These are the journals of Thomas Bullock: the man commissioned by Brigham Young to write about the first ("Pioneer") company of Mormons to make the trek into Utah. They are written in typical 19th century style--full of details and odd anecdotes and more chronologically than organizationally minded. Of course, they are journals, and as such are more concerned with fact than literary style.

The journals themselves are a great insight into the travels of this company. Also, the notes Bagley assembled are great--full of relevant and useful information that greatly enriches the reading of this account. The only flaw is Bagley's own additions.

The first two chapters were written by him, as sort of a preface, and each chapter is prefaced by a few pages of his commentary. These writings detract greatly from the work, and are full of speculations presented as truth and seemingly oblivious to fact. As far as history is concerned, it has very little worth, being more a collection of his opinions than actual circumstance backed by evidence. There is no citation of sources, which further detracts from the credibility.

Overall, these journals are great, and the editing, superb. Just don't rely too much on what Bagley says about them. If you're interested in Mormon or Western history, these journals are worth a read. It won't detract at all from the experience if you skip the prefaces, though.

Most geneology books are just a listing of the people, where they are from, and who they married. This book however gives the stories, traditions, and tales behind the lives of this Lincoln County family. This family history begins like most families do. Two people fall in love and create a a lineage that still continues today as strong as when Thomas and Launia began.

I've just read through all the available bios of Dorothea Dix for an upcoming film project, and this book really puzzles me. Why? Let me quote from a positive review, written in a professional historical journal: "What Brown presents is a surprisingly intimate portrait that still acknowledges Dix's many shortcomings--her limited view of women's rights, her blindness on the issue of slavery, and her lingering nativism. Despite Dix's personal limitations, however, Brown recognizes her many successes in convincing parsimonious legislatures to build asylums and putting the plight of the mentally ill on a national stage" (Stephan D. Andrews, Journal of the Early Republic). Sounds good, huh? But there's almost nothing original here; nothing that hasn't been written about by previous biographers. Honestly I can't figure out why Harvard Press spent the money to publish it. (The book seems to have been funded by some special endowment -- even the editors must've figured it would never sell.) To me -- What do I know? -- this is a classic example of academic logrolling, getting other historians to write good things about a book nobody will ever read. There's definitely nobody in Brown's book I can see to make a film of.

Though Brown doesn't over-dramatize it (indeed, he doesn't dramatize it much at all), Dorothea Dix lived one of the most extraordinary lives in the 19th century, one that included the Boston Unitarian intelligentia during the 1820s and 30s, state politics in most state capitols throughout the North and South during the 40s and 50s, Washington, DC, and friendships with senators and presidents, the worst of the Civil War (when she headed up the women nursuing corps for the Union Army) . . . and then there were the insane. Brown is good, if dry and lapidary, on the exterior movement of her career. And he's good at the political context for her career. Yet, as other reviers noticed, his book is really a life and times, with emphasis on "times," not a nuanced and graceful biography. He never gets inside Dix's head, which leaves one feeling disappointed.

These two reviews move me to write. One says that the author gives Dix too much credit and does not paint her sufficiently as a psychotic; the other says the author does not admire Dix enough. These two unbiased readers alone demonstrate that Brown has written a masterly biography of a complex woman in the midst of a turbulent era. Brown's Dix is a complicated and fascinating figure--not a feminist heroine nor a whipping post for the politically correct. Her career has much to teach us about the aspirations and limitations of 19th century reformers. Brown's book, clearly and elegantly written, thoroughly researched, is the best book on 19th-century reform since Lou Masur's Rites of Execution. Brown has recovered Dorothea Dix, not as a 20th-century reader would have liked to have her, but as she really was. This book is a major achievement.

this book, if you can call it one, does come close to covering what you need to know. the author's style is condescending and trite. there are much better books out there!

Within 800 pages, the authors have tried to include everything from basic structural equilibrium to finite element method. The effect is obvious, it has touched all topics superficially without any details. It has finished structural dynamics in one chapter and finite elements in two chapters! Examples lack details and jumps steps and are too complex to comprehend. Moreover it contains numerous printing mistakes. Theories are too obscure to follow. In overall, not a good book.