Please read this book and let your heart soar! My intial reading rates it at 4 stars, one of Lawhead's best, easily the best since Byzantium, but upon further readings, I may strike again with another review with a higher rating.

In the 19th century Jews could simply role their eyes but had no evidence to disprove the theory. The best evidence against the Khazar theory was lingustic, as neither Hebrew nor Yiddish seems to contain any trace of a cetral asian language. Now, with gentic evidence, we can positively identify common ancestry of Jews from areas as far flung as Germany, Spain, Yemen, and Russia. Identical Y chromosome markers can be found among members of every community. While it may be that some Khazars married into the larger Jewish community, the evidence indicates that it never happened in overwhelming number. Indeed, their is considerable historic evidence that the Khazar were largely cut off from the rest of the Jewish world.

Many reviwers point to the idea that many European Jews show non-middle eastern features (blue eyes, blond hair, etc.) However, the existance of large scale conversion to Judaism is a clear historical fact. Particularly before Christianity became firmly rooted in Eastern and South Eastern Europe, many locals converted to Judaism. Many of the modern Jewish attitudes against conversion are in fact reasonably recent, tracable to the strong and often violent action Christians took against communities where individuals chose to become Jews.

Given the vast amount of genetic evidence against the theory one has to wonder why it still gets so much play. After all, if all Jews contain common genetic markers from locations across the world, what possible evidence could be for this strange theory?

In some respects, McCarthy's rise was remarkable. According to Herman, his life was "a typical American success story: son of a poor Wisconsin dirt farmer...to U.S. senator." Unlike many of the government officials against whom he latter battled, McCarthy was a product of hard times and conditions: McCarthy "left school at fourteen to start his own business, raising chickens and buying a truck to drive the eggs to market." In contrast, opponents such as Harry Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the leader of the informal group known as the "Wise Men," formed "the core of America's foreign policy establishment." What resulted, according to Herman, was "a cultural clash." The feelings were mutual. For the Wise Men and their allies in Washington, D.C., according to Herman, "there was no opponent they despised more than Joe McCarthy. He was working class: they were varsity class. He was hairy, loud, and sweaty; they were cool, clean, and antiseptic." According to Herman: "The furor over McCarthy and McCarthyism obscured the fact that the Wise Men made more than their share of mistakes," including the Berlin crisis and blockade, China, and the Korean War. That is fair. The error of McCarthy and his supporters was the lurid deduction that these mistakes evidenced a widespread Communist conspiracy within the federal government. For McCarthy, at the very least, the policymaking elites were not taking the international-communist threat seriously enough. According to Herman, McCarthy believed "[t]here were those who were soft on issues like communism, and those who were not," which "was reflected in McCarthy's fight against the 'silk handkerchief liberals' who frustrated his efforts to ferret out Communists in government." McCarthy obviously seethed with class resentment. McCarthy's anti-State Department campaign began in November 1949, when he accused it of being "honey-combed and run by Communists." On February 9, 1950, in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy gave his now-famous speech, declaring: "I have here in my hand a list of 205 - a list of names that were made known tp the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working for and shaping policy in the State Department." In the ensuing controversy, McCarthy insisted that he had "the names of 57 people identified as Communists and security threats in the State Department." Herman acknowledges that the "confusion McCarthy fostered over whether he was talking about 205 Communists, or 57...gave birth to his reputation for recklessness, obfuscation, and untruth." On February 20, "McCarthy went to the Senate floor to deliver a formal denunciation of the State Department's security program." The six-hour speech created a furor. Herman bluntly acknowledges that "McCarthy found himself on very shaky ground" in claiming that "he had found a cabal of Communists in the State Department,"and "the bald truth was that McCarthy did distort several ['bald summaries' of an investigation of security risks at the State Department] in order to make his point." Nevertheless, McCarthy ran rampant for the next three years. Hoever, beginning in early 1953, according to Herman, McCarthy "had a long spell of choosing poor targets for his public anti- Communist campaigns, each of which served only to antagonize the White House and even fellow Republicans." By the end of 1954, McCarthy was finished, and after the Senate voted 67-22 to "condemn" him, McCarthy became "an institutional pariah." The sociology of McCarthy's support has been long debated. Herman rejects the theory that the McCarthyite core came from "'a coalition of the aggrieved,' men and women who had never come to terms with the world created by the New Deal or World War II." Herman writes that McCarthy's supporters, "[f]ar from being aggrieved or resentful...had found fresh opportunities and prosperity in postwar America," and "were anxious about whether those opportunities could continue and what America's future would be if Communists and their sympathizers were allowed to dominate the world outside." If McCarthyism was revolutionary, in this view, it was a revolution of rising expectations. Herman explains that McCarthy's core was in the rural midwest, the south, and ethnic neighborhoods in northeastern cities. According to Herman, "American Catholics were more inclined to support McCarthy than any other group," because many Catholics felt that "anticommunism was their issue."

In my opinion, this is the ultimate issue: Did McCarthy act in good faith. If McCarthy had an objectively honest belief that the Truman administration was insufficiently concerned about internal security, especially in federal government agencies, some of McCarthy's excesses - such as what Herman refers to as the "crude mishandling of sensitive information" - might be excused. But, if McCarthy recklessly or intentionally disregarded the truth, he deserves history's judgment as "America's most hated senator." Herman's "reexamination" of McCarthy is carefully researched and extensively annotated, but most of the sources are secondary, so there is practically nothing new here. Readers sympathetic to McCarthy, or at least to the possibility there was a genuine internal threat to national security in the early 1950s, may be convinced by Herman's argument. I was not.

Mr. Herman has done an outstanding job of research and of articulating the results of his research for anyone open and curious enough to want to know the truth about Senator McCarthy and his times. To be sure, the burly Wisconsin senator had his faults and made a lot more than one or two mistakes. The true villains of the piece, however, were Soviet agents, home-bred Communist sympathizers, and addle-headed dupes. Communism was a genuine and significant threat to the national security interests of the United States and to the American way of life. Senator McCarthy and his allies made a significant contribution in bringing this threat to the attention of the American people and in battling it tooth and nail. Those who denied the reality of Communist infiltration and subversion were fools or knaves; those who continue to deny that the Soviet Union and its American-born handmaidens ever constituted a danger must also be considered either fools or knaves.

I thank God for Senator Joe McCarthy, Francis Cardinal Spellman, and all those who fought the good fight. If only we had men like that today, as our culture sinks ever deeper into a sewer of depravity. I also thank God for Arthur Herman. He has written an important book. With a few insignificant caveats -- e.g., the editing leaves something to be desired -- I highly recommend it.

Rather than trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, Herman is at pains to demonstrate McCarthy's mendacity, sloppiness in making allegations and his many other flaws on nearly every page. Nonetheless, Herman points out that since the liberal establishment could not disprove McCarthy's allegations and , in fact, was mortally embarrassed by them, it diverted attention from the charges by attacking McCarthy himself. The effect of this was to obscure the underlying truth of what McCarthy was saying and of what had really occurred. This "crust" around the issue has lasted for nearly fifty years so that as soon as anyone starts to discuss Communists in the government during the 40's and 50's, liberals deride them using McCarthy's name.

I highly recommend this excellent book to anyone with an interest in the era or in the liberal-conservative dialogue in the U.S. since World War II.

There are simple yet effective strategies for teaching your children about money, long before they fall into the common financial traps in the world. The book is nicely organized, easy to read, yet provides a good amount of information and material that is comprehensible to all readers.

The book is worth the time to read and to have your children read it.

Finally...another Arthur Hailey novel! It has been many years since his last novel first hit the bookshelves, but in truth, I feel it was worth the wait. Many Hailey lovers may be disappointed with this novel. It does not have the surprising and ofttimes scary informative style of say "Strong Medicine", "The Final Diagnosis",or almost any other Arthur Hailey novel, but it is as informative of the life of a police detective as I have read to date.
It is not a deeply suspenseful "whodunnit" as is the majority of the novels about other detectives, but I do not believe that was never intended. This is a novel that takes the life of a detective and exploits it in a very entertaining way. The procedures and fact-finding techniques aren't as surprising as other information found in other Hailey novels, but this is due, in part, to the prolifera of crime novels written by other equally capable hands. That, and true to life court trials (O.J.'s comes to mind) in today's society, have brought all of the techniques and procedures out to a point that even 10 year olds know about fingerprinting and DNA testing. So, although MR. Hailey has included some of this information in the novel, the story is about Malcom Ainslie, a Detective-Sergeant with the Miami P.D.
Mr. Hailey has given Ainslie the personality of a real human being with the failings, feelings and ideals that any of us might have. Making the lead character an ex-priest who doesn't really believe in the followings of any religion anymore, gives us, the reader, an insight into many things that we have never thought of before, and probably never would have with the reverence normally beholden to any religion. Mr. Hailey has come forth with insights and questions about religions that will have even the most devout follower questioning his beliefs. But this is just a minor subplot, and not a topic that runs rampant through the novel, so atheists and agnostics need not worry!
And talking about subplots, Mr. Hailey ! is still the King in this respect. Every event that happens in this novel, although seemingly disjointed at times, deftly becomes entertwined with the others as the novel progresses.

Mr. Hailey has created characters that we can identify easily. We know Cynthia Ernst is a cold and calculating person. We know that Ruby is a very patient, totally professional investigator. We know that Karen is a loving wife and mother. And more! But mostly, we get to know the person known as Malcom Ainslie. He is a person we could like, a person that we can understand. He made his mistakes in his life, admits to himself they were mistakes and moves on. He is a exemplary investigator, oftentimes surprising himself with his insight. One of the best characters Mr. Hailey has ever come up with, in my opinion.

Lastly, the story is one that seems familiar. The overall plot has been used before. The whodunnit part of the novel has been replaced with a "Columbo-esque" style of letting us know who did the deed and having the main character solve the crime using his smarts and good police procedures. Beyond the familiarity, this story is one that has been very well done and is a fresh approach to anything that could be deemed as "done before".

This is a novel that shouldn't be read as a typical crime novel, but rather, as an Arthur Hailey novel of crime! Read in this way, any reader will be captivated instantly (as I was), and entertained beyond any expectations!

The characters written to be liked were staunch supporters of gun control and were presented as having the highest moral character. The balancing characters with an opposing view were too conveniently portrayed as extremists or simply misguided, and never wielded any equivalent political or scientific power. The story would have been much more involving if the reader was given more of a chance to decide which side of the issue they were on with strong and likeable characters on both sides.

The bottom line is if you are from neutral to strongly in favor of global and personal disarmament you will vary from liking to loving this book. Conversely, if you hold a strong belief in your personal right to self defense you might have a hard time finishing the book. And if you happen to be a gun owner, you may be down right offended at times.

This book focusses mostly on the political side of events in the US - the court cases and debates (both public and private) between those in favour of the Trigger and those opposed. The balance is heavily weighted on the Trigger side and against the NRA-types. Although I am personally a proponent of gun control, I know that the majority of the gun lobby are not rabid militarists, as they seem to be portrayed in this book. It comes across sounding preachy at times. Another problem is that the narrative seems to run out of steam - the last 100 pages could be cut.

I enjoyed this book immensely - it's entertaining, engrossing, thought provoking, and difficult to put down. Only the slightly preachy tone and 2-dimensional portrayal of the gun lobby robbed it of its 5th star.

The non-scientifically inclined reader will also enjoy the book's extensive examination of the issues around gun control and ownership - the prime target of the authors. Using the Columbine High shootings as a case in point, they repeatedly engage with the many arguments put forward by proponents of the 2nd Amendment to prevent arms control initiatives.

But the scientific jewels hidden along the way are what make this a real delight. First, there is the Trigger - a wave-emitting device that automatically detonates any kind of explosive material, rendering any conventional arms and munitions more dangerous to the user than to their intended victims. The resulting reversion of security forces to pre-gunpowder weapons such as crossbows and maces may sound amusing, but certainly worth more than a passing thought.

Then comes the intellectual high point of the book - the concept that everything can be defined in terms of energy and information. This is totally mind blowing - if you take the concept of zooming in and out for more or less detail on a subject and couple it with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, that's what the guru is postulating. To quote " Information organizes and differentiates energy". The kick is in the converse - if you can remove information from a subject, you destabilize it - it ceases to exist! From this exquisitely neat hypothesis arises the Jammer - the antithesis of the Trigger - instead of blowing up arms and ammunition, it simply makes them cease to exist!

Just these alone would have been more than enough for any Arthur C. Clarke fan - but the authors leave the reader salivating for more right at the end - the discovery of a biological Trigger that can zero in on any specific DNA pattern and vaporise it - the Killer.

Overall, a taut thriller-class read with some elegant physics for those so inclined - what more can one ask for ?

For this particular book, the main mistake Lawhead makes is not reading his other books in this series, or at least not remembering what he said in them. At the end of "Arthur", it is noted that "the Grail was never found". Um...but in this book, it was found, and lost, and recovered, and at the end of the book a shrine to it is made in the Northern end of Britain. Since there is no indication anywhere else that the Grail disappeared from Northern Britain, one would have to assume it's still there. This makes me realize how inconsistent of a writer Lawhead is. This guy could be a great writer, but it's mistakes like these that keep him from becoming such. Lawhead is definitely no Tolkien.

Another major mess-up is in his inability to keep Loth and Lot straight. Loth is Lot's father in "Arthur", and by the time the book starts introducing Lot it is clear that Loth is already long dead. By the end of "Arthur" it is clear that Morgian seduced Lot to produce the twins Gwalchavad and Gwalcmai, and in this book Morgaws. Yet in this book Lawhead keeps calling Lot "Loth", although it is pretty clear that it is Lot that is being referred to and not Loth. It also is not clear to me why Morgian's relationship with Lot is considered incestuous, since Lot is the son of his father Loth and his first wife, and Morgian was Loth's second wife. Lot is not her flesh and blood; she's his stepmother. Although it's weird to be sleeping with your stepmother, it's definitely not incestuous is she's no blood relation.

It was very pointless to make Gwalcmai and Gwalchavad twins. This did not serve any literary purpose. The fact that Gwalcmai gets sent off and doesn't return until the end of "Arthur" is testament to his uselessness. I honestly thought that "Grail" would be about Gwalcmai, but was sorely disappointed. We are never given the story of his wanderings, although according to "Arthur" he's been gone for 17 years. The other thing is that it is not revealed until the last book of "Arthur" (the chapter that Aneirin narrates) that it is revealed that Gwalchmai and Gwalchavad are the result of a union between Morgian and Lot. So how is it that Gwalchavad already knows this by "Grail"? According to Lawhead, "Grail" comes before the last book of "Arthur". Gwalchavad can't know it. It hasn't been revealed yet. Gwalchavad states Merlin told him--how did Merlin find out? I would think that in "Arthur" Gwalcmai and Gwalchavad wouldn't be surprised by Morgian revelation if they already heard it from Merlin, yet they are shocked to hear it when she says they are her sons in "Arthur". And why is it Merlin can't figure Morgaws out at all, if he knows about Gwalcmai and Gwalchavad? I couldn't understand that at all.

I am still not convinced that Morgian was any great threat. She seems way too easily defeated. I don't think that Morgaws (who never existed in any Arthur tales and is a figment of Lawhead's imagination) is that threatening either. I'm still trying to figure out why Charis was so freaked out by her but refused to say anything.

I recall one of the opening statements Morgian makes in this book is "Not for nothing am I called the Queen of Air and Darkness". The first thing I thought was, "Oh, yes, you are". Lawhead has not really developed Morgian much, and even though he finally does so here, it's not enough. Fine, so we finally know why she's so pissed off. It doesn't strike me as any reason to get so vengeful towards someone she hardly knows--ie. Arthur. She also seems very ineffectual. She tries to kill Charis and fails, and never tries again. She tries to kill Merlin and fails, and never tries that again either. Every attempt she makes is doomed to failure. So it wasn't that surprising that she failed again here.

There is also a scene where some of the Cymbrogi are supposedly dead. If you're like me and read the last chapter of "Arthur" before reading "Grail", this scene is ruined for you. There's no surprise to it.

I read somewhere that Lawhead believed that the King Arthur tales needed to be brought back to "their Christian roots". Um..guess what. The King Arthur tales started out as part of Celtic mythology, and authors such as Geoffrey of Monmouth and others are the ones responsible for inserting Christian lore into a tale that was never Christian to begin with. I have done some reading on what past editors of these tales have done, and most of them edited these stories with a particular goal in mind--ie. for Monmouth it was turning Arthur into a Norman hero, and emphasizing the fact that he fought battles against the Saxons, who were the Normans' enemies. These tales have been subject to so much manipulation over the years--isn't it time to say "enough's enough"? Apparently not, for Lawhead has decided that the legend needs even more manipulation. I can't say he's done a good job.

I suppose I only have myself to blame. I really should have done more research before buying these books. Now I can't even give them away--most people I know weren't that impressed with the series either.

That said, I'm a big Lawhead fan, so I would have settled for nothing less than reading the whole book. In fact, I've just re-read all the Pendragon cycle in true chronological order. But in all, there's no real reason, other than being a huge fan of the previous stories, to read "Grail."

It is truly the mark of a good author when a relatively long book series retains all of it's brilliance and originality to the very end. Lawhead has accomplished this and more with his wondrous Pendragon Cycle.

Grail is the 5th and final installment in the series (unless you include Avalon in the list). While I think that this is the weakest book of the series, it is still superb and certainly worth the read. The atmosphere of the book is very unique. Unlike the previous books in the series, the enemy is largely supernatural - a much more frightening enemy than the Picti, Angli, or Vandali. Morgian is definetely at her worst - and she even gets a few opportunities to narrate the story (a very peculiar twist.)!

Really my only complaint about the book regards Lawhead's choice of characters. It seems that many of the major characters that were seen in Arthur and Pendragon have faded to the backdrop - replaced by relatively new characters. These characters are fine, but I would have rather seen more of characters like Bedwyr, Cai and Arthur.

While I think Whyte's goal of trying to put the Arthurian legend in historical context is not a bad one, I am growing more and more disillusioned and -- frankly -- bored with each succeeding book. Merlyn is a self-absorbed, unlikeable hero and I dislike the idea of Arthur's reign being something that was due entirely to planning and scheming on the part of his relatives, as if he is nothing more than a figurehead. Not to mention that the story is so altered from the original Arthur tale that if the names were changed you wouldn't recognize it.

Unfortunately, what truly mars this book for me is something else entirely. In an attempt to raise Arthur in anonymity, Merlyn brings him to, of all places, the kingdom of the very man (Derek) who murdered Arthur's father and raped his mother. The characters' dismissal of this rape as, ultimately, unimportant is profoundly shocking. Merlyn, always exploring his feelings, expresses some unease at the memory of actually seeing the rape occur, but he befriends Derek, calls him and portrays him as a good man, and says that "rape and venery are part of war and part of the payments soldiers take for risking their lives."

Well, I guess that makes it okay, then.

Even the best of books would suffer greatly by such a scenario and this book is far from that. If you are interested in learning about King Arthur, I recommend looking at the original Malory, or Mary Stewart, or even Marion Zimmer Bradley -- anywhere but here!

I am NOT a slow reader -- I average two 500-page books per month, sometimes more than that. In the time I have owned this book, I have finished fantasy books, several history books, numerous alternate history books, and a lot of theology/church history. This book continues to sit there -- much like the plot.

The book drags in so many places that I found myself skimming to find some action. Not hard to do in this book -- you can skip over pages of text and never miss an important plot development. Unfortunately, there is so little plot development that it becomes quite clear that (as another reviewer has noted) you could skip this book almost altogether and move on to The Sorceror: Metamorphosis and not miss much.

I love this series. I enjoy the idea of putting Arthur into cultural context, but there are scholarly works on that subject that are more enjoyable to read than this book has been. I finished Metzger's Canon of the New Testament quicker.