I just finished reading this "essential" biography and am so disappointed. To me, one of the authors seems to feel a saintliness toward Joan while the other goes from liking her films to trying to like her films. As I read this book, I felt like Quirk and Schoell were trying to convince me about aspects of Crawford's personality and events in her life and believe about them as they do. The job of a biographer is to write an objective narrative of someone's life. It is enjoyable reading but unfulfilling given the subject. One annoyance is encountering the phrase "chewing up the scenery" way too often. Then, there's the bombshell finale chapter in which Christina is put in the pan and roasted. The writing is almost like Faye as Joan - out of control!

I have been a Crawford fan all my life and am fascinated watching her in films, looking at her photographs and reading about her. If only someone in modern times would...could write an accurate objective biography that delves more into the woman, what she was about, what made her tick and NOT try to make her a saint or crucify her. Joan Crawford truly was one of the most fascinating personalities of the Twentieth Century. She deserves that much.

So, I guess we'll have to stick with JOAN CRAWFORD, A BIOGRAPHY by Bob Thomas or JOAN CRAWFORD: THE LAST WORD by Fred Guiles in the meantime. These two biographies are really good, and I highly recommend them.

While I enjoyed this book's thorough discussions of Crawford's films, I found much to be annoyed by. The authors portray Crawford as nearly a saint--and while I know she was capable of great kindness, I don't believe her motives were ALWAYS pure, and the one-sidedness of this book makes it difficult to swallow. EVERY SINGLE TIME the authors bring up a dispute or spat or negative information from a Crawford rival, they dismiss that person as jealous or washed up or a has-been. Similarly, they dismiss her "jealous" daughter's claims of child abuse as some kind of good old-fashioned "discipline." I don't claim to know whether Mommie Dearest contains a shred of truth or not, but this book does nothing to prove it as inaccurate as they claim. The main source of information here is Lawrence Quirk's own conversations with Joan in her elder years, and let's face it, anybody who's ever read Joan's "My Way of Life" knows that truth-telling is not her forte.

A more balanced biography is Fred Lawrence Guiles's The Last Word (1995). Guiles, at least, is not afraid to discuss unpleasant incidents in Crawford's life from several different viewpoints, and he refrains from opinionizing whenever the truth is unclear.

The 1st book since Bob Thomas' monumental biography that tells us something we did'nt know, this book is for anyone who is interested in film history in general,Joan Crawfords fans in particular, and specifically,anyone who read "Mommie Dearest" and wondered why CC was able to quote from a letter she crumpled up in her fist,saying "God,I hated her." One sees CC, feverishly smoothing out the letter, saving it for later...Joan Crawford was a flawed,damaged woman. She was also the most successful actress in film history,with a work ethic her less successful peers could'nt keep up with. Compulsive,careerist,sexual, she also managed to be kind to those who did'nt have what it takes-like her daughter CC. This biography makes clear that,though probably not the best mother in the world,she made efforts many others would not have. The lasting impression I took away from the book is of a woman struggling to do her best and despite her enormous success, never feeling good enough in the minds of Hollywood establishment-a joke in itself-or ultimately in the mind of her failure of a daughter. One only hopes that when CC kicks off,someone will write a book about her-naw,that will never happen-she just isnt interesting enough.

I think that all of the reviews (both pro and anti) missed her last chapter (I think some people probably reviewed the book without reading all of it, which is understandable, because the first chapters are provocatively written). Her point in the first part is that insofar as recovered memory syndrome, ritual satanic abuse, and multiple personality disorder are taken seriously, they apparently do little to help people recover from their unhappy states, and insofar as the claims of people suffering from these disorders are provably false in an objective sense, they discredit the professionals who diagnose them and the individuals who are diagnosed with them. Her more important point ( in my opinion) in the second part is that insofar as these phenomena have been discredited in the wider public, they lead to a distraction from or discrediting of related issues (sexual and other kinds of abuse of children and women, and more importantly, the circumstances of poor people, who are more likely to suffer certain sorts of abuse). Most likely no one will be able to settle many of the disputes over the accuracy of repressed childhood memories, but she points to an important problem--these particular trends in psychotherapy distract us from important social problems and yet offer no solution to them.

On a related theme: I visited a therapist in 1996 to be treated for depression--a therapist that my mother found for me--who insisted that I must have repressed memories and that this could be the only source of my longterm, episodal depression (she ignored my culture shock from a transcontinental move, my below-poverty-line income, the end of a serious long term relationship, my unfinished dissertation, and a troubled relationship with an alcoholic parent). When I pointed out to her that I have almost continuous memories of my life after the age of 5 (my friends are continually astounded that I can tell them what we ate at a restaurant meal in college) and that I felt it unlikely that I had repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, she told me that I was in denial and that until I recognized the importance of recovering these memories, I would continue to suffer from episodic depression. When I repeated that I wanted therapy for my current problems, she accused me of being resistant to therapy and promptly volunteered to schedule me for three sessions a week to get me over this problem. I thanked her for her time and told her that I would no longer be requiring her services; when she immediately presented me with a bill (which she assumed my parents would pay) for $200 for her services, I pointed out to her that my father was unemployed at the time and I would have to pay the bill myself. Since she already knew about my income problems, this actively reduced her interest in treating me!

My point is this: if you go to a therapist with an open mind to asking for help in resolving problems and he or she tells you something that seems ridiculous, it probably is: therapists, despite their training and potential gift for insight, have no special intellectual powers--merely more degrees.

I have mixed feelings about this book. Three of my seven alters found it persuasive, intelligent and informative. "Dr. Simon," a 55-year old physician with a very logical and linear cast of mind, was especially impressed by the force of Acocella's argument. "Mrs. Endicott," a church-attending lady of conservative political opinions, was likewise persuaded. "Chappy," a 35-year old comic store clerk with serious body image issues, was initially skeptical, but he usually defers to Mrs. Endicott and she eventually brought him around to accepting Acocella's perspective on MPD.

The rest of my personalities took a dimmer view of this book. "Caroline," a thirteen year-old Asian-American girl, doesn't read much other than poetry, and didn't make it much past the introduction before she got bored and gave it up. "Hogarth," an alcoholic house painter aged 37 found the entire topic ridiculous and insisted that the controversy over MPD was something Acocella had made up just to sell books. "Amy," a 25 year old college student pursuing a double major in Women's Studies and Communications, had the most negative reaction to the book and characterized it as part of the larger "backlash" against feminism. "Udo," a dwarf of indeterminate age and sex, declined to comment but made a sour face when asked for his opinion.

This book shows how harmful recovered memory, MPD and satanic ritual abuse diagnoses can be to the client and how women make up the bulk of those diagnosed. It shows how too many practitioners see no need for outcome studies showing efficacy prior to widespread use of a modality of therapy, nor do they see the need to inform a client that a modality is controversial within the industry itself before commencing such therapies. This book, along with others are raising questions about inadequate training as to the new data on the workings of the brain/mind which is pouring into the world these days. It is appalling to me that old unfalsifiable theories originating with Freud, Janet and others still reign supreme in the training of so many psychiatrists and other MH therapists in this day and age. The book raises troubling questions in my mind of profit motive. It shows an attitude of too many in the industry of "anything goes as long as I decide it is therapeutic". That attitude can be dangerous to the client, and it implies an arrogance on the part of such therapists. I urge people interested in the mental health industry and the rights of clients to read this book and to give serious thought to the questions raised.

Puleese! Even a novice dog owner can discern purely rediculous rot from reality. Tie a string around the bowl? Slosh the dog with ice water? Throw a heavy collar in it's face?
The only thing positive or closely resembling any helpful information is the photos. At least now we know what a Rottweiler looks like!

What a travesty! The advice given in this book is nothing short of ROTTen! These dogs are not to blame for every bad incident you hear about...It's the owners!! and bad breeders..Puh--leeeeze...Do not buy this book in order to get a fair picture of the Rottie..Buy it only if you want to laugh at it's absurdity....

What an antiquated piece of poop if I ever seen one! Throwing water in you Rott's face to make him back off the food that was just given to him??? Then sneak in and take his bowl away. If he won't bite you, I WILL! How's about something modern and positive like HAND FEEDING a food-protective dog so he learns where his dinner comes from (YOU the fair and firm MASTER)one kibble at a time? What a great bonding idea! Thank God I read Carol Benjamin and Ian Dunbar...or my Rott could have become one of the tortured beasts in this sadistic book. BTW, my 6 year old female Rott is an Advanced Certified Therapy dog and works with severly handicapped kids. I think I did "okay" raising her. NO? I'm too disgusted to write any more.

A found this to be amusing! I bought the tape because I wanted to actually hear the people talking. Before I listened to it I was hoping to listen to an aggressive preacher. Instead I listened to a person reading like a robot from script or quotes from the book. Throughout the tape you hear the author complain about toys promoting occults and eastern religion over and over again.

I can not find any evidence on how any of which was mentioned could harm a child. Yes, there were children who killed themselves and other children from watching what was on TV. A mentally sane child would know better than to murder. The author claimed the TV was unchristianizing the children and making them move towards Paganism or Satan. I happened to be one who was a child who watched lots of the shows mentioned and I pretty much stayed a churchgoing-Christian throughout my childhood until 17 when I converted to Deism. Does it make any difference whether I watched these shows during my childhood?

The book also bashes society because society rewards those who contribute their gifts and talents into it, but yet doesn't glorify God. Isn't that one of the reasons why this country was founded to promote thinking and new ideas? The authors friend also mentioned about how people don't question whether these people with talents are Christian or not. What difference does it make if they see Jesus as the son of God or just a good teacher?! The author thinks that the only significant people on this Earth are church-going Christians and whatever is not Christian are followers of Satan. She was mentioning that the people who make these cartoons were from the "drug era" of the 60s and practiced Hinduism and Buddhism. What is wrong with all of these eastern religions? The author does not mention why these religions are evil. Anyone who agrees with this book and thinks Satan is behind these toys, books, tv, etc. read Matthew 15:4 of the Bible to your children instead.

I Used to be on the other side - arguing w/ my Christian father about how he was "overeacting" & going "overboard" & how we couldn't enjoy "anything" because "everything was from satan !
WELL - I am now a mother of 2 children ages 7 & 9 1/2- & have MY eyes been OPENED !! WIDELY !!
THIS IS HOW Satan gets in - through -"benign" children's toys, cartoons, etc- Nowadays, it's Pokemon -"cutesy" little characters who have actual names of real demons,needing to defeat the other "demons" to take their "powers"- just as in the real satanic world. THEN -of course, there's NOW Harry Potter - a "so called " inquisitive little boy who's parents "died"in a manner involving an evil warlock -which he finds out later in the 1st book is WHY this particular warlock/teacher hates Harry Potter & has been trying to Destroy him! Parents are DONATING the HARRY POTTER series to our schools- w/ "instructions" to encourage them to be read in the classroom to the students(this actually happened in the public middle school class that my sister teaches in)
These are just 2 of "today's" -"you better not speak out about it because the'world' doesn't know any better & likes it" or your labeled a 'Crazy Christian'.I mean come on- you have to be in TOTAL DENIAL NOT to ( or WANT TO)UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF !!
Kids minds are open & receiving of so much,& it's our job as parents to be "overanalytical" at 1st w/things -taking the TIME -which MOST people don't want to be bothered with unless THEY will receive a benefit from it in some way for themselves(ie:financially, fame,time).Well here you go ! If you follow these principles in "Turmoil in the Toybox II",YOU will have a well balanced, intelligent child who can think "outside the box" that this world puts them in & GOD will Bless YOU for your obedience as HE says(Train up a child in the way he should go ,& when he is old he will NOT depart from it!Prov.22:6 also Psalm 127:3-5)
Please read this book if you value your children !

Just when ya thought the world was safe cause ya burned all of your OZZY records, think again. Your Care Bear collction is an abomination in the sight of God, and don't forget to chuck your Smurfs out also! Just another "Paranoid Guide To Christian Thinking" about, get this, Demonic Toys. This is a must for all of you Recreational Christians out there as well as anyone who gets a kick out of Jack Chick Religious Tracts. My fave is that since the book is dated (It was written in the 1980's) It delves into "popular toys" such as Ghostbusters, He Man, etc. Did you know the Care Bear Stare is a form of an Eastern religion? Well ya will if ya get off yer butt and pick up this book!! It's priceless!! Also it has about 2 chapters dedicated to the evils of Dungeons and Dragons!! In a world in which everythings evil and the Hypochristians are trying to force any topic in to making the world believe we are in the "End Times", you cannot afford to not to read this book. Hey, ya mght even chuckle a bit. My Little Pony: Demonic? You be the judge!

It's curious to see that the author noted Regine Pernoud in the Acknowledgments, given that Pernoud opposed the fraudulent claims about Joan that this book promotes. Here's a summary of merely a few such errors.
- While the author at least admits that Joan was put on trial by the English and Burgundians, she nevertheless glosses over the implications of this and does little more than repeat the 'spin' which Joan's enemies placed on the theological matters under debate. A main theme is the notion that since Joan saw visions "apprehensible to the human senses" she would automatically be guilty of a grave offense in the pre-Renaissance era, which is truly ironic: in the Bible itself, there are many cases of angels not only manifesting themselves in corporeal form (e.g., the appearance of Gabriel to Mary), but in fact some such appearances were sufficiently physical as to be seen by many people (such as the angel(s) who appeared at Christ's empty tomb). To accept this book's argument you'd have to claim that the medieval Church viewed the Bible itself as heretical. Similarly, it is claimed that Joan was guilty for never telling the clergy about her visions - despite the patent fact that she had gained approval from the clergy at Poitiers, from the Archbishop of Embrun, from Jean Gerson, and so on, some of which Warner herself admits.
Warner uses much the same distortion with regards to La Pierronne, who was killed by a similar pro-English group from the University of Paris after she had dared to say that Joan was a good Catholic. No "witchcraft" charges were filed against her: the only thing they could come up with was the absurd notion that she was guilty of blasphemy for saying that she saw God clothed in a white robe and red tunic (as opposed to what, one wonders?) Warner never seems to consider that the charges in such partisan trials might be nothing but bunk promoted by the opposing faction, devoid of any valid theological basis.
On a final note on this subject: Warner at least admits that Joan had threatened to lead a crusading army against a heretical group called the Hussites, but merely sees this as another chance to heap more empty criticism on Joan. This time the charge is "intolerance", strangely ignoring a few obvious points: 1) far from being docile theologians who merely held dissident views, the Hussites were a military faction which had recently gone on a savage rampage across large swaths of the Holy Roman Empire, destroying many hundreds of villages. To label her "intolerant" for being willing to lead an army against such a group is either deliberately unfair sniping, or a clear sign of ignorance about the nature of the Hussites. 2) You would think that the author would at least possess the fairness to admit that if Joan wanted to lead a crusading army against heretics, she could hardly be a heretic herself.
- In the chapter "Ideal Androgyne", Warner again makes copious use of the propaganda spooled out by Joan's enemies while ignoring the eyewitness accounts of those who had actually known her - not only at the Rehabilitation but also in private letters and memoirs written by her soldiers - who described her as "beautiful and shapely", commented on her feminine qualities, etc. Similarly, the author completely ignores the quotes from Joan herself concerning the practical necessity of wearing soldiers' clothing (of a type which had "laces and points" which allowed her to tie the pants and tunic together), partly as a defense against rape while in prison as well as to discourage sexual advances while bedding down with her army in the field. This was the accepted way of doing it in that era, and if it was thus being done out of necessity the Church itself granted permission (see medieval theological works such as St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", St. Hildegard's "Scito Vias Domini", and so on). The accounts say that in the end her guards maneuvered her into a "relapse" by leaving her nothing to wear but her old male clothing, and she had no choice but to put it back on after arguing with them "until noon", according to one eyewitness. Warner replaces this evidence with speculation.
- In the chapter "Amazon", the author ignores Joan's own recorded quotations stating that she did _not_ fight in battle but instead carried her banner, a view which is backed up by the more reliable eyewitness accounts. This evidence is replaced with a sidetrack through ancient mythology, as if such would somehow be relevant. We are then told about Joan's alleged "joy in battle", which is entirely fictional: the eyewitness accounts repeatedly say that she wept over the deaths of enemy soldiers.
- The book's claims about the Rehabilitation are largely false. For instance, the claim is made that the tribunal never declared Joan's holiness and never vindicated her decision to wear soldiers' clothing, which is wrong on both counts: the Inquisitor specifically labeled her a martyr for the faith - practically the highest possible declaration of holiness; and he devoted an entire section to the clothing issue (see Part VI of his 'Recollectio Frater Johannis Brehali'). It would help if authors would at least bother to actually read such documents before giving an 'analysis' of their contents.
It is truly sad to see this book in reprint, as it does a great disservice to the heroine whose life is here being filtered through the dishonest claims of the men who cruelly put her to death. As the Acknowledgments allude to, the books of Regine Pernoud (founder of the Centre Jeanne d'Arc) are recognized as the best of the readily-obtainable books on the subject; two of these are available here at Amazon.

As a researcher who has done work on this subject, I tend to be baffled by the popularity of books such as this one. On the plus side, and to be fair, the author at least bothered to read some of the more reliable documents (such as the Rehabilitation transcript, Joan's surviving letters, etc) rather than merely the Condemnation transcript; but unfortunately the author didn't seem to pay much attention to the more reliable documents. Yet again, we have here a modern author who credulously accepts many of the accusations made by Joan's enemies while passing over the larger amount of evidence which soundly debunks those accusations, while mixing in a hefty dose of radical politics and speculation, plus page after page in which the text wanders through ancient legends and other such topics to the point that Joan herself is often obscured entirely. A good example of this is the "Ideal Androgyne" chapter, which ignores the extensive testimony from the Rehabilitation transcript: i.e., two of the men who escorted her to Chinon said that they were the ones who first brought up the subject of dressing her in soldiers' clothing (as was standard procedure when bringing a woman through dangerous territory), and several of the clergy who took part in her trial testified that she clung to this clothing and kept her pants and tunic "firmly laced and tied" (i.e., the pants were kept fastened to the tunic so they couldn't be forcibly pulled off) because she had been subjected to attempted rape at the hands of her guards and therefore was afraid of "being violated in the night", to quote one witness. To a scholar of the medieval period none of this comes as a surprise: it was common for women to adopt such clothing for their own defense, and medieval theologians - including St. Thomas Aquinas himself - had ruled that such conduct was permissible if it was being done out of necessity (the Church only condemned the practice if it was done for other reasons, a distinction which Joan's accusers deliberately ignored, as do many modern authors). Despite the author's claims to the contrary, this subject was in fact dealt with at the Rehabilitation, and in fact the Inquisitor devoted an entire section - Chapter 6 of his "Recollectio" - to that subject, and exonerated her of any wrongdoing on that front. He also ruled that her voices were not suspect (despite the author's claims to the contrary), and in fact declared her a martyr ("...for in very truth she always had good reason to trust in her apparitions, for they delivered her, just as they promised, from the prison of the body through martyrdom and a great victory of patience.") Warner's book replaces much of this evidence with speculation, endless political rhetoric, and modern philosophies which have nothing whatsoever to do with 15th century history.

On the point about Régine Pernoud: the charge that Pernoud was a hopeless fan of Charles VII who omitted to mention the letter about the siege of Paris is patently false: the entire text of that letter is included (both in the original language and in translation) in Pernoud's book "Joan of Arc: Her Story" [called simply "Jeanne d'Arc" in the French version], and many of her books contain scathing criticisms of Charles VII. Scholars consider Pernoud to have been one of the best authors on this subject because she was accurate, thorough, and honest in her presentation of the evidence, which is not something that can be said about the book currently under review. And there lies the crux of the issue: historical writing is supposed to be based upon documented evidence, properly analyzed in light of the circumstances of the time period, rather than a mishmash of modern-day politics superimposed upon historical figures and events. This book falls into the latter category, unfortunately.

Warner's book has more archival material and historical background detail than any other single work in this price-range or level of reader-access. Yes, Warner also presents opinions, as scholar/critics tend to do.

If, however, you turn to Regine Pernoud for an "unbiased" version of Joan's life -- whatever that might be -- you are on much more dangerous ground. Pernoud conveys opinion by omission; if a document is at odds with her reading of Joan's life or actions, she simply ignores it, leaving it unmentioned. An example of this is a crucial letter Joan dictated on the necessity of taking Paris. Yes, Pernoud IS French (or rather, she was), and she writes as though she has on-line access to 15th-century feelings and personal opinions -- a big problem, in my view. But Pernoud's relentlessly pro-Charles interpretation of events is much more distorting and misleading than anything generated by Warner's British feminism, which is fairly presented as the lense through which the material will be viewed.

If you want another good book on Joan, try Charles Wood's study of Joan and Richard II.

No one scholar is going to write a book which satisfies everyone on such a complex figure. But Warner is a good place to start reading and/or thinking about Joan of Arc.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this book is to examine the author's main themes: 1) the idea that Joan's trial allegedly revolved around differences in education and perspective (layperson vs clergy) rather than military rivalry (Armagnac versus Anglo-Burgundian); and 2) the notion that Joan used language "miniaturizing" her Voices, thereby allegedly indicating that she rejected them in the end.
The first point ignores the many documents, including English and Burgundian sources, which bluntly show that her trial was, in fact, paid for by the English (as even English financial records show in great detail), and the tribunal was stocked entirely with clergy who were members of the Anglo-Burgundian faction and who, in many cases, were actually paid officials of the English occupation government. There are English documents throughout late 1430 and early 1431, dated Sept. 3rd and 14th, Oct. 24th, Dec. 6th; Jan. 31st, March 1st, April 2nd, 9th, 14th, 21st (etc) detailing payments given by English officials to the judges and assessors, and documenting the taxes levied to pay the cost of obtaining Joan from John of Luxembourg. The chief judge, Pierre Cauchon, had long been a salaried official of the English occupation government (paid 1,000 pounds annually) who also served for a time as Chancellor for the Queen of England. Before that he had been in the service of two successive Burgundian dukes, who often tapped him to commit other crimes aside from his conviction of Joan: for instance, there's a letter from Duke Jean-sans-Peur de Burgundy dated July 26, 1415 authorizing Cauchon to bribe Church officials in order to corrupt justice in favor of the Burgundian faction.The other members of the tribunal are also known to have been partisans of the same faction: the reason why the University of Paris changed so dramatically (as the author herself notes) after Paris came under Anglo-Burgundian occupation is the simple fact that all the pro-Armagnac members had to leave, with the result that the University was thoroughly Anglo-Burgundian by the time of Joan's trial, and therefore rabidly opposed to her because she was defeating their faction's armies. All of the above corroborates the testimony of the Rehabilitation witnesses. It is this corroborative evidence (and much more of a similar type in numerous chronicles, letters, etc) which has moved historians to accept the Rehabilitation as the more credible of the two transcripts - not for 'partisan' reasons, but simply because the preponderance of the evidence confirms the latter. This book, on the other hand, tries to dismiss the prevailing view by accepting at face value the very Condemnation transcript which is proved unreliable by so many other documents. This brings me to the second main point that the author tries to make, concerning Joan's view of her Voices. The book's version of this issue is based on a handful of phrases in the alleged confession mentioned at the end of the transcript, a section which is dated June 7 - a full eight days after Joan's execution. If you look at the original manuscripts you'll see that this section was never signed by any of the purported witnesses nor by the notaries, a fact which the notaries themselves later explained when they testified that the "confession" had never been witnessed by them and in fact did not appear until after she was already dead. This is why historians have viewed it as fictional. But the author of this book accepts it at face value, then engages in a bit of word play in relation to a few phrases in which Joan is made to say that her Voices appeared to her in "great number and small size" (or variations on that theme). The author interprets this as an attempt to "miniaturize" her Voices and thereby "objectify" and in essence reject them, an interpretation which would be dubious even if these quotes were authentic: even those who still believe in this sort of psychoanalysis would say that you cannot psychoanalyze someone who you've never met. But the quotes are not authentic, nor would there be any reason to believe that the phrase "small size" reflects 'feelings' at all. Information that was never signed by either witnesses nor notaries (as required under medieval law) cannot be accepted as valid, especially when the notaries themselves cast doubts on its authenticity.
In much the same vein, the book claims that Joan did not initially identify her voices as specific saints, and only "chose" specific saints during the course of the trial. Not only is this purely subjective, but it ignores the fact that the Condemnation transcript itself includes an explanation of why Joan was initially unwilling to reveal the identity of her Voices to her judges. Unless you can show that this portion is not authentic, you cannot replace her own recorded words with arbitrary speculation about her "real" motives.
This is the problem with Sullivan's methods throughout the book, and the problem with such analysis in general: once an author has decided to reject the plain meaning of recorded statements and to ignore all correlative evidence from other documents, while accepting precisely those portions which are known to be fraudulent (the exact reverse of the proper procedure), a process of invention is followed in which even the smallest word can be manipulated to mean whatever the author wants it to mean and then be used as the basis for an elaborate theory. It's as if someone were to rewrite the life of, say, Abraham Lincoln simply by interpreting his use of a few commonplace words in a dubious text, and then publish a book making the splashy claim that the author has come up with a startling new theory on the subject. This is a good marketing technique, but dishonest scholarship.

Since I'm translating the trial transcript which this book analyzes, I thought I would comment. First of all, the author doesn't seem to realize that the Condemnation transcript has never been considered to be a reliable document, for a number of reasons: it doesn't follow the correct form and procedures of an Inquisitorial process (the trial was conducted by a political kangaroo court, not a valid court of the Inquisition); it contradicts itself at numerous points; one section was never notarized; and, most importantly, a number of the clergy who took part in the trial later testified that crucial sections were 'creatively edited' (so to speak) in order to gratify the English who were running the trial, thereby falsifying and distorting Joan's statements. If the author truly had an exhaustive knowledge of all of the texts related to Joan of Arc's life, the author would compare these texts to each other rather than dealing with one in isolation and treating it as if it were a "collaborative work" written jointly by Joan and her accusers (of all the strange notions connected with this subject, this has got to be one of the strangest). Additionally, the claim that her trial was not a political matter reveals a profound lack of understanding of the subject: the Rehabilitation witnesses testified that it was entirely a political charade, which involved intimidation of both the defendant and many of the clergy who had been forced to take part in it.

In short, this book seems to be little more than the latest attempt at sensationalism, billed as a "radical reassessment" as a selling point; and it seems to be based on the currently trendy practice of pretending that historical documents are works of fiction, thereby giving authors an excuse to make up their own alternate version of events. "Literary analysis" is purely subjective, and therefore a convenient vehicle for anyone who wants to invent their own fantasized view of an historical person or event; and as such, it has no academic value.

As Joan often said at her trial in response to irrelevant questions: "passons-oultre" (which we may colloquially render as "let's skip over this one").

It is apparent that Karen Sullivan has a keen analytical mind and thorough knowledge of her subject. The negative reviews posted on this site are ridiculously partisan, not taking into account that the pro-French accounts (and possibly witnesses) are at least as politically motivated as the English, which Sullivan deals with masterfully.
Perhaps the best and most insightful modern book on the topic.

I've read (and loved) everything Mary Gordon has written. And I like biographies of historical figures, so I figured this book was a sure-fire winner. But as Joan herself would have said, non.

It's not a bad book. I learned a lot, and was surprised by a few things (for example, Joan's successful military career spanned only 5 months). But the writing is uninspired, a recitation of facts with only a little meat on the bones to make it interesting. It read like an over-long term paper.

Overall this book was interesting enough to make me want to read a *real* biography of Joan of Arc. But it also made me swear off any more non-fiction by Mary Gordon, or perhaps any of the other books in the Penguin Lives series.

This is an excellent book in an excellent series.

The Penguin Lives series offers well-written short biographies on some of history's most facinating people. What is amazing is how much information are contained in these small books--and how well matched the authors are to their subjects.

Who better to write about Joan of Arc than Mary Gordon?

She gives Joan a thorough treatment--exploring religous, historical & feminist ideas about Joan.

This would be a good book to begin learning about Joan of Arc, but it also would be of interest to someone who is an expert on the subject...Gordon's ideas about Joan are worth taking a literary look at.

I have also read the books on Mozart & Andy Warhol in this series...again, this is one of the best. If you love biographies, look no further.

Although this is my first Mary Gordon book, I am fairly impressed by both her narrative skills and fairly in-depth analysis on the life of Joan of Arc. After reading all the readers' poor reviews on this book, I feel responsibile to defend Gordon and voice out some objections towards the readers' harsh comments on Gordon. Although her book is not an excellent source for Joan of Arc as an biography, Gordon did a good job in informing the readers some rare (instead of popular) historical background during the time as well as Joan's personal motives which contribute to her uprising. It's true that Gordon did not tell a straight forward story about Joan, it does not mean that she is a bad writer who intends to omit important details. In the book she gave a detail chart of dates and events of Joan to compensate the biographical account for Joan (if she did not expose it enough in her book). I am impressed to find that in a short work, Gordon's intensive research on Joan gave vivid, clear, historical and sometimes critical analysis about Joan herself and her actions. Gordon's style is both narrative and analytical. Gordon's book may not an important biography for Joan but it's definitely a wonderful and exciting read for those who wants to know the Joan behind the scenes.

Joan Wolf has written some wonderful romances, but this isn't one of them. There are a lot of elements that could have been powerful and emotional - an unknown child, a mother's cancer, a kidnapping, the death of a best friend, the possible loss of a career - but except the cancer side story, all of the other elements are looked at impassionately and discarded in a few pages.

I actually found this book rather annoying because of Kate, the unbelievably clueless heroine, and the long conversations that have nothing to do with the story. This book seems to ramble on about nothing. Not one of Joan Wolf's best efforts.

The story line in this book was really good and I was interested enough to finish it. But I felt very let down by the ho-hum and luke-warm feelings in this book.

I have read everything that Joan Wolf has written and most of them are extremely passionate, though not graphic. But the couples in her previous books had passionate feelings and you could feel the tension between the couples. With this book, High Meadow, I feel the story line got in the way of the relationships. There was no passion in either couple. Just like I said earlier, just ho-hum, yeah we are in love, ok that's nice. I really can not recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a great love story. It was a good book, because I don't think Joan Wolf knows how to write a bad book, but not anywhere near her best effort.

This is only Joan Wolf's second book in the Contemporary Romance genre and she is definately getting the hang of it.

Story.... Beautiful woman raising her sister's orphaned son. Son's previously unknown Father discovers that he has a son and turn's up out of the blue demanding to be part of childs life. Father is famous baseball player. Beautiful woman hardworking, proud and resentful of sharing child. Will these two people find a way to come together that will give this child the family he desperately wants? Throw in a Grandmother who discovers she has major health problems to complicate things.

Ms. Wolf has taken a rather basic romance genre story premise and come up with an intelligent, well written, story about love, faith and personal triumph. While the romance is a subtle, sweet and passionate, the sex scenes are not written as a "how to" manual or a lesson in Anatomy 101 and I appreciate that.

But it is not the "average" romance in that every thing is always bright and cheery. Hard-hitting issues such as grief, loss and life-threatening illness are addressed realistically.

I give this book only a B. Joan Wolf has written a couple of books in the past that have knocked my socks off. My standards for her books are higher than for average romance authors. Otherwise I would have given it an A.

I was hoping to learn more about my daughter's PDD but only learned that the author, a chiropractor, believes chiropractic care is THE way to treat "it". The book is very poorly written and seems to give facts about PDD, sensory integration and ADD that could have easily been taken from any text on those subjects. I felt let down and cheated when the chiropractic angle was introduced near the end of the book. I wanted to learn more about PDD but it was not to be with this book. Don't waste your money. If you want a truly informative book with great lists (broken down into age groups), read "The Out of Sync Child" by Carol Stock Kranowitz. THIS is the book that gave me great insight to my child's PDD and sensory integration issues. I felt as though the author could see into my house and was talking about my child.

As the parents of a "special needs" child, sorting through the jargon and understanding the issues around her disability are vital to giving her the best chance in life that we can. This book has been an outstanding source for us. It clearly and effectively communicates the types of conditions we - and she - are facing.

Our child was originally mis-diagnosed with ADHD. Through this book and our own experience, we have learned that many children like ours display symptoms that cannot be clearly classified into neat little boxes. As a result, they require the kind of multi-dimensional therapy that Dr. Fallon advocates.

This is an excellent resource for any parent who wants to know how to help their child and be better informed when dealing with doctors.

If you are looking to see if your child may have a problem.. this is the book for you! An informative check list highlights the book where parents can determine if their child has a problem worth pursuing. This is a checklist whereby parents won't be mis lead.

I do not see this volume as a vehicle for the authors chiroparctic background but rather a vehicle for the novice who knows little about sensory integration and other issues confronting the child.

I have given this book to countless parents in my practice when I have been unable to get them to understand that there may be a problem with their child. For those of you who see a problem, and can not convince your son, dughter patient etc to seek help, this is the book for you!

The other reveiwers were looking at this as some cure all book...hogwash I say........never did the author state anywhere that her chiropratic could help with anything other than sensory integration for these PDD children.

Go get the book now!!!

OK, so, as one reviewer said, this is a no-brainer book and we need that sometimes.
Predictable...yes, but this book has enough twists and turns and even an occasional surprise to actually make you want to continue to the next chapter to see "What happens next?"
As I titled it, "A Beach Book," a book to enjoy along with the sand and surf.

I am a huge Joan Collins fan, all the way back to her Dynasty days. However Star Quality was boring, and predictable. Joan should stick to acting, her sister though, Jackie Collins is a great author check her out.

A number of the reviews below have been very critical of this novel and of Joan Collins's writing abilities. First things first: JC can write very well and very wittily - read her entertaining, thrice-yearly diary pieces in UK magazine "The Spectatator" and her wonderfully enjoyable second volume of autobiography "Second Act" if you need proof of that.

Secondly, let's just keep in mind that "Star Quality" is not meant to be anything more than it is: popular fiction. We all need "no-brainer" books sometimes.

Yes, the story is fairly predictable (although I would never have predicted the lesbian angle - credit where it's due people!), and, yes, the whole thing does read a little like a treatment for a glossy miniseries, and, yes, there are a few gaping holes (I would have thought specific details given early in the book about a birth certificate could have prevented a later development involving incest, for example), but all the same the book is diverting, enjoyable fun and I think that is all it is was meant to be.