little trace of anything resembling even a dirt track. When I arrived at my destination, there were a couple of old picnic tables--nothing more. Maybe seventy-five yards away there was a rock cairn. I remembered Juanita Brooks telling that the bodies of the settlers, when discovered by the owner of the property, were gathered together into a mass grave and buried under a rocky cairn. Sure enough, on the other side of the cairn there was a tiny plaque giving a totally erroneous account of the fight. It went something like this "On such and such a date in 1857, 150 California settlers were killed here, in their fighting pits, in a battle against the Indians."

Nope. That's not what happened at all. Propaganda. I understand that the battle/massacre ground has now been developed with a more accurate description of events. I wouldn't know. I haven't been back since.

Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

It's definitely a painful story but needed to be told, and Ms Brooks presented a detailed, marvelous manuscript. She told it the way it happened and didn't gloss over the barbarity of the whole situation and covered thoroughly the feelings and sentiments in Utah at the time. John D. Lee took the blame and was executed twenty years later and cleansed the others and the church, neutralizing the ugly massacre so people could move on with their lives, and the Mormons could start working with the US rather than against the federal government. Well worth the time to read and refer to actual documents - very academic and precise, but that I believe makes the book creditible. Good job - not another cover-up.

This book is for anyone interested in Mormon or religious history. Mormonism is not the only religious sect with a dark history.

THIS IS AMERICAN HISTORY IN PRINT!!! A MORMON WROTE THE BOOK, A MORMON COLLECTED INFORMATION FROM RELIABLE SOURCES, INCLUDING THE MORMON TEMPLE ARCHIVES, THE AMERICAN GOVT. ARCHIVES, DIARIES, TESTIMONIES OF TRIALS, OF THE MASSACRE, SO, WHY SHOULDN'T THE STORY BE TOLD TO AMERICAN STUDENTS AT AN EARLY AGE AS PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY? IS IT LESS OF A MASSACRE THAN THE BATTLE WITH THE INDIANS IN WYOMING? OUR SHAME OF AMERICAN SLAVERY IS TAUGHT AND THE UTAH WAR WITH BRIGHAM YOUNG'S THEOCRACY IN UTAH SHOULD BE TAUGHT. THIS BOOK IS A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO THE MORMONISM OF AMERICA. WE KNOW MORMOMISM CHANGES WITH EACH NEW PROPHET, BUT, IF PROPHET SMITH'S REVELATIONS WERE TRUE, THE DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AND NOT CHANGING DRAMATICALLY WITH EACH NEW PROPHET. CHRISTIANITY IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER, MORMONSIM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY AND IS EVER CHANGING. GET THIS BOOK FOR REAL INSIGHT TO THIS CULT, "MORMONISM, AMERICAS ISLAM". GOOGLE, BRIGHAM YOUNG'S SERMONS EXCERPTS AND BE SHOCKED. HIS CONFLICTS WITH THE AMERICAN GOVT. SHOULD NO LONGER BE GLOSSED OVER. AT THE SAME TIME, THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE'S DECLARATION, NO LAMANITES, NO DNA FOR ISRAELITES,EVIDENCE OF STEEL SWORDS, CHARIOT WHEELS OR WARS OF THE ANCIENT TRIBES, FOUND IN AMERICA, MEANS THE BOM IS FICTION. AND, THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE IS ALSO A FALSE TRANSLATION OF THE EGYPTIAN PAPYRI. IN OTHER WORDS, EXPOSE THESE BOOKS OF FICTION AND BE DONE WITH IT, ONCE AND FOR ALL. AMAZING JUANITA BROOKS NEVER PITCHED THE BOM AFTER SHE RESEARCHED FOR THIS BOOK! THE BOOK IS SIMPLY WRITTEN AND A MUST READ!!

To be honest, I was hesitant to read "Mountain Meadows Massacre" by Juanita Brooks as she was a life-long mormon and, frankly, I was skeptical that she would treat the slaughter of 120 to 150 innocent souls with anything that even remotely resembled with candor; after all, the cult has an extremely well-established history of censoring and covering up even the most benign (but certainly well deserved) criticisms of their so-called religion. I was also rather puzzled by other authors on the subject who frequently referred to Brook's book and finally decided to find out why. I certainly was not disappointed.

While Brooks' work is now dated (it was originally published in 1950) and later researchers have uncovered additional horrors regarding the brazen butchering of so many people, she actually does an outstanding job of reporting on this horrible tragedy. Considering the amount of research she did, most likely from nearly all of the documentation that was available at the time, she does an extraordinary job in piecing together the details of this infamous blight on American history. Brooks assembled a large number of resources obtained from numerous interviews, newspaper accounts written at the time, court documents, affidavits, and even Congressional records to provide a chilling account of the massacre. At first, I felt that she treated some of those responsible (especially Brigham Young) with kid gloves but as the work progressed, she eventually placed most of the blame where it belonged - I'm rather stunned (as apparently was Brooks) that she was never excommunicated by the cult. Interestingly, she goes so far as to state that she even attempted to interview, as well as tried to schedule an appointment with, David O. McKay, the cult's "president", about the massacre only to be turned away - even though she offered to stay in Salt Lake City indefinitely in order to speak with him.

Interestingly, Brooks also makes no bones about the fact that the only fanatic punished for the atrocity, John D. Lee, was clearly used as a scapegoat for the barbaric behavior of so many other members of the cult that joined him in the carnage of September 11, 1857.

Of course, not all that Brooks wrote is gold. There were times when I felt as if she tried to minimize certain things - she never fully ascribes all of the responsibility that Brigham Young deserves (although there can be no question that he was an evil participant who sacrificed his "adopted son," John D. Lee), she tries to claim that the cult members involved may have been subject to "mob psychology" or "war hysteria" who lead otherwise "ordinary" lives, and that the cult now owns that property and had previously "given their approval" to build a "monument" on the site. Disturbingly, Brooks notes that attempts to turn over even a small portion of Mountain Meadows over to the U.S. Forest service or other Federal agencies have failed. Even now, 150 years later, the cult refuses to turn over the site, refuses to put a cross on the current monument (because the cult is not Christian), and continues to deny reality by accepting responsibility for the massacre. Even Gordon B. Hinckley, their current "president" (i.e., Satan incarnate on Earth) has stated "that which we have done here [at Mountain Meadows] must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day." Some things never change. . .

It's only too bad that Brooks never gave up her cult - how anyone could continue to support such an evil institution, especially after uncovering so much iniquity, is almost unfathomable.

I didn't buy the instant love between the main characters Henry Ann and Tom Dolan. They had no restraint, didn' even try hard at all to do the right thing, which was to keep their hands and mouths off each other. Afterall, he was a married man with a very mentally ill wife. They really didn't care what was right, they selfishly went along with their desires. I was very disappointed in them. I did like the secondary characters, Henry Ann's half brother Johnny, Grant (the bum who turns out to be a Harvard educated lawyer), and the best friend Karen. In fact, I would much rather have read about Grant and Karen's lives and their romance.

Dorothy Garlock created a wonderful collection of characters in this novel based in the 1930s. The only bad thing about this book, was closing it and letting go of these characters. I've fallen in love with the main characters - Henry Ann Henry and Tom Dolan... but most of all, for her step-brother, Johnny. I so hope, as I believe the other readers will too, that Ms. Garlock will write a novel with Johnny as the main character someday. He's simply charming and easy to fall in love with.

The main characters provided a spectacular chemistry of emotion, while the world around them suffered with the hardships of the time. However, they were not completely unaffected, they did suffer as well, along with witnessing the suffering of those around them they cared about.

The one thing that Ms. Garlock did create was characters that were obviously bad... when sometimes actually there is a fine line between bad and good within a person. The story would have been even more emotional if those characters showed more of their good, along with some of their evil.

Overall, a very good book with wonderful characters, that you are sure to enjoy!

"With Hope" is the best book I have read in a long time. The newest best sellers have been somewhat of a disappointment to me lately with several of my favorite writers. I decided to try reading a book written a few years back and was glad I did.

I have been looking for new romance authors to explore and I came across Dorothy Garlock. What caught my attention was the fact that many of her novels are set during the 1930s. The only things that spring to mind about the 1930s to me are the Depression, the author Margaret Mitchell, pilot Amelia Earhart and gangster Al Capone. According to my findings, Garlock began her career by writing nineteenth century Westerns and later moved on to early twentieth century Americana. With Hope is part of a series centered on the Dolan siblings and I was very impressed and deeply touched with this charming love story. The year is 1932 in Oklahoma. Henry Ann Henry (yes, that's her name) lives in a farm with her father. When her wayward, ill-reputed mother who had abandoned her dies, she and her father have to look after her mother's bastard children, Johnny and Isabel. And when her father dies one week later, she has to bear full responsibility for the farm and her half-siblings. But with the help of her "Aunt" Dozie, her friend Karen, a mysterious bum named Grant, and Tom Dolan, her gorgeous, albeit married next-door-neighbor, she may be all right. But when a town bully insists on making her life hell and feelings emerge between Henry Ann and Tom, which costs her her reputation, she may need the support of her close friends even more, especially when Tom becomes a murder suspect. There are various twists throughout the novel.

This novel is such a delightful read. The small town feel of the setting with its gossipers and close friends alike is the most endearing part here. I like how Garlock creates a vivid picture of the time period and the small-town inhabitants. The issues regarding double standards against women and racial segregation are quite insightful. I also love the colorful characters. There are many characters in this novel and they are all very well developed. I loved Aunt Dozie, Johnny, Grant, Karen, Chris and Jay. I even liked Pete and the other Perrys, the ill-reputed town trash. Pete is annoying and he is such a petty, immature bully, but I liked the many depths and nuances in this character. I also liked his little brother Jude. And the protagonists are wonderful and their love story is romantic, funny and also poignant. For those of you who are turned off with the idea that the hero is married, he is an honorable, kind man who endures a life of hell with a woman who is obviously bipolar. His story is truly heartwrenching. Henry Ann is a great heroine, but a little too kindhearted and generous to be believable at times. In addition to Henry Ann and Tom, there are two more romantic subplots that I enjoyed very much. Grant and Karen and Chris and Opal will touch your hearts as well. The small bit of mystery plot toward the end is quite well done. I was surprised with the way the author wrapped that up. Eep! I am so going to read more stuff by this author and I will definitely read the other parts of this series. I especially look forward to reading Johnny's story. Based on this wonderful novel, I am sure that Dorothy Garlock will find a place on my must-read list of authors.

This was my first Garlick book, but believe me, it will not be my last. I would have to put her up there with Nora Roberts! A beautiful story in a time when it would be very difficult to find anything beautiful. Yes, the story of the wife is very sad, but I really could not find fault with the husband, Tom. Very good summer reading!

Do you like books about the Civil War, military tactics, or just the second Battle of Bull Run? Then this book is for you. This is a complete analysis of the second Battle of Bull Run. This battle has been overlooked by history and never been told so completely before this book.
The book starts out with Edward Pope filling the empty general's position for the army of North Virginia for the Union. He decides to move the army from the Potomic to confront Lee, the comander of the army of Virginia, for the South. Lee decides to send his top general, Stonewall Jackson, on a flanking manuver around the Union lines to attack the Union from the rear. When Jackson and his 25,000 men make their way around, they take supply depots and set up defensive positions at the Union rear. Lee then sent another general, Longstreet and 12,000 men to follow behind Jackson. Pope was convinced he needed to attack Jackson and sent his troops to attack. The next day Pope sends the bulk of his army to attack Jackson. Jackson held his ground and repelled Pope. The next day Longstreet met up with Jackson. They combined their forces and mounted a counterattck agianst Pope and forced his army to retreat.
If you like books that are about the Civil War, read this book. It is a comprhensive guide of the second Battle of Manassas, in depth, and included maps. It not a very easy read. The book contains 600 pages and has medium sized font. This book is what I consider to be more of a guy book because it deals with war, killing, and military tactics.
This book is a great account of a underappreciated Civil War battle. If the Union had won, the war could have been over much earlier and lives wouldn't have had to be wasted. If you are an avid Civil War buff or have just begun to have an interest in the Civil War, this book is for you.

Ben Richardson

Rarely in the past few years has a campaign study been published that has been as good as John Hennessy's "Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas." Expertly researched and well written the author knows his subject, and draws the reader in with the first page. This was one of the most interesting campaigns in the eastern theater. High drama prevailed from the very start. Jackson's performance is well documented and Hennessy does a very good job of describing his effort and those of his men as they marched around Pope's flank. Freeman's Ford, the attack on Mannassas Junction, Brawner's Farm, the railroad cut, the annihilation of the 5th New York, it's all here and extemely well done. A very fine book in every way.

I was impressed by this book's flowing description. One time I sat down to read a bit, and next thing I knew, three hours had passed!
I would highly reccomend this to anyone interested in the Second Manassas campaign.
On a downside, the maps, though common, are hard to read in places, and it is hard to tell the woods from the open land....

This is the quality of book that will make anyone wishing to write a book on this campaign/battle drop the idea.
Hennessy has blended the facts, personal accounts, maps, and analysis splendidly....one is never over served in any area.
Being detailed work, regimental positioning (something I enjoy)is here for the taking. The maps are of a quality that in conjunction with the regimental movement information, this book could serve as a guide for a battlefield visit. Having read this book after reading Kricks "Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain", I am thankful that we can draw on the workmanship of such fine students of the WBTS.
This battle sets up the Antietam Campaign and this book should be read previous to that study. The North doesnt want to talk much about this battle, understandably, and perhaps this is why it hasnt received much attention. Lee makes his largest charge of the war (Longstreet on 8/30/62) which reveals the magnitude of this battle.

At first glance, John Hennessy provides an excellent account of the Second Bull Run campaign. He draws on copious primary and secondary sources and crafts a very readable narrative, often clarifying what can be a very confusing campaign to follow. While not absolving the Lincoln administration, Henry Halleck and George McClellan for the Union fiasco, Hennessy believes the chief responsibility for the failed campaign rests on John Pope.

But there is one huge problem here. Hennessy ignores almost everything John Pope wrote about the campaign. This is very odd. Hennessy looked at an impressive number of primary sources. He looked at a number of articles from the "National Tribune." Oddly enough he never looked at any of Pope's articles from the Tribune. While Pope often refered to the OR, he did offer some insight on his motives and decisions. This undermines a great deal of Hennessy's book. For example, Pope wrote a great deal about Banks attacking Jackson at Cedar Mountain and what the exact orders were. Hennessy blithely ignores this and much other material.

Since Hennessy goes out of his way to trash Pope, this is a major factor in evaluating the book. Pope may well have been a scoundrel full of bravado. He may well have been an incompetent commander. But Pope, like all other commanders, deserves to have his say. The fact that Hennessy feels compelled to ignore Pope's records is disturbing to say the least.
Can you write an account of the Overland campaign without consulting the assorted writings and musings of Grant or Lee? Of course not and the fact that Hennessy chose to ignore the writings of the chief Union commander of the Second Manassas campaign is appalling and frankly undermines the credability of the book.

After reading the Blanche Barrow book, the James R. Knight and the E.R. Milner book I have to admit I was a little disapponinted in this one. I found it to be very self-serving. After all, these people were common criminals who chose to make a life of robbery and violence. Mr. Fults wanted to project the idea that it was solely the corruption of the Texas penal sytem that was most to blame for the lives of the badmen of the era. Also, he constantly surrounded himself with vicious violent men; yet he wants us to beleive that even though he was willing to kill and came close several times, he was basically innocent and an honorable man.
One last point that confused me. In all the other books, Ray Hamilton was portrayed as afraid of, and loathed by, Joe Palmer. In this books, supposedly they are best of pals and are comforted in the fact that they are executed at the same time. There just seems to be more than a few inconsistancies in thsi book.

A must read for anyone interested in Bonnie and Clyde, Ray Hamilton, Joe Palmer or about American crime in the 1930's. A well written review of an amazing life, offering a new angle on the story of the infamous Barrow Gang and the long term results of the 1934 Eastham Camp 1 breakout. A great book that takes you on a journey that you can see being played out before you. Buy it, you won't regret it!

A very thorough book on Bonnie and Clyde. More in-depth than others I've read.

Mr. Phillips is currently considered the foremost authority on Bonnie and Clyde, and for good reason. He is also the editor of Blanche Barrow's recently published memoirs (GREAT). I enjoyed the detail included in this book. His premise is that Clyde was driven in his life of crime by his desire to raid Eastham Prison - one of the worst prisons in Texas. As an historian myself and huge Bonnie and Clyde fan, I would have to say that the raid on Eastham was certainly a part of Clyde Barrow's larger plan (if indeed he had one), but not the sole driving factor. I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Phillips was able to interview Ralph Fults face-to-face, but Mr. Fults seemed to be a bit-part player in the story of Bonnie and Clyde. All in all this book was worth the read - the research is incredible and many former publications' myths and mistakes are straightened out.

I know this for a fact by the author. My dad, Ralph Fults is who the book is about. John Neal Phillips did not just take my dad's word on the events in the book, he interviewed many people to back up the details of each story. If you want to encourage a young person, who thinks they cannot turn their life around, please give this book to them. It will be a great encouragement to them. If my dad can turn his life around, anyone can.

Set in Quiver, Oklahoma in 1961, a 13-year old girl named Frannie becomes friends with an African-American girl Celeste. Celeste is the first and only African-American student to attend Quiver Junior High School. Initially, Frannie grapples with having a friendship with Celeste or maintaining the acceptance of her peers. This friendship blossoms after the two are selected to be a part of an all-girl vocal ensemble. Through this friendship, Frannie learns a lot about prejudice, segregation, and injustice. Through Celeste's fathers' research of his genealogy, the girls realize that the town of Quiver holds a lot of secrets including include a history of Klan activity. The two girls find a secret "starplace" where thy meet and share their deepest inner most thoughts. This book falls into the genre of historical fiction. The accounts in the story are historically accurate, but unfortunately some of the actions of the characters are far too unrealistic for the time period for which the book is written. Most of the students are far too welcoming of Celeste. Also, Celeste's characterization is far too idealized, portraying her as having all positive traits. The feeling of the early 1960s is strong in spite of a few phrases and slang terms that sound more modern. This book is for middle and junior high students, but I would only use this book after careful consideration. In addition, the students would need background knowledge of Klan activity and the horrid acts committed by its members. This aspect is only slightly touched upon in the novel.

This book is about two girl's, Nancy And Celeste that become friend's one white and one black, the town doesn't really appreciate having black people in their town especially becoming friend's with what they call negro's!!! They have a history of racisim but they naver could get through it! So will Nancy stay with her naew best friend or will she dump her for town's reputation. I really recommened this book for all teenager's to read about racisim and how it could ruein A best friend's relationship!!!

A black girl moves to a "white town," and isn't treated the best by her peers. However, a girl named Frannie befriends her, and so does a small group of girls. She came with her father, to find out about their family history, and they discovered some interesting things about their ansestors. The klu klux klan had been terrorizing her family for a long time, but she responded better than most people would, she didn't try to get revenge or anything. After a while, Frannie and her friends didn't care about what other people thought about them hanging out with Celeste, and they stuck up for her, even when she would't stick up for herself. This is a very good book that makes what happend in the past, directly after segragation was outlawed, very interesting and you can really relate to this book, and understand everything.

One of the star sisters

When school starts at Quiver Junior High Celeste is the new student and the first ever black student. When Frannie meets Celeste she likes her and wants to be her friend but wonders what others will say. Frannie has also had been planning a luau. With Celeste in her choir class they try out for the soloist group to see if they can beat the popular girls. Read the book to figure out if Celeste makes friends, if the luau goes according to plan, and if Celeste and Frannie make the cut.

The Starplace was a very great book. It was about a girl named Frannie who lives in a town called Quiver. The setting is back in the 1960s when there was a lot of racism. In the town of Quiver, there aren't many blacks in this town, there is a haunted house were an old man use to live. Everyone thinks that the house is haunted. One ordinary day Frannie was going to her moms work and sees a black man going out from her office. Frannie finds out that he has bought the old haunted house. The man has a daughter named Celeste. When summer break ends and Frannie and her friends go back to school, she sees Celeste at school. No one talks to her because of the color of her skin. When people pass by her in the hallway they stay at least five feet away. Celeste happens to be the first colored girl to go to the Quiver school. Frannie starts talking to her and they become the best of friends. Many other people that Frannie hangs out with talk to Celeste, too. They stick up for her and hang out with her. Celeste is a very good singer. She takes choir class with Frannie. They try out for a group for singers and they both make it. They sing all around the town of Quiver. Then when they have reauditions Celeste does not make the team because the color of her skin. This makes Frannie very upset. Frannie one day sees Celeste and her father in her backyard looking at the field behind her house. Frannie is very curious. Frannie sees them picking up something that looks like a burnt finger. Celeste tells her everything about her great grandfather that had to do with that field and a cave in the woods. Celeste and her dad moved to Quiver because her dad wanted to write a book about the cave and the field. There are many mysteries that have to do with the field and the cave. The book that her dad writes has to do with her great granfather and his time in Quiver. It has to do with the poeple hanging the colored people in their town. In addition, the cave has to do with where a colored guy was dragged after he was beaten and cut many times. Celeste was very sad and emotional over this. When her and Frannie were in the cave they found mangles that happened to be from the colored guy that was beaten. At the end, Celeste gives her the burnt finger which is actually a harmonica that was her great grandfathers. The book is called Starplace because Celeste and Frannie have a place where they like to hang out and they like to sing with each other. They call it their Starplace. They call each other star sisters. The main conflict in this book is just because Celeste is colored people do not talk to her and try to avoid her. Frannie makes a difference by talking to her and had people starting to talk to her. This book has a lot to do about racism. Frannie trys to create a difference by having a colored friend and showing that they are not different then regular white people. This book is good to read if you like books about true friendships. If you like a little mystery there is some in here for you to read. Girls and Boys should read this it could teach you a thing or two about friendships and how important they are.

Dorothy Garlock's books (except for the earliest romance novels) are so rich and moving that I have trouble putting them down. I savor her books and am looking forward to reading all of them, but don't want to be thru with them!

Kathleen Dolan has bought half of a newspaper in Rawlings, Oklahoma--a small town with big secrets. As she tries to uncover just what's going on, she finds herself thrown together with Johnny Henry. He's a complex man. A man who doesn't want the complications of falling in love. But sometimes loves happens whether we want it to or not.

With Heart is the story of two strong people who unite for a cause, and stay united for love.

I really wanted to like Dorothy Garlock's WITH HEART more, and it's probably one of my better and readable 1-star romances. I liked both our lead characters here, I thought the hero was slightly different from the historical-romance archetype, and I enjoyed their sparse moments of romance together. Not to mention the late 1930s Oklahoma backdrop constituted a new setting for me. Unfortunately, the bungling plot and pace of this 433-page paperback disappointed big time. The characters and passion in most romances usually supersedes any plot or more often, the romantic tension *is* the plot. Here, Garlock attempts to balance the plot having to do with surreptitious dealings in Rawlings, Oklahoma, with Kathleen & Johnny's burgeoning love. But since the passion and love was rather on the light side, the blundering plot really exacerbated the entire reading experience in this romance novel.

Heroes and heroines from past novels crowding the plotting never sits well with me, and there's just too much of Keith McCabe in this novel, a hero from one of Garlock's prior novels, I presume. It seemed like this novel's hero Johnny Henry constantly deferred to Keith McCabe for help and building Johnny's characterization. For instance, light-hearted banter between Keith, his wife and Johnny molded Johnny's characterization from our heroine Kathleen's eyes during a dinner after the rodeo. Barker Fleming attempts to bond with his long-lost son Johnny after the rodeo as well while helping Keith ride his flock back to his ranch. Johnny mentions connections through Keith McCabe which could succor a dangerous situation our protagonists create from uncovering the surreptitious conspiracy in Rawlings, OK. And Johnny turns to Keith McCabe when he wishes to entrap a murderer as well. Too much Keith McCabe, enough already!

I thought an episodic bookkeeping characterizes much of the plotting. There were too many times in the novel where Garlock painstakingly notes to include all the characters in the room before allowing someone to divulge pertinent information. For example, Kathleen makes Barker Fleming wait until Paul and Adelaide are in the room together before allowing him to share what happened at the clinic with Doc Herman. In a gossiping way, Kathleen asks Johnny whether he heard about the young girl in town (Judy) looking for her real parents. It all amounts to amateurish bookkeeping if you ask me. Worse, for over 3 pages, we're treated to a confrontation between a local merchant Leroy and our newspaper owners Kathleen and Adelaide when Leroy threatens to withdraw all local advertising. Kathleen fumes at Leroy for being spineless, and the entire altercation seemed pointless since we knew Doc Herman was pulling the strings and naive of Kathleen to prolong and provoke an altercation with an intimidated hireling. I think that dumb and pointless argument accelerated the book's decline while the melodramatic ending hammered the final nail in this book's coffin. Finally, it's funny and I'm probably bad for saying it, but I really didn't find our villain Doc Herman's clandestine activity all that condemning. I'm skeptical a profitable market would exist for his service: a pseudo adoption agency, providing homes for unwanted children of unwed mothers. Are there really that many affluent couples not able to have children of their own?

WITH HEART mostly belongs to Kathleen although I thought our hero Johnny managed to make an impact as well. The passion is PG-13 though their connection wasn't any less resounding for it; in fact, I find more explicitly sensual romance novels involving a notorious libertine scientifically igniting a virgin's passion empty by comparison.

I have read several of Garlock's books and have enjoyed all of them. The characters are so believable. Their personalities, characteristics and mannerisms are so well described. It was a love story but was also a mystery. There are a few surprises that will catch the reader completely off guard. I loved it.

I fell in love with Johnny Henry in "With Hope" and "With Song", and am thrilled to find him the main hero in this story, and "After The Parade", the next book in this series. Ms. Garlock did not disappoint me! This is the best romance story I ever read! Why this series hasn't been grabbed for a mini series is beyond me... it has all the best qualities!!!!

The romance is so powerful and strong, I couldn't put the book down. I read this one in two days, and was left breathless for more! Luckily, "After The Parade" was waiting for me! You won't be disappointed. If you read any of Ms. Garlock's books, read this one!!! You do not have to read the series in order, there is enough information cleverly included so that you don't miss a beat!

This book provided a fascinating look into Blanche Barrow's life as well as great detail into the lives of Bonnie and Clyde and their fellow outlaws. The author/editor did an outstanding job of compiling Blanche's memoirs into what was occuring in the world during her lifetime. I wasn't too sure if I would like this book when I ordered it because I normally don't read biographies/autobiographies about criminals. However, when I began to read it I became totally absorbed into this woman's ife and the pictures are great too (there's lots). I would definitely recommend this book to anyone.

Blanche Barrow's account into the turbulent and volatile few months in 1933 she spent with Bonnie, Clyde and W.D. Jones on the run is fascinating reading. The one point which comes across over and over is her true love for Buck Barrow - which really supports that old saying: "Love is Blind". There was certainly nothing apparent which made Buck an intelligent or appealing type of fellow, but to Blanche he was everything. This lovely lady is very much a victim of circumstance - drawn into the dark scheming world of hatred and revenge of the law of Clyde Barrow. Clyde was certainly the orchestrator of their life on the run. For some reason, Buck Barrow was overwhelmed and dominated by his younger brother Clyde and Blanche was continually trying to get Buck away from this life of running and hiding. Bonnie Parker too was entranced by Clyde's domination as well. It seemed as though she was in awe of Clyde and everthing Clyde said or did was the gospel. It is very much an encaptivating read - however I was hoping to find out more what her prison life was like after the Dexfield Park capture which the book seems to skim over very briefly. The accounts of Joplin, Platte City and Dexfield Park in this book are excellent and you really do wonder how they all survived as long as they did. I thoroughly recommend it to all Bonnie and Clyde fans.

I really enjoyed reading this book. However, you must keep in mind that it was told by one of the participants and that self image and self preservation were apparent in telling her side of the story. I would advise doing what I did. I read the Knight book, "Bonnie & Clyde, a Twenty-First Century Update" and the John Neal Phillips book "Running with Bonnie and Clyde" at the same time as this one. I think by combining and sifting through the information in all three, you can come away with a pretty clear picture of these peoples lives.

I often wondered what had become of Blanch Barrow as the movie did not tell us much of anything. At the end of the book I found myself with tears in my eyes. I am not saying she was totally innocent in everything that transpired, but she paid dearly for the mistake of loving her husband and I being a woman can synpathize with her greatly. I can just picture her sitting in a chair, an old woman, forgotten, left with nothing but her cats and memories of days gone by...nothing is sadder than what might have been. What really made me realize how human these characters were was when Blanche tells us about bringing her dog Snowball on the run when she and Buck took off with Bonnie and Clyde and then loosing her dog during the shootout in Platte City, as the dog was spooked by the gun battle, he ran out of the house and this was the last she ever saw of her beloved pet. These were very much people like us that I firmly believe were victims of the times they lived and the desolation that surrounded them. I often wonder what would have became of those four people if they would have grown up in New England perhaps or New York where even though the depression was going on, there were more opportunities for work or perhaps they were born at the wrong time in history. Maybe if Bonnie and Clyde would have been born and came of age in the 80's or 90's, they would have been different people....but we will never know. This book is a must read for anyone, not just fans of Bonnie and Clyde, but its just a damned good book to read.

This is about the best book I've read on Bonnie and Clyde so far. Although as Mr. Phillips states it is slanted in the favor of Blanche, it still is very well written and I think more historically correct than other books I have read on this subject. It was interesting to read how these people really lived on the run and how human they were. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Bonnie and Clyde.

Good reference book for visiting the battle field... a must for those 'THEN & NOW' types.... like me... :)

In this very interesting large-format paperback, photos of the Little Big Horn battlefield taken (in some cases) within a year or so of the battle are compared to photos taken as nearly as possible from the same spot and with the same field of view, over the past 20 years. It is amazing how little this landscape has changed, the main differences being due to erosion, changes in the course of the river, and the springing-up of large numbers of trees in what was originally a treeless, barren waste.

My main reservation about the book is that clearly, it lives and dies by the quality of the photo reproduction, and this quality is not high. "Serviceable" is the best I can say about it. Another problem is the huge, often nearly maddening, amount of sheer repetition in the text discussions. This is clearly done to make the commentary on each pair of photos as self-contained as possible, but nearly exactly the same comments, in almost exactly the same words, appear over and over.

This book makes a good companion to the recent Little Bighorn account, A TERRIBLE GLORY. It provides, based on Indian accounts and archaeological excavations, a fairly detailed discussion of the various stages of the battle involving the three companies (or whatever they were called) of cavalry who went along with Custer... details that are not present in A TERRIBLE GLORY.

The authors make a number of very interesting points, concerning for example the later confusion between the spot where Custer's body was found (at the top of the hill) and the spot where he was buried (about 100 feet down the hillside). It's clear from the photos that Custer's body was found at a spot which today is immediately in front of the later monument. Wherever Custer was buried, he might be still there, because when the graves of the officers of the 7th Cavalry were excavated so that the bodies could be reburied as the families directed (Custer was supposed to wind up at West Point), only a few scattered skeletal fragments turned up in the grave marked as his.

Unlike many university press books I have examined in the past few decades, this one has been professionally set in type, and the text looks great.

I consider this an outstanding piece of work. For anyone who love early photography and comparing historical photographs with contemporary views, this is great work. Resulting in many hours of field work and re-photographing the areas in modern times, many historical facts were uncovered. It is like a fresh look at the photography of the Little Bighorn. After reading this book and viewing the old photographs, one will never see the vintage photos in the same way. As the old saying goes, "A photograph is worth a thousand words" , some of these old photographs have held some serious answers to some of the questions that were never revealed until this important study brought them to light.

As others have attested, this is a superb collection of photos, and the text is scrupulous and compelling. You have to love the battlefield to want this book, but if you do, then you can't live without this. What's great is that you emerge with a sense that the battlefield hasn't been standing still for years, but slowly changing over time. Pair this book with Greene's new "Stricken Field" and you realize that history is constantly being made before our eyes.

Having been to the Little Bighorn Battle site twice, I found this book wonderfully fascinatng... to compare the old photos with the new ones.
The authors took great pains to point out specific distances or spots by using people to stand in various places or by the use of "arrows". I especially liked the use of maps of the areas with details showing which way the camera was pointed for each of the individual shots.
Well done! I'm very glad to have this book in my collection.

This book is essential reading for every undergrad. Empiricism should be taken to heart by anyone engaged in social or natural sciences. Shamefully, it tends to be forgotten in both, in favor of a pseudo-science of studying "concepts" or "models" instead of facts.

Social sciences are behavioral. They study human behavior, and therefore are purely empirical. Natural sciences are observational and experimental, and therefore also empirical. Yet, even some geologists (in my experience) tend to forget to examine the world as it is and instead fall back lazily on a fake intellectualism of model-driven thinking.

Completed some time after he had immigrated to New Zealand upon fleeing Nazi Germany, this, one of Popper's most important and well-known works, is where he first introduces his solution to the problem of induction. According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery was thus aimed primarily at pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientist (or at least at what Popper saw as the dangers of pseudo-science). Eventually the attack developed here became a full-scale broadside against the technique and process of inductive reasoning and of all scientific progress and theorizing that had been advanced on the basis of such reasoning.

Popper contends here (as does Hume and his other fellow Logical Positivists) that induction -- and presumably this includes mathematical induction, which many believe to be on a somewhat sounder footing than ordinary inductive reasoning -- was not logical. Among those that Popper considered a practicing pseudo-scientist, was none other than the great Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic theories of consciousness, which Popper considered to be dangerous pseudo-science.

Before this book was written, the best defense against the logical hole in induction was that put forth by the other Logical Positivists. They had rested their hat on a technique they coined as the "Principle of Verification," which was designed consciously as a temporary stopgap to close the logical hole that they all knew existed in inductive reasoning. Here Popper analyzes this principle and concludes that even though it is indeed a sounder form of induction, it remains induction no less: that is, it too is not logical. The "Principle of Verification" which required that theories be capable of passing rigorously designed scientific tests in Popper's eyes was just a halfway house between "pure induction" and Popper's more stringent criterion introduced for the first time in this book called the "Principle of "Falsification." Falsification turned the "Principle of Verification" on its head, by requiring that every proposition be falsifiable, and thus logical through the backdoor of being forever open to testing.

For the better part of four decades, Popper's principle of falsification reigned supreme in science, but now cracks have begun to develop, and many scientists, including some of his fellow logical positivists are beginning to give inductive reasoning and the Principle of Verification a second look. Despite these emerging reconsiderations of Popper's work, this book (which is dense and heavy going, and difficult to read in most of the middle parts), and his principle of falsification, Popper has nevertheless assured himself a well-deserved place in the annals of the history of the philosophy of science.

Five Stars

Not exactly light reading, but a great reference work, and a clear expostion of Popper's Falsificationism. This methodology is widely regarded as the leading tool for demarcating between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery is in my view Karl Popper's finest work. When I studied science I was amazed at the insight Popper had into the scientific method of inquiry, and I admired his refusal to accept intellectual garbage.

While Popper has come under strong attack from both scientists and philosophers for several shortcomings in his work, in my view Popper has framed one of the most important studies of scientific knowledge and how it is gained, and the difference between science and non-science.

I agree with Popper's argument that the key feature of scientific theories is that they are 'falsifiable.' By this Popper simply meant that a scientific theory, even if beautiful, can be shown wrong by empirical observation. While this account is no doubt oversimplified and leaves out the key social and historical dimensions to science (which thinkers such as Kuhn addressed later on), this principle remains central to science; as Feynman said, 'If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.' The fallibility of science in Popper's view was the key to its strength, in contrast to pseudo-sciences such as Marxism and Freudian psychology, which while containing elements of truth, set themselves up as infallible truths and glossed over things which contradicted the belief system.

Popper also wrote many other philosophical works, including an important study of the difference between democratic political societies and ones ruled by totalitarian ideaology. However, he rightly deserves fame as one of the most important 20th century philosophers of science.

I have to ask myself, "What is the basis for my scientific knowledge?" On a daily basis, as I am a chemist. I have often been struck by arguments for "induction" as lacking credibility, because how can one argue of probabilities with an unknown sample size? Popper argues that a proposing scientific hypothesis is an inductive act, but it is a creative act not a logical one, but that scientific knowledge is dedective.

I agree with him. The nature of science is such that one must put for statements about how the world works and test them. A scientist should always try to find a way of proving himself or herself wrong. If the predictions of the test are shown to be false, then the hypothesis must be false. That is the basis of scientific knowledge. The rest, the best theories we have are just "working models" and we can never justify why they work. They're simply our best working models now.


I don't find Popper's argument disheartening. Popper points out that we don't have to justify our search for explanations of the world, because they may do us benefit (if we happened to live in a world with stable physical laws, for instance).

I think many scientists would fundamentally agree that the laws of nature can never really be proven. They can't, but they speak volumes about what is relevant to us as a species (which is why Popper's argument that "induction" is creative is so interesting). All Popper asks of a scientific hypothesis is that it can, in principle, be demonstrated false by experience.

This is by far one of the most interesting and (I feel) important books I've ever read.