error Books

Like many who decided to purchase this book, I thought it would be an interesting occult and esoteric journey through history. Wrong. Badly written, researched, and structured, this book is truly a waste of time and money.

Mark Booth's "Secret History of the World" has an imposingly grandiloquent title, and its subtitle "As Laid Down by the Secret Societies" lends it an air of authoritativeness. The title is meant to suggest that Booth is speaking on behalf of a larger organization than himself, one whose teachings constitute a valid consensus for which he is the mouth-piece and whose traditions he is merely passing along.

However, Booth's text is primarily influenced by the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, and his attempt to make these teachings seem as though they are as old as the world and agreed upon by a long line of thinkers badly misrepresents what he is really up to. Booth's "teachings" are in fact a mish mash of garbled ideas and comical misinterpretations of the esoteric tradition, filled with factual errors.

Booth would have us believe that all religions agree esoterically on how the world was made, namely that mind precedes, rather than follows, matter. In the view of science, things are the other way about, for there mind becomes a disease or epiphenomenon of matter. Then he proceeds to interpret the creation myth of the Book of Genesis in terms of Rudolf Steiner's model of cosmic evolution which follows a sequence of four epochs, those of Saturn, Sun, Moon and Earth. According to Booth, the Saturn epoch corresponds to the creation of physical matter, while the Sun epoch corresponds to the creation of plants, with the Moon epoch bringing animals into being. However, as anyone who has read Steiner thoroughly knows, the Sun epoch involves the creation not of plants but animals -- especially zodiacal ones -- whereas the Moon epoch properly involves the creation of plants. So he can't even get Steiner right.

Booth draws an analogy between the human nervous system and a plant on the basis that the nervous system resembles a plant, and this is true, at least superficially. However, it is a bad analogy, since plants do not have nervous systems, and according to Steiner, the whole basis of the difference between plants and animals rests in the fact that animals are in possession of a nervous system and therefore an astral body, whereas plants do not have nervous systems and therefore also lack astral bodies (they have etheric bodies).

He makes so many factual errors along the way that it is difficult to enumerate them all. For instance, he says that the metaphor of Indra's Net of Gems can be found in the Vedas, when in fact no one who has actually bothered to read the four Vedas will attest to any such thing, for the Net of Gems is an idea that originated in the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra, not the Vedas. He also claims that the reason the apple is associated with the goddess Venus is because when you cut the apple open it shows a five pointed pentagram that is structurally similar to the one the planet makes in the sky (which it does) but he says that it takes 40 years for this to happen whereas in reality it takes only 8. As any good student of mythology knows, kings were killed at the end of 8 year cycles for precisely this reason.

He also says that Perseus used his shield as a mirror in order to combat the ravenous dragon that was going to attack Andromeda, but this is an embarrassing mistake, since it is well known even to people who don't know anything about Greek myth that Perseus uses his shield as a mirror to combat the Gorgon whose head he slices off, not the dragon who attacks Andromeda. He uses the head of the Gorgon to kill the dragon and turn it into stone. This is an embarrassing mistake for one to make who presumes to pass himself off as an authority on all matters occult.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The book is full of too many errors for Booth to represent anything like the kind of master of this sort of knowledge he is trying to pass himself off as. He does not have control over his material and can only be regarded as a novice in this sort of thing, at best. He wants you to believe that he has an almost Steinerian grasp of symbolism and tradition, but the real situation is of course nothing of the sort.

Booth has here written the sort of myth studies book that used to appear commonly when the field was just getting started at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It reminds me, for instance, of "Oedipus Judaicus," by William Drummond. These were books that presented the world's mythic traditions as a mish mash in which all the traditions and religions were represented as saying the same thing. The world's religious traditions do not, of course, say the same thing, not even in terms of their esoteric teachings, which differ vastly, contrary to what these sorts of gurus try to make the public believe. Try comparing Gurdjieff sometime with Rudolf Steiner and see what you come up with. Two very different sets of ideas. Which is why, of course, Steiner broke from the Theosophists represented by Madam Blavatsky and Annie Besant, because he differed from them in his teachings despite the fact that both the Theosophists and the Anthroposophists were attempting to represent "esoteric tradition as it has always been taught."

Esotericists, as I can tell you from having read many of them -- Ken Wilber, for instance, who is always so anxious to point out how everybody else is wrong so that he can reassure himself and you, the reader, that his understanding is the only time anyone in human history has ever got this stuff right -- not only frequently disagree in their attempts to represent THE esoteric tradition, but in fact, they almost never agree at all. What does that tell you? How can there be only "one esoteric tradition" represented by all the secret societies of the ages as Mark Booth would have us believe if the gurus of these traditions can't even agree among themselves on what are the basic principles of this teaching? Ego, it seems, is always at work, and most especially at work in those who, again like Ken Wilber, claim to have most thoroughly transcended its limitations through the practice of their mental jnana yoga.

In short, skip Booth's book. You won't be missing much.
--John David Ebert

What a frustrating and ultimately useless book. I enjoy exposes on forgotten areas of history, on complex conspiracies, and particularly on ancient religion and mythology. So this book promised much, a "Secret Teaching Of All Ages" for a new millennium. Ultimately though it delivered little, spitting out addle-headed supposition after supposition - each presented as fact - with nothing to back any of them up. As others have said, it's most tempting to read the book as a parody, but of what? Or whom? Because author Booth seems dead earnest throughout.

Booth starts off fairly strong, with a plea for the reader to try to see the world in a different light, as the ancients might have seen it. This is a worthy request, and one well worth attempting. Also, his recounting of some of the more forgotten historiographers (ie Berossos) is interesting. This however is because Booth excels at exploiting the murkier areas of history. The less that's known about a city, a person, a structure, whatever, the more free Booth is to expound at length on its "secret" history - with of course nothing to back up his claim. Hence, the Sphinx was created as a monument to when the four dimensions came into being. Hence, Herodotus was an initiate who knew the true history of mankind (that we are descended from plantlike beings, according to Booth). Hence, it's all crap and it's all easily disproven.

What's most frustrating is that Booth wants it both ways. Early on he suggests that Jesus did not exist (at least as Christians imagine him), and that literal-minded Christians should stop reading if they're easily offended. Now this I could get behind; I myself don't even believe in Jeebus, as Homer J. Simpson once said. But later on Booth wants to have it the other way: Jesus DID exist, and he was just as perfect as depicted in the gospels; not due to his facile son-of-Yahweh origins, but because he was the latest harbinger of the true god, the latest in a line of succession of gods who have come to earth to set things straight. The Jesus stuff gets even more muddled. For example, to contrast Jesus's "new" way of thinking (which earlier in the book Booth claims was actually pieced together from Socrates and Pythagoras; again, having it both ways) with the soon-to-be-replaced "old" way of thinking in the ancient world, Booth compares some sayings of Jesus with some sayings of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. With Jesus providing positive messages, Aurelius caught up in "depression." But the simple fact Booth fails to mention: Marcus Aurelius lived about 150 years AFTER the time in which Jesus is supposed to have lived!

Things get downright stupid as the "Secret History" moves into the Middle Ages. Because here Booth claims that "true love" did not exist until Medieval times! That's right, the era in which eviscerations were public entertainment, priests sold forgiveness to the highest bidder, and sex was the work of the devil, was the era which saw the first appearance of true love. Any reader of the classics will know this is bull. And Booth does attempt to skirt over it; he gives ancient poet Sappho as an example, stating that even though her well-known poems SEEM to be about true love, they're really more concerned with physical love. No, true love was brand-new to the human experience sometime around the 1100s CE. That anyone could present something so idiotic is baffling. Again, maybe it all really IS a parody.

I'll give you one example of how Booth so often misleads his reader. Around page 94 of the hardback (which I don't have in front of me at the moment) there's a neat little illustration of an ancient statue: a wavy-haired being with a vacant expression and crab pincers jutting from his forehead. Booth identifies this illustration as being of "The Green Man," a favorite subject of fringe scholars. If you check the image credits at the back of the book, this illustration is one of the many which are identified as being from "the author's collection." Meaning, no attestation to where Booth took it from. This is a clever little trick Booth plays throughout the book, covering up where his images are from, so he can claim they represent whatever he intends. So, this "Green Man" illustration. I happen to know that it's taken from James Morgan Pryse's 1910 treatise "The Restored New Testament;" Pryse himself took the illustration from "Specimens of Antient Sculpture," published in London in 1802 by the Dilettanti Society. Now, Pryse claimed the illustration was of "The Mystic Dionysos," with those pincers representing the constellation of Cancer, the dewlap ears representing the Ram, and etc. It's apparent Pryse based his claim off of the illustration, and that he never saw the actual statue, because do you know what this statue - which Booth claims was the Green Man and Pryse claimed was the Mystic Dionysos - is actually of? The sea god Triton. It's a shattered bust which was part of a group commissioned for Emperor Commodus's apotheosis around 191 CE. Maybe you've seen that famous bust of Commodus, where he's a pumped-up Hercules look-alike with a lion's head draped over his own. This statue of Triton stood beside it, and it features none of the things the fantasy-prone original artist depicted in "Specimens of Antient Sculpture," no pincers on its forehead, no dewlap ears. It's anyone's guess why that illustrator decided to add these spurious attributes (it's possible he just got creative when depicting the statue's wavy hair), but otherwise his illustration looks exactly like Triton; search online for "Triton right Musei Capitolini MC1121.jpg," compare that image with the illustration in your copy of "The Secret History," and you'll see they're one and the same. And you'll also see, right before your eyes, how Booth has mislead you into believing something that's not true.

So if Booth is misleading you about something so trivial, why trust him with something more grand...something like, say, the "secret history" of the world?

The publishers have packaged this book as conventional history, which is misleading. It isn't even conventional alternative history of the Sitchin/Hancock school, but something much stranger, unlike anything else I have read.

Readers shouldn't get hung up on whether or not it's true. If they do, they'll miss the games-playing that is at the heart of this, the wrong-footing multilayered ironies. Like a Dadaist sculpture, like a painting by Kurt Schwitters, I'm sure it means to be misleading at times. I can't find a single point of comparison in literature. It's like William Blake meets the Arabian Nights meets Philip K Dick meets Lost. Totally surreal.

THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE WORLD is not only first-rate writing but a fine exposition of the links in ancient secret history to present day esoteric beliefs.

I admire the intelligent and grounded work of Mark Booth in his enthusiasm and respect for his subject. It is incomparably researched and vibrant reading.

Richard Shenkman's "Legends , Lies & Cherished Myths of World History" is an entertaining and light-hearted attempt at dispelling popular misconceptions about world history. However, because Shenkman is more interested in debunking than educating, it is also full of contrarian viewpoints and odd interpretations, and ultimately this book falls flat on its face.

Too many of the "myths" that he "debunks" are done so based on faulty reasoning, minority viewpoints, or skewed perspectives. For instance, he argues that the Munich Agreement wasn't really "appeasement" because Britain wasn't prepared to go to war. To support that, he describes in depth the state of the British military. However, in doing so, he completely ignores the French military (which at the time was stronger than the German military); and he ignores his own arguments later in the book about how weak the German military was even in 1940. He also "breaks the news" that the German Army used 2.7 million horses in World War II. But anyone with any knowledge of the Eastern Front in World War II knows that the Germans relied heavily on horse transport, so this isn't an earth-shattering revelation.

One other episode reveals the weakness of this book. When discussing Lord Nelson, Shenkman takes delight in reporting that he had an adulterous affair. Again, this is another one of those "secrets" that almost everyone knows about. He also points out that Nelson died while standing upright on his quarterdeck during the Battle of Trafalgar, an act that Shenkman describes as "Stupid." But Shenkman gives no context to Nelson's actions and fails to tell the reader that a captain's (or admiral's) expected place of duty was on his quarterdeck, standing upright to inspire his men; had Nelson refused to do something so "stupid," he never would have even been a captain, let alone the most famous and beloved British hero of the century.

Shenkman also discusses some of the historic aspects of Christianity and Judaism. Unfortunately, he wanders into some controversial theological discussions, which further weakens the book.

At times, this book reads like a Dave Barry column or book, which, while funny at times, isn't necessarily a compliment in a book that is supposedly informative. Often, he says that the myths and lies arose when "some historians decided" or "some textbook writers got together and said," which doesn't really explain how these myths and misconceptions arose. Shenkman delights in poking holes in the conventional wisdom, but unfortunately his history is weak or biased at times and the book isn't very informative. The book's humor is its only redeeming quality.

Some people don't take this book in the way it was clearly written - with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The author obviously didn't mean for this to be a definitive account of all the events covered - that would have acquired volumes approaching a set of encyclopaedias!

What he does do, however, is cause you to pause, and think, about some of the things you might have believed for years based solely upon what some highly-dubious sources have passed off as legitimate history - such as Hollywood. There they;d have you believe that Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek were paragons of virtue in their roles as great Western allies. Or how about those "authentic" Spanish Civil War battle scenes - many shot on the back lots of Hollywood and some even shot in a bathtub in New Jersey.

What he might have included, as examples of manipulative history, was Frank Capra's unjustifiably renowned "why we fight" video series which shows, among other gross inaccuracies, the "gallant" Russians, prior to the Nazi invasion, toiling away in their wheat fields in Socialist bliss. Because Capra compiled this DURING the war, no mention was made, of course, of the murderous Stalinist purges that had already sent millions of his own people to their deaths or lifetimes of slavery in he Gulags. The problem is, the series is STILL being sold as "historical" accounts of the era.

Sure, you can poke holes in what author Shenkman writes. Isn't that the whole point of history? As George Santayana said [and who is quoted in the Conclusion of this book] "History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."

One of my jabs is aimed squarely at the chapter "World War II" where the author attempts to justify the appeasement of Hitler by Britain - specifically Chamberlain. He says the Munich Accord [the sell-out of Czechoslovakia] not only produced peace [however temporarily], but that Britain was in no position to take on Germany in 1938.

Now while that is certainly true, what he completely overlooks are the relative strengths of France and Germany at that time. France had a pact with the Czechs, and a move by Daladier and the French Army, Navy and Air Force [which dwarfed the Germans at that time] would have caused Hitler to cave in. Indeed, his own generals were absolutely petrified at the prospect of going head to head with France in 1938 with inferior tanks and less aircraft! The fact is, France did not need Britain in 1938 - except for moral support and, perhaps, the Royal Navy and Air Force. What the French did NOT have in 1938 was the courage of their convictions. And THAT Hitler banked upon.

He counted on it again a year later when, in September 1939, he invaded Poland, leaving his Western flank virtually unprotected except for a few scattered lower-level units. And by this time Britain was stronger both from a manpower and a materiel aspect. And so was France. An attack then and again Hitler would have had no choice but to capitulate as he was in no position to fight a two-front war.

Not only does the author not even mention that possibility, he then goes on to punch a few holes in his own Munich argument later in the chapter when he says that, when Germany attacked France in May 1940, the latter were STILL better equipped than the Germans in almost every respect [although he does acknowledge that the reason for their quick collapse - quicker than the Poles by the way - was a lack of a will to fight.

But that's the fun of looking back. Opinions will vary widely on what should or should not have been done, and you can argue forever as to who was right and who was wrong.

I like the book because what it made me do was go out and seek the more straightforward, no-axes-to-grind historical accounts that simply present the facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions. THAT's the way history should always be presented.

As he opened up the book with stating that there is no hard evidence that Achilles or Helen of Troy existed I winced a little. Apparently this guy cannot differentiate mythology from history. I tried to continue whilst rolling my eyes as he proudly announced that Cleopatra wasn't pretty. And finally I gave up on reading this book less than 50 pages into it as he goes on and on about how the Christians were solely responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths during the Crusades. *sigh* If you're going to rant about history make sure it's something worth writing about and that you're right. This one goes to the garbage can instead of the used book store.

As with most TV series you get statements with out support. So I tracked down the Richard Shenkiman book to get some background to the statements about American myths. I was not disappointed. It is as if he was reading this book on the TV with more graphic representations for the different media.
The book is worth reading. However the format may not be to some peoples liking as it is short choppy statements and the chapters are divided into subjects as, Discoverers and Inventors, Presidents, Sex, and Art.
There is a fair set of footnotes to lead you to further reading. You may need this as he sometimes stretches a point.
Final analysis, you are better off reading this to give a better perspective on reality. Read it to your kids and save them a lifetime of "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History".

So you think Catherine the Great was Russian, do you? Then you are a prime candidate for R. Shenkman's acid-tongued revelation of little known or seldom recognized historical fact. If there is a basic misapprehension, Shenkman is on it--much to the annoyance of those who thought they knew Cleopatra was Egyptian, the Gospels are consistent, and the Scots have always worn kilts.

In some respects the work is like buckshot: Shenkman basically goes after what interests him, darting from one item to another in a more or less chronological order, taking on everything from Alexander the Great to Hitler. Did Moses write the first five books of the Old Testament? Did Lady Godiva really ride naked through the streets of Coventry? Who was really responsible for having Joan of Arc burned at the stake? Did Winston Churchill really oppose appeasement of Germany?

Some of the material is stuff you would have known if you had paid attention in high school, but even so much of it will startle most readers, and Shenkman's wry style is sure to amuse. Recommended for the pure fun of it!

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

These are the opening words of this book:

"Until the 1960s, Britain's contribution to the Great War seemed clearcut, the roles of her chief players generally accepted.

"Haig campaigned consistently for concentration of effort against Germany's main army....

"When it came to actual fighting, the traditional view was that Haig had pounded the Germans with a string of attrition battles, worn them down and in the end won that sweeping victory he always predicted." [Page 1]

That "traditional view," now there's the rub. Anyone coming to ths book about the First World War with no more knowledge than that imparted in the half hour or so devoted to it in high school history classes might actually believe Winter's implication that Field-Marshal Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, KT, GCB, OM, GCVO, KCIE, ADC (1861-1928), has a military reputation of sufficient luster to justify a scholar mounting an all-out attack against it in the name of truth. Those who know a little bit more about the man and the war, tend to treat Winter's self-proclaimed crusade with something very like a snort of derision--as may be seen from the negative reviews to be found right here in Amazon.

That Haig is not enrolled upon the list of history's great captains is hardly news. B. H. Liddel Hart was making mincemeat of Haig's accomplishments back in the 1930s and the memory of the First Lord Haig has not exactly been overwhelmed by the number and warmth of his defenders since then.

Whatever Winter's original outlook and intention might have been, it is clear that by the time he came to write this book, he despised Haig and all his works. Winter never gives Haig the benefit of a doubt: Haig was always wrong in whatever he set his hand to and any or all of his actions can be analyzed as a combination of self-serving careerism, general stupidity and pig-headed rigidity.

Winter is always delighted to quote negative remarks made about Haig by his brother officers.

Monash, Commander of the Australian Corps: "Haig was, technically speaking, quite out of his depth in regard to the minutiae of the immense resources which were placed in his hands. I was at first quite dismayed to find that he obviously did not know in detail the composition of his formations.... On a later occasion in 1918, he appeared to blunder badly and be out of touch with the details of the situation when he came to discuss with me how best to exploit the great victory of 8 August before Amiens." [Page 163]

Edmonds, the official historian of the war: "Haig knew nothing about infantry or engineers and could not understand artillery." [Page 163]

Morton, one of the Field Marshal's ADCs: Haig had an "utter dislike of new ideas." [Page 163]

Readers familiar with the voluminous and bilious writings that followed the American Civil War will tend to take such ex post facto stabs and digs with a grain of salt.

Winter does not limit himself to blackguarding Haig at second hand. Often enough, he speaks in his own voice:

"Thus Haig's rapid promotion owed little to proven professional competence and much to good fortune with patrons. Wood, Kitchener and Escher were all men of substance and their support had pushed Haig far ahead of his rivals--but at a price. The frisson of homosexuality attaching to each of his patrons gave ammunition to jealous rivals, all the more because of a strong dislike of women which he made little effort to conceal. As a middle-aged bachelor, Haig realized that he was in a potentially embarrassing position and his marriage must be seen in that context." [Page 33]

"In briefing sessions, Haig always reduced the airing of contrary opinions to a minimum.... These symptoms of a man avoiding situations which might challenge his own rigid conceptions of command were accompanied by a disturbing change in Haig himself. Before the war he seldom went to church, preferring to spend the Sabbath on a golf course.... As soon as he became Commander in Chief, however, a religious dimension appears. God, to be sure, was never mentioned by name, and Haig's denomination seems almost to have been chosen as a result of a particular preacher's good looks, youthful energy and simple sermons...." [Pages 164-165]

To my mind, whatever value this book may have is subverted by the author's evident passions. It may well be that he has assembled useful facts and made valid judgements, but the tone of the book is such that I simply cannot trust them.

Two stars and too bad.

One should read it opposite the John Terraine hagiogrpahy on Haig, and be prepared to be surprised by all the gloss, flasehoods and lies by the British Establishment to cover up its idiocy in prosecuting the war in the hands of an incompetent like Haig.

With this book Denis Winter seems to have launched a near-quixotic quest to get the real facts regarding Haig's command. One of the most important conclusions reached is that almost all the official histories, cabinet minutes, unit reports, and similar works have been very carefully vetted and 'cleaned up' before being published. Not even individual memoirs can be relied on as the gov't often had carrots and sticks in hand to deal with more independent-minded veterans. Winter suggests a broad, self-serving conspiracy by those at the top to preserve their reputations and to save the public the additional grief of learning that their sons/husbands/fathers may have died incidentally due to bureaucratic incompetence, amateurish leadership, or the sheer indifference of chateau generals.

Winter deconstructs the official mythology regarding Haig and exposes him to be a well-connected careerist interested more in being field marshal than in pursuing the effective and successful leadership of his troops. This isn't so surprising or unusual in that most democracies at least initially heavily rely on political appointees in times of mass mobilization (American Civil War, Pershing, Smuts, etc.). However, Haig seems to have devoted much of his WWI energies intriguing for the top job and writing daily diary entries (apparently meant for later public consumption). How is it that so many leading British figures found time not only to keep copious, detailed diaries but also to manage an entire war?

The book is divided into the following major sections: Haig's Credentials, The Attrition Battles of 1916-1917, The Attrition Period, 1918: A Year of Mobility, and Falsifying the Record. 'Haig's Credentials' examines how Haig's top-level connections with Esher and the king eventually unseated French and placed Haig securely in power for the remainder of the war. 'The Attrition Battles' critically analyzes Haig's refusal to stop a battle once it became obvious it would not succeed (usually the first 48 hours). 'The Attrition Period' looks at the Commonwealth armies under his command and his heavy reliance on Canadians and ANZACs. '1918' discusses Haig's poor preparations to meet the expected German spring offensives and his near panic, followed by placing supreme allied command into Foch's hands. 'Falsifying the Record' then goes into particular detail involving the cover-ups and manipulations of Haig's memoirs - apparently three different versions of them.

Denis Winter's analysis is highly critical, but he does give Haig some due credit for correctly anticipating the time and place of the German attack. But for the most part, Winter shows Haig in the likely true light, that of an aspiring careerist officer struggling to learn the military side of his trade and often scapegoating others for his own failures, e.g. Charteris, and selectively releasing self-serving diary excerpts. All in all a very insightful book about Haig that I recommend to any serious student of WWI. Consider reading John Terraine's To Win a War for an alternative pro-Haig/establishment view.

Denis Winter's nickname in Great War history circles is "The self-appointed Witchfinder General of the Great War". It's not catchy, but it's pretty accurate.

This book is a nonsense that would be ridiculous were it not worryingly popular. Winter's thesis is effectively a vehicle to advance his own agenda and has been debunked by a number of highly reputable historians, including Australia's two most eminent historians of World War 1, Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson (neither of whom could be described as fans of Haig). It has also been disowned by the staff at the Australian War Memorial. Not a very glittering endorsement.

Winter accuses a lot of people (pretty much everyone in Britain, basically) of covering up Haig's deficiencies and generally lying. Aside from that fact that it is generally unwise to buy into any conspiracy that requires more than three people to keep their mouths shut, Winter's thesis doesn't have much credibility when one considers that fact that half the people accused of conspiring harboured massive personal animus agaisnt Haig and would have taken delight in sticking the knife in where possible (as Brigadier James edmonds did on more than one occassion). Given the shockingly bad reputation Haig enjoys among the public at large, Winter's book has been described by one historian as "surely the most unsuccessful conspiracy in history". Well, quite.

On top of this, ironically given the relish with which he accuses others of lying and distorting history, it has been demonstrated that Winter systematically misquotes and selectively edits sources and distorts the evidence. For example, from a letter by a staff officer saying "You might think that the quality of the army has not improved a jot in the four years since the outbreak of the war but I would most strongly disagree with this assessment and would argue that our performance has demonstrably improved in leaps and bounds", Winter will simply lift the bit that says "the quality of the army has not improved a jot in the four years since the outbreak of the war" and present that as evidence of British generals covertly condeming themselves out of their own mouths. Of course, for people without the time to look or access to archived material it is fairly difficult to refute this sort of thing and for a long time Winter's claims went unquestioned (aided in no small part by the fact that he was often telling people what they wanted to hear). Judging by some of the reviews of the book on this website, some things haven't changed.

In summary, this is a terrible book. It is bad history. It is polemical. And above all it is intellectually dishonest. There are far better books on great war generalship out there, if only people would care to look. Sadly, most people seem happier reinforcing their prejudices with this sort of thing and as long as this is the case I don't doubt Winter's books will continue to sell like hot cakes while more worthy academic works will continue to gather dust on the shelves.

Part military history, part rant, part character assassination, and part conspiracy theory, Denis Winter's "Haig's Command" has, in a morbid sense, something for everyone.

The central thesis of the book is simple, yet sensational: The "truth" about British military operations in France during the First World War was concealed for nearly fifty years because Field Marshal Douglas Haig, with the complicity of the British government, bowdlerized and rewrote the official records so that his own incompetence (and indirectly that of the British Government) would be hidden. Winter claims that the true story can be pieced together by comparing the histories and minutes of the Dominion records (i.e. Australian and Canadian) that escaped the censorious scalpel and became public record in the 1960s.

From beginning to end, Winter unleashes a firestorm of abuse on Haig. To begin with, he says, Haig's military career is the story of a completely fabricated C.V. and the patronage of a few, well-placed figures in the British Army. Moreover, the author hints that Haig's relationship with these key mentors -- most notably Lords Kitchener and Esher -- may have been homosexual in nature. As a Corps commander under Sir John French during the opening months of the war, Haig bungled every operation he was entrusted with, Winter says, so his eventual promotion to Field Marshal had nothing to do with battlefield performance.

From the moment Haig takes command in December 1915, Winter's book so entirely rewrites the history of the Western Front that it is impossible to synthesize his points and accusations. Needless to say, everything you've read before is wrong; everything Haig did was a moronic disaster; and everything in the British war records is a willful, malicious lie.

This book comes with the imprimatur of dusk jacket praise from Norman Stone, a respected historian of the First World War. It also lists some prominent endorsements for Winter's previous effort, the widely acclaimed "Death's Men." It isn't surprising that John Keegan and others refused to sign up in support of the author's latest work.

If you are a serious student of military history and the First World War in particular, it may not be a bad idea to familiarize yourself with Winter's arguments, if only to reject them out of hand. Otherwise, don't bother with this book.

This is a collection of vignettes, each usually about 4 or 5 pages in length, concerning mistakes made (usually by Generals) during the U.S. Civil War. Some of these are fairly well-known, such as the Battle of the Crater, when hundreds of Union troops marched into a huge crater created when engineers blew up an ammo dump, only to have Confederate soldiers simply stand on the rim of the crater and fire down on them at point-blank range; while others are stories previously unknown to me. I was unaware that President Lincoln appointed a number of generals from foreign countries, particularly Germany. There were some German generals in the Northern Army who spoke no English. There also seemed to be plenty of drunken generals, according to this book. There seemed to be a special level of incompetence in this war; I guess the drunkards and incompetents were balanced out by the Lees and Grants.

I enjoyed reading Mr johnson's. He took the civil war and made it kinda funny. whoever said this book was drivel was obviosly mistaken. This book should be considered a classic and will go down as one of the best books written about blunders in the civil war because there are so many books on civil war blunders.

This book is, in short, a disgrace. It is full of factual errors from beginning to end, which is reason enough to avoid it. What is most disturbing, however, are the number of "facts" that the author has simply made up or inferred from circumstantial evidence. Many of the anecdotes in this book deserve to be to told and this could have been done in an interesting and effective way. The idea that history is only "fun" if it is made up, however, really is an abomination. Anyone who reads this will walk away from it believing many things about the most devasting war in U.S. history that simply are not true. Shame on the author and the publisher for ever releasing this book.

It was oh so handy in writing my report, but a little confusing. But, I don't know much about war terms or the Civil War itself, so you may not find it so confusing. It was so funny to read and made my project much more fun!

An excellent read! Many of these little stories are well known but some were new to me, and I have been a student of the ACW for many years. This is not a "scholarly work"; it is for people who like reading a few short essays a day. Good for beginners who want to get a "feel" for what happened from 1861-65 that didn't get into the ordinary texts.

I read a friend's copy and feel there are too many LIES about history. It was very factual and a real eye opener. Every LIBRARY should have a copy so people could make up their own minds with ALL THE FACTS ARE ON THE TABLE. The idea of suppressing the truth for ANY REASON, should be a crime. Let the evidence speak and any reader should be able to make up their own minds. Never be afraid of FACTS. I am a retired teacher and have several Degrees, but I will never know enough unless the thrth is available.

I would buy 10 copies if I could.

Ditlieb Felderer is the foremost Revisionist
researcher of the Ocswiseim (i.e. Auschwitz)
concentration camp of alltime. Between 1969-
1980 nobody paid more visits to the camp
and studied more about the 'NAZI-period'
in Europe than he did. Ditlieb was a jewish-
swede who's parent were interned by the
Nutzis themselves. First Felderer went to
Auschwitz TO PROVE there was a 'holacau$t'
because he was involved in the 'Jehovah's
Sicknesses' Cult. They have their own
'holacau$t' story about alledged gassed
'Witnesses'. Felderer quickly found out
that the story, as Murray Rothbard told
acquaintences, was a myth (the deportations
and expultions were real but not the 'gas
chamber' tales. Felderer was last heard of
in the Canary Islands and left the Revi-
sionist camp to retire in the early '90's.
He was one of the best. God bless you, D!

An excellent book written by a brave and fearless jewish author, who has the guts to reveal what many historians have known for a long time, and that is the so-called "Diary Of Anne Frank" is a monumental hoax written by her father for financial gain and holocaust propaganda purposes. This should be an eye-opener for those still believing the gas chamber fables, babies boiled down into soap, six million jews gassed, and human-skin lamp shades fairy tales. I would give the book ten stars if possible. Just to set the record straight, the ADL and their fellow tribesmen absolutely refuse to take part in an open, televised debate on the wild tales of the so-called holocaust, which has reaped them multiple BILLIONS for their Zionist cohorts, even when offered large sums of money to appear. And to think they can brain-wash our kids in school with this tripe. Oh, yes, I know...I'm a nasty "Nazi" or so-called "anti-Semite for refusing to be lobotomized by skilled soothsayers.

ok, if i could i wouldn't even give this book half a star. He'sconcluding that jews are evil and that holacust was good or something. i mean get rael. you shouldn't have even publisted this book and i'm glad it's out of date. i wish none could buy it anywere. lisen to me never read this book it's a waste of time.

It is a shame that someone would sacrifice a tree to write this book. Not only was the scholarship seriously lacking. The author ignored all evidence that did not fit into his conspiracy theory. It's no surprise that this book is out of print.

Sorry I had to give it one star. There is no category on this form for zero.

This book is not recommended. There are too many flaws to mention, as in the fact that the author actualy states some myths to be true (more on that later). Here are some flaws:

1. No bibliography. His "debunkings" of myths are arrogant, yet he never cites a source. Scholarary no-no.

2. He claims that "Ring Around the Rosies" was a reference to the Black Plague and popped up in 1347. Where he gets this I have no idea. The first mentioning of Ring Around the Rosies appeared in 1881, a far stretch from 1347. Also, how could "ashes" been a corruption of a plague victim sneezing? The ashes part wasn't added until the 20th century. This was the first version of "Ring Around the Rosies":

Ring a ring a rosie, A bottle full of posie, All the girls in our town, Ring for little Josie.

How that could relate to a plague is beyond me.

3. He claims the Baby Ruth bar is named after Grover Cleavland's daughter. There is no evidence for this claim and it has always been rather ambiguous.

4. Finally the author claims John Hanson was the first president of the US. Let's look at this. No one in Hanson's time called him the President, and John Hanson couldn't possibly have been the "first president of the United States," because neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States of America was created until after he was dead.

Main source: ...

While the premise of the book is a good one, we all do have many beliefs that we hold both personally and as a larger culture that are often wrong ( often ,I hate to admit as an art history major, due to the traditions that have been passed down to us through art- though that usually has more to do with who commissoned it- in other words The Church.....) I have to take isssue with some of the points that I saw in just the small sample of the book that I was able to read on Amazons site. As more than one other reviewer has pointed out he doesn't site his sources for his information - something that really bugs me in books like this! When he talks about the "Ring Around the Rosie" / Plauge refrence that is highly debated. With many people on both sides of the issue, so I don't think that I'll be satisfied by his short section that he devotes to each item. ( not to mention the fact that there is NO source material sited!!!) If he says that "most people" think that it has to do with the plauge I don't think that a survey would prove that to be true- while it is often sited I don't think "most" people know that. That term bugged me in other places too- just how does he know what "most people think??? I would certainly be shocked to think that "most" people were so ill educated enough as to think that AD meant "after death" that makes no sense at all!!!! Just how did he come to that comclusion! Not to mention that the BC / AD system is going out of use at any rate in favor of the less exclusively Christian world view BCE (before common era) and CE ( common era).
I also just was overall not that interested in the book because, well, maybe it's me, but these were not revelations to me AT ALL! Most of the time I felt myself rolling myeyes and saying "yeah- duh" Maybe it becomes more enlightening- but from the reviews and the backcover it doesn't seem to! Maybe this book is best suited to children so that they won't form these misonceptions, but it's not an issue I don't think for most well educated adults from what I've read! Maybe I'll pick it up at the libray and take a furthur look, but I think I'll find a more interesting book on the subject.

I was looking through this book recently because I had read and reviewed a book called Modeling Behaviors from Images of Reality in Television Narratives: Myth Information and Socialization by Tony R. DeMars. I think someone reading that book about influences of TV shows on childrens' behavior who doesn't quite grasp the idea of the myths we build our world around as reality would do well to read this book also--as well as a book that came out in the mid-80s called No Sense of Place, by Joshua Meyrowitz. Some people seem to have a hard time stepping back from their 'reality' and seeing these myths.

...but not enough references. Telling someone *how* you find information is just as important as telling them what the information is.

An excellent book to get you to start using some critical thinking skills. The author points out that what we think is so often is not. He did however pass on a myth that is not correct. He passed on the myth of glass being a liquid, when it isn't. Glass is an amorphous solid and not a liquid. It's crystalline structure clearly places as a solid and not a liquid. (Read S.R. Elliott's book, Amorphous Solids, An Introduction)This is but one source among many that will confirm this. I dare say that Mr. Varasdi confirms his own point! All in all a book well worth reading.

It's interesting that Bros has inspired such vehement reactions in the reviewers below but that should tell you he's on to something.

Bros is a difficult read. He is clearly not a great writer and does not always do a good job explaining his ideas. But I agree that once you sift through his prose you will find that he does an excellent job of tearing apart the underpinnings of modern physics. If you think that modern physics is the pinnacle of human thought you will not enjoy this book and probably will not understand it either.

As for the reviewer below who concludes that "logic does not apply" to physics, that is technically true, but logic does indeed apply to the manner in which we use our intellects to arrive at those "laws". Bros argues, successfully I believe, that the thought processes scientists have used to arrive at the modern "laws" of physics are not completely logical. And therefore the "laws" of physics are not "laws" and need to be reevaluated in the light of logical thought.

I think it's clear that Bros will be ignored now but 50-100 years from now he will recognized as a courageous genius. If you don't understand how he uses logic, don't worry about it, you're in the same boat as 99.9% of the human race.

The one positive review of this new age blather, the one that praises it's LOGIC, is what proves the absurdity of this book. Anyone with any understanding of physics beyond the laws of Newton knows that logic does not apply. How logical is Special Relativity or quantum mechanics? These theories are so counterintuitive it makes one's head spin, but that certainly does not render them false. This book only makes for good reading at the Burning Man festival or UFO conventions. Please save your time and money and pass on it.

Bros is an extremely intelligent writer who has somehow managed to shake off the weight of mainstream scientific political correctness and give us a better look at how the universe may really be organized.

The reviews below that claim Bros gives no scientific support for his arguments completely miss the mark. Bros uses LOGIC, impeccable logic in most cases, to show that many areas of mainstream science are lacking in any logical foundation. You do not need a scientific citation to establish the validity of a logical statement, but you do need to be able to THINK LOGICALLY, a trait that the reviewers below lack as well as most American scientists and almost all American students. Bravo to Bros for having the intellect and the courage to attack the most basic concepts of modern scientific thought.

The book is well organized, and offers much information, but it somehow misses the intented impact that the author promises. It has mass but is still a "light-weight".

i happen to agree with most if not all of the authors contentions, unfortunately his books are written in a long nonsensical run on type of sentance and he offers not a single example of evidence for ANYTHING! ...this book is written (no JOKING) like a serial killer with half a mind sitting in a cell writting his world conspiracy manifesto..I swear all jokes aside this book is written in such a jumbling irrational manner i can narry fathom ANY publisher accepting it under any circumstances....the way and means in which the book is written should be a study for psychologists for how a disturbed mind works and writes..This is no joke or pun...This book is HIGHGLY disturbing..

I could barely get through the book due to the way that that the author seemed to seeth with sarcastic anger at any type of therapy he didn't approve of. It didn't seem the least bit objective and he gave every evidence of being someone with an axe to grind. His own suggestions for therapy seemed astonishingly naive. He seemed to totally miss the importance of a person's emotional dynamics and he completely fails to understand the fact that interpersonal relationships are often multilevel. Don't waste your money.

Campbell's book is a very thoughtful and useful summary of errors made by three of the major schools of psychotherapy--Psychodynamic, Behavioral and Humanistic. He clearly shows the dark side of these outdated practices, shows how evidence fails to support their theoretical framework and shows how unscurpulous and/or misguided therapists harm people with them. For this alone, the book deserves praise. There is a definate downside to this book, however. The author is an exremely enthusiastic supporter of Cognative Therapy and takes the opportunity to advertise for this school of thought while revealing none of its own down side. Cognative Therapy is, unfortunately, far from the panacea its adherants claim that it is. It ignores the reams of data demonstrating that many mental and behavioral for which one might seek therapy are actually brain disorders which are inhereted and shoud be treated with medication. Cognative Therapists note (correctly)that mentally ill people distort reality and go on to assume that if they could be trained to reason away the distortion, they would be cured. For instance, a depressed person think that everyone hates her so if she learned to understand that some people like her she would be better off. However, it is more likely that the cognative distortions are the RESULT of having a mental illness and not the CAUSE. When antidepressants are sucessful, for example, depressed people start to think that life might not be so bad after all, even though they have not made a conscious choice to change their philosophy of life. Critis of Cognative Therapy have pointed out that the "cognative distortion" happens simotaneously with mental illness and could not be the cause of it since a cause has to precede the effect. I definately recommend reading the book--just be as critical as the author's preconcieved ideas as he is of others.

I have been a student of mental health education at the pop, academic and professional levels continuously since about 1984. Initially I was a full-blown enthusiast of the field, believing that therapy and therapists could do no wrong, but as I have matured in the field I have pursued a balanced view. For example, I enjoy both the literature and tapes of Allen Frances, M.D., former DSM IV task force chair, as well as other authors from the American Psychiatric Press. But I also get a lot out of psych-bash books too. The truth about mental health beliefs, practice and practitioners is found only by looking at all sides of this fascinating field, even if it bores,hurts or angers. I certainly did not find a balanced picture in college, nor is it seen in the overwhelming majority of people who work in the mental health field today. Although somewhat irritating to read, and far from the most entertaining of books, I nevertheless found Terence Cambell's work to be important, and have read this and anotherof his. As this book points out, far too many therapists are troubled people providing junk "therapy" based on pseudo-science, folk myth, spiritualized pop philosophy, and pure guesswork. Instead of trying to cover up these and other problems or simply avoiding the issues, as is usually the case, the mental health field, from academics to clinical practice, needs to come clean and present the true, full, balanced picture, which is that of a field embraced by lifesaving wisdom and science, and artistically applied skill, as well as one where there is far too much hurtful nonsense and too many incompetent practitioners. All the bash books I have read have been written by field professionals and university academics, and not vengeful clients or opportunistic journalists. Among my favorite bash authors are Robyn Dawes, Elliot Valenstein, Bernie Zilbergeld, Paula Caplan, and Sidney Walker.

It's easy to read and has great explanations of what exactly is psychotherapy. Being trained in psychology myself, it's a good course book for a beginning clinical psychology major who's not interested in becoming a psychologist. One may imagine learning more from other books such as taking a course from Dr. Andrew M. Barclay at Michigan State University. He has more material than this average guy. Too much over criticism of the profession of psychotherapy written all over this book. I've read better psychology books than this. You're better off reading non-psychology books such as Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig. Pirsig would comment on this book as being "static quality" and not "dynamic quality." It's the average run of the mill psychology book that will end up at the resale bookstores!

Although this book considers many practitioners of therapy anathema, the author does enumerate thoughtful reasons as to why. It maginifies the possible harm humanistic/analytic/behavior indoctrination can cause. What's lacking is a comprehensive take on his therapy of choice. His crticisms of certain therapies should culminate into the final portions of his book, one that should exact a thorough depiction of his idea of beneficial therapy, one that should be so overwhelmingly insightful and seemingly obvious - inversely tantamount to his criticisms of pages earlier. You may ask why I appoint this book a 4. Well, it's immensely readable, peculiarly enjoyable, and instills you with a oscillating perception of whether or not the critique is true. I'm attracted to this book because its contentions are those that can be discussed, not thrown away.

After reading the masterpiece "Prince of West End Ave", I dove into Clerical Errors. Isler does not disappoint. This too is a gem. Isler belongs in the modern pantheon.

Devoted Catholics may be offended by the work. However, this misses the point. Its not really about Catholics. Any more said would spoil this carefully crafted tale.

After reading Clerical Errors; then the reviews "Distasteful" and "Exquisitely Literate...." I'm somewhere in the middle. I think 5 stars gives this work far to much credit, 1 too little. Mr. Isler ruminates is right -- in excess; to the point it's distracting. On the other hand Clerical Errors is filled with some amusing (though hardly original) observations. If a "poke" at catholicism offends, then don't read this book. In truth, any study of history will expose much of what Isler uses as jabs to the faith. This is nothing new.

Unfortunately, he also seems to use Father Music's ruminations about his life and "career" as a Catholic priest to periodically trot out the obligatory mention of the WWII atrocities committed against the Jews, the religion of Father Music's family. In addition, Father Music appears to view his cast off faith (Judaism) in a better light than the one that provided him with a secure and comforatable life. Despite the misgivings of his later years, he doesn't show any sign of giving up his present comfortable position.

Each religion has it's contradictions, problems, and flaws. Unfortunately the book is lopsided in it's assessment of the two faiths that have impacted Father Music's life.

All in all, don't expect much that's original, but have some fun with the antics of Father Music and Father Twombley.

Forget kindly, selfless Father Flanagan - his antithesis is Father Edmond Music, a priest gone far astray. He finds joy in celebrating the pleasures of the flesh with his housekeeper, Maude, is involved in the disappearance of a thought-to-be Shakespeare manuscript, was born a Jew, and worst of all, he's an unabashed atheist.

Let's say up front that some will be offended by what they may consider blasphemy; it's pure Isler who won the 1994 National Jewish Book Award for "The Prince Of West End Avenue." He's satirical, laugh out loud funny, exquisitely literate, and touching. He's also unwilling to be reined in by "popular constraints."

Thanks to a much earlier love affair with the robust Kiki, who gave the church her family home, Beale Hall, Father Music is contentedly assigned to be the Hall's director with the stipulation that it be used as a spiritual retreat.

Regrettably, the priest's laissez faire attitude has earned him a persistent enemy, one Father Twombly who is determinedly investigating the disappearance of a valuable manuscript from the Hall's library. Thus, at a rather advanced age Father Music is forced to try to outwit his vengeful nemesis.

Mr. Isler laces his text with ruminations on life, love, and faith - not longueurs but substantial food for thought offered with sly winks and witty prose pictures. "Clerical Errors" is a rich rabelaisian feast.

I ordinarily like a book that's a challenge. But this one didn't appeal to me. The opening line was funny enough for me to think I was going to have a good time, but the pace was quickly mired by the stylizations of the author, who introduces (without much call) ponderous literary and historical references, and quotes from the most erudite thinkers and writers, almost as if to prove that he is, or his character is -- what, older? educated?

Frankly, if it was meant to help a characterization along, then it wasn't done gracefully. I felt more like the author had a copy of "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" by his side, and less like this style contributed to the humour, plot, or characterizations. At least the passages where the characters interacted (dialogue) were worth skipping forward to read. But I found the writing to be so pre-occupied with its "look how well-read I am" feel that I lost interest in the book entirely and ended up putting it down.

I don't recommend this book for any but the most committed reader. Someone willing to bypass easier entertainment.

How can one admire a prose style and at the same time be repelled by the uses for which it is employed? The answer is, Easy, when it is a smirking anti-Catholic screed like Alan Isler's CLERICAL ERRORS. Mr Isler's protagonist in the book, a rather insufficiently converted Jew turned Roman Catholic priest, misses no opportunity to libel his new religion (although it provides him with a comfy livelihood)and bewail the wrongs done to the people of his birth. Believers are portrayed as ignorant bumpkins or malign pederasts. CLERICAL ERRORS will find its audience among those who want their worst assumptions about Christianity reinforced.

To his credit, Mr. Isler has managed to develop a style that is cut-rate Nabokov, although lacking the broad intelligence behind the model. That is the only positive comment one can make about this rancid work.

This is a wonderful book documenting some of the most significant failures of Justice in the 20th century. The stories presented within are both enthralling and heartbreaking. I highly recommend this book.

Another reviewer accused this book's authors of "intellectual dishonesty" for including crimes that did not result in a death sentence. However, this reviewer erroneously stated that only crimes that eventually result in the death penalty are capital crimes. This is not true. A capital crime is an crime that carries with it the _potential_ for recieving a death sentence - not just the crimes that actually do recieve such a sentence.

The authors also stated in the introduction that they would be including crimes which, at the time they were committed, constituted a capital offense, but no longer are considered death penalty-eligible (like rape).

The only "intellectual dishonesty" present is that of certain reviewers who make false statements and tarnish the reputations of well-respected researchers.

I would have ranked this book higher if it wasn't intellectually dishonest. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but I don't appreciate deceptive reasoning in defense of my beliefs.

The book's subtitle, its authors, many reviewers, as well as countless people who rely upon the authors' research to attack the death penalty, all state that the 400+ supposedly innocent people were all convicted of capital crimes. That implies that they were all sentenced to death, as that is what a "capital crime" is. That claim, which the authors themselves fully admit in their Introduction, is flat out false. As the authors themselves acknowledge, MOST of the 400+ cases referred to were cases where the defendant was not in fact sentenced to death. That, ipso facto, means that they were not found guilty of capital crimes. Many were found guilty of non-capital homicides, such as manslaughter and 2nd degree homicide, and were sentenced to terms significantly less than even life (sometimes as little as a few years). The authors also admit to include convictions for non-capital rapes, on the grounds that they COULD have been tried as such, but in fact weren't. They also admit to including convictions in jurisdictions were there wasn't any death penalty available at all!

Their justification for all this? Their argument is that it is legitimate for them to treat all these cases as "capital" because (they claim) most people believe that all criminal homicides are capital cases, even though that in fact is false. In other words, they are claiming that they are justified in relying on a false premise in their argument against the death penalty (these guys are anti-DP activists, and thus are not unbiased researchers) on the grounds that most people don't know it's false, even though they do. Such conscious exploitation of public ignorance on a legal issue is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty.

Otherwise, the book includes compelling stories of injustice in the criminal justice system. Their case would have been more compelling if, in their zeal to attack the death penalty, they were more honest about the matter.

I agree with the first reviewer. A blatant case of intellectual dishonesty. Michael Radelet is one of the worst researchers on capital punishment. I don't know how the guy got his tenure. Don't buy it!!

Just some definitional clarification in response to comments made about the "intellectual dishonesty" of the authors:

CAPITAL OFFENSE - a crime for which the death penalty may be imposed. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1999.

Black's is the legal system's most trusted authority on legal terminology, and while it is perhaps unfair and potentially misleading for the authors to have exploited a reader's possible misunderstanding of the nature of capital sentencing and prosecutorial dealmaking, the authors are correct in their usage of the term.