I bought this book hoping for a new look at Quantrill to supplement Castel's classic biography. The errors were so rampant that I returned it! Many readers wouldn't recognize them, but someone who has read some of the true scholarship on the border war will immediately notice them and be quickly disgusted. If this author did his research, he left the notes at the library. Read Castel's version; it truly stands the test of time.

"Quantrill's War" by military historian and psychology professor Duane Schultz is meticulously researched and as fast-paced as a John Grisham novel. Schultz traces Quantrill's life from his birth in Ohio to his death in Kentucky, detailing how he went from a common hoodlum to a blood-thirsty guerrilla leader. Schultz clearly shows how Quantrill used the Civil War as an excuse to kill, pillage and terrorize the Kansas-Missouri border region. Schultz presents a well-documented and objective description of the bitter Kansas-Missouri civil war that began in the early 1850s with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It is a time that spawned fanatical killers like John Brown, Jim Lane (who Schultz correctly identifies as a Kansas senator contrary to the assertions of another reviewer) and the pro-Union Jayhawkers like Charles Jennison. Likewise, the Confederate side contributed Bushwhackers and Border Ruffians like Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson and George Todd - not to mention Cole Younger and his brothers and Frank and Jesse James. Schultz demonstrates how these men were not regular Confederate soldiers; they were a roving band of marauders who refused to take orders and prisoners - nor did they expect their enemies to have mercy on them. They torched the homes of civilians and then shot them "like sheep-killing dogs." And -- if possible -- they treated Union troops with even less respect, gunning down in cold blood those who tried to surrender. Schultz recounts in excruciating detail the massacre at Lawrence, going house to house with the raiders as they drag men from their homes and shoot them and set the town afire. Schultz presented the murders in a sequence that vividly created a sense of the mayhem of the raid. And make no mistake, Quantrill's men committed cold-blooded murder. They dragged men and boys from their homes and shot them to death in front of their wives and mothers. Women and children were spared in a strange recognition of chivalry. Lawrence wasn't a regular Civil War battle and Quantrill wasn't a regular Civil War leader, so neither the raid nor the man has been much more than a footnote in Civil War studies. But the historical significance of guerilla warfare by both Bushwhackers and Union Jayhawkers during the Civil War is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Schultz has done a fantastic job of making it accessible.

Written in an accessible style, this book will be welcomed by anyone with an interest in the civil War and the legend of the (in)famous William Quantrill. It reveals how the war helped create both the legend and reality of Quantrill and his gang, the Bushwhackers. According to Duane Schultz, Cpt Quantrill was a man hungry of power and thirsty of vengeance; a common outlaw and a killer. Quantrill ordered the raid on Lawrence in 1963. For hours the Bushwhackers rode through the street killing, burning and stealing. They had killed 150 men that day. The author tried to picture the psychological's profile of William Quantrill and sometimes gives subjectives affirmations to convince the readers he was the fiend incarnate. Nobody never get a truly balanced picture of the Civil war and Quantrill was probably not the devil Schultz thought he was. However "Quantrill's war" is a richly drawn study of the most controversial antihero of the United States history. PH. S.

This book tries to give us a small hint of what the future may be. Arthur Clarke tries to describe the future as his creativity imagine. It was writen in 1986, but I read it in 1997, so some of book's predictions seems idiot to me. In my point of view, Arthur Clarke should focus on a story, not fortune-telling. Of course science ficcion must do some wild guess, but a good book is sustained by the plot, not the situation.

Arthur C. Clarke is one of the 20th century's greatest writers of fiction-certainly of science fiction-and, as many of us know, of accessible science writing. However, this book is not an essential piece of his canon. It's interesting, to be sure, some of Clarke's visions of the future are novel and worth thinking about. There are several noteworthy situations outlined, including a possible scenario for World War III (this scenario however, shows the hazards of prophecy... apparently Clarke failed to forsee the fall of the Berlin Wall, for Germany is still referred to here as "East" and "West".) A lot of the writing doesn't really sound like Clarke... especially the medical chapter, it comes off as a bit dry and boring in places, lacking his trademark wit. It almost seems as if these chapters and scenarios were written by someone else and merely edited by Clarke. I'm not knocking the book-it is interesting, nicely laid out, and very professional and highly ambitious in scope-but Clarke has SO MUCH superior material available that there's no reason for you to pick this up unless you've nearly exhausted his output.

Because of the promise of the title I was greatly disappointed in the content. It records one mans journey of recovery after the suicide of his wife. It's focus is on his reentry into a new relationship. Unless this is your specific concern I would not recommend this book for anyone seeking depth of solace, understanding and healing in the aftermath of suicide. While I am sure the writing of it helped in the authors recovery it helped little in mine. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "How I dealt with grief and dating and codependancy in the aftermath of my wifes suicide."

Clarke's book is another of those "good books, not bad, not great." Depending on what the reader is searching for, this could be great. The author does spend a significant amount of time on his codependency issues and his tales of trying to date after his wife's suicide, but all in all, it's not bad.

[...] I was amazed. This guy is not only serious in his convictions; he seems to believe he has single handedly overturned the modern ideas on 'race.' This is the kind of book I would have expected to find originally published a hundred years ago, of course with the targets being non-Europeans. Isn't this called racism? Yes, of course it is. So, Mr. Bradley, the races are permanently different? Everything is not only nature over nurture but is also easily discovered by tracing ancestry? All previous and much more thoughtful research has clearly shown that all cultures, or races if you can't get out of that rut, were and are equally prone to what are universal human behaviors. Aggression and violence are not more pronounced in Western Europe, it was simply these westerners who were better able to effect their aggression. I am amazed that this piece of, um, spurious scholarship was published. On second thought I can. I can only hope that only those who seek this kind of [...] will read this, [...], and not a person genuinely interested in history. Especially not someone who comes upon this book early in their explorations of a very interesting area of study. In short, if you have already made up your mind that white men have ruined the world, buy this book and find a companion in your unreasoning conviction. If you have not decided this, don't waste your time.

This is not a serious work on anthropology, genetics, human evolution, history or biology. The assertions put forth within it don't hold up to even minimal scrutiny nor can they withstand even modest criticism. In fact, they simply outlandish, and therein lies the appeal of this book.. It will appeal to those who have some kind of bigotry towards whites, but for those who wish a book based on reality, fact, and reason, I suggest looking elsewhere.

Michael Bradley, as a member of the Caucasian race, has bravely stepped forward with a valuable contribution to the analysis of Caucasian group behavior, or should I say misbehavior, toward people of color. No matter what your political affiliation or race, anyone who engages in a discussion of race relations is in reality examining why people who call themselves white have such a seemingly inherent animosity to people classified as non-white. Mr. Bradley also asks why Caucasian culture has an adversarial relationship to the planet Earth. It is a rare white person who will even admit the existence of the global system of white supremacy, let alone one who will acknowledge that the group mentality of his race is indeed the source of the racism, pollution, and resource depletion that plague the world.

As part of the system of white supremacy, whites have developed an entire vocabulary (e.g. "affirmative action," "immigration reform," "civil rights," or calling Egypt part of the "Middle East," thereby removing the nation from Africa) which allows them to talk about race without mentioning any explicit racial terms. That way, anyone who speaks candidly about the core of the race problem - white group behavior- can be accused by white people of preaching anti-white racism. I'm sure some Eurocentric people who are only used to receiving "information" that bolsters the white viewpoint will be shocked by some of the things Bradley says; but Eurocentric people need to be shocked out of their extreme xenophobia. I don't neccesarily agree with some of the conclusions the author reaches but I have to commend him for his honesty. Other books that cover the same subject matter but, in my opinion, do a better job of analysis are: The Isis Papers by Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing and, especially, Yurugu by Marimba Ani. I will conclude by saying that anybody interested in truly addressing the problem of white supremacy should include these three books on their essential reading list.

The author of this book doesn't even attempt to disguise his seething contempt and dislike for Sinatra. Unsubstantiated rumours, innuendo, "re-created" dialogue, speculation ad nauseum. Dreadful rubbish, just dreadful... Do yourself a favour, and read anything written by Will Friedwald (run a search on his name for available books). In the end, the only thing that matters is the music, not the person or the image, just the music.

When I read this book I felt like I was reading a tex book. The only important things in the book, and the majority of it, were names and dates. Throughout the whole book - constantly. He also worships Sinatra. Any fault of Franks was obviously forced upon him, according to the author. Oh and most importantly, "Sinatra is God."

Five stars isn't enough.

I love FS and his music, but I am not a blind teenage hero worshipper. Part of the reason I'm a big, big, big FS fan is because he was REAL and even if he made a slew of the best recordings ever (period!) you can learn a lot about someone by getting the whole picture which includes some troublesome aspects of Sinatra's personality. If you consider the truly creative giants in all arts, many of them were not exactly what you would call well-adapted. Many of them are drug users or suicides at some point. Sinatra lived his art and his life like a man possessed, as I think Clarke mentions, and it may have been the man's sometimes "foolish fury" that made him the unequivocal entertainer of the century (to use the recordmakers' term.) A lot of the people FS ran into trouble with weren't all that righteous (the journalists, for example), and I think Clarke tells it like it was. If FS picked some bad fights, so be it; I have picked some bad fights in my life because I have one thing in common with Sinatra (definitely not my lousy voice!): I'm human and I'm flawed.

I don't buy inane music biographies that paint useless, glowing pictures of musicians. Such books are a complete waste of money.

This book is fascinating precisely because it frames Sinatra's music and life in terms of his era and his background -- the Dorsey era isn't just a nice bit of trivia, it really shaped FS' career for decades and it is astounding to look at how many Dorsey tunes were remade during the Columbia and Capitol years (and later!) It is immensely rewarding to listen to songs evolve from boyish ballads to swinging numbers over the years; American popular music came of age through Sinatra's microphone, and I think a careful reading of Clark brings this home -- be sure to have the recordings handy to play in the background while you read. His movies? I tend to like them more than I should because FS is in them, but seriously how many times can you watch the Rat Pack movies and enjoy them (once is pushing it...).

For what it's worth, I have found most of Mr. Clarke's comments regarding albums to be spot on. I own nearly 50 FS albums, and when I think about the ones I play most often they tend to coincide with albums Clarke portrays favorably.

J would like pay with my credit card, but J need of an invoice duly receipted intestated to "Istituto Sperimentale Talassografico sez. di Messina dell'IAMC", Spianata S. Raineri, 86-98122 Messina. It is possible to have it?