Not a formal history, but an attempt to convey the atmosphere and flow of the battle; it is very well done. One of a series of books in the same format, all of them worthwhile.

THIS BOOK IS CONCISE AND PRECISE INTRODUCTION FOR ANY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT OF MEDICINE.AN EXCELLENT BOOK TO CARRY WHILE ON REALLY BUSY ROUND THE CLOCK ROTAS.GIVES ADEQUATE LINES ON WHICH ONE COULD REACH A DIAGNOSIS AND PLAN MANAGEMENT.THOUGH I WOULD PERSONALLY LOVE TO PERUSE BIGGER VOLUMES FOR MORE DETAILED EXPLORATION.IT ALSO COMES IN VERY HANDY TO PREPARE FOR ORAL EXAMS AND ESPECIALLY FOR DOCTORS WISHING TO PURSUE CAREERS IN THE U.K.THIS IS AN EXCELLENT HANDBOOK I POSSESS &IKEEP LOOKING UP QUITE OFTEN.

This is a concise, compact and excellent book which gives all the "must know" information on all relevent topics neatly tailored in one page.It is uptodate,current and useful for clinical practice as well as exams..especially the PLAB exam of England.It also offers a detailed birds eye view of the various specialities.

The Collier-Horowitz team have done at least three of these dynasty biographies, this one being their first. The biggest problem they have had in their project of writing on the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys is that they are often dependent on a few sources, especially when researching contemporary family goings-on. Maybe because it was their first stab at the dynasty biography, the problem is most acute with the Rockefellers. The founder of the dynasty, John D. Senior, is given less space than John D. Junior, almost as if Collier-Horowitz is saying "Senior has been done by others; let's nail down the more obscure Junior." And they do fill in the details of Junior's life rather well. The professional lives of the third generation, the five brothers, are rather well done but the personal lives are almost ignored. This is a failing because the reader can not understand why the fourth generation of Rockefellers have, for the most part, happily rejected their family unless you know why the five brothers were such abject failures as fathers. The fourth generation comes off, with only a couple of exceptions, as spoiled, childish brats filled with loathing of all things Rockefeller. David Rockefeller's children especially seem to despise their father, family and country. Abbie Rockefeller is particularly odious. Laura Rockefeller explains her own generation succinctly when she says, "the cousins are used to spending and donating money but not producing." The moral decay and personal supineness of the vast majority of the fourth generation is striking. It is also interesting is that the first Rockefellers were very religious people while the younger Rockefellers have turned their backs on religion. The Rockefeller trusts may keep the Rockefeller family going financially for several generations to come but as an important, vibrant family, the Rockefellers are a family in collapse.

This writing would make an excellent history book about one of the biggest families in Corporate America. This book details the building of the massive Rockefeller fortune through the exploits of the senior Rockefeller. His battles with rivals within the oil industry are also well documented. His son also has a prominent place in this book as well. His donations to charity and the development of several foundations are well covered. The third generation Rockefellers and their accomplishments are well described in this book. All in all this was an outstanding book about a prominent American family. Read it, you will not be dissapointed.

Former radicals Horowitz and Collier expose the Left again. This collection of vignettes from campuses (and other areas) across the nation are quite humorous -- and at the same time scary. McCarthyism alive and well? Sure is -- at your local university.

Have kids about to enter college? Read this first, and then examine what classes your child takes along with his/her reading materials and syllabi.

Oh, and make sure to read the letters section at the end of the book, especially those from university professors. These guys and gals are supposed to be the epitomy of "tolerant?"

This collection of materials (mostly essays, but also some parodies and, delightfully, readers' letters) from Heterodoxy is horrifying and invigorating. "These people are crazy," I kept telling myself as I read the book. "They need to be institutionalized."

But they're not crazy. They're mobilized, they're motivated, and they're out to get you. Okay, maybe not YOU, specifically...not yet. The essays in this collection reveal leftist individuals and organizations at work, putting their agenda -- the consolidation of their own power by the destruction of existing American institutions -- into action.

The title is mystifying. Many of the essays contained in this volume relate to American universities (one of the first redoubts to be siezed by the Raving Left). Others, though, deal with issues and incidents as diverse as fascist feminism's assault on the US military and a social workers' crusade against the "patriarchal" family.

Still, give it to your college-bound friend or relative. Think of it as inoculation.

American Universities, Islands of Oppression in a Sea of Freedom.

And daily the size of that sea is shrinking. We scratch our heads and wonder what is eating away at the America we once knew. This is a good place to start answering that question.

This penetrating, almost lurid novel, exposes the brutish life of the coal miner in late nineteenth century France. This well-written, detailed story, exposes the appalling conditions of the workers, at a time when labor was just starting to organize. The failure of organized labor to ameliorate these conditions, at the time, made many, including Zola, feel that a socialist revolution, if not inevitable, was certainly desirable.

Zola has been referred to as the father of literary "naturalism". His literary vision captures life as it exists for the majority of the persons then alive, rather than the elite, whose lives had been the subject of most literature written up to this point. Germinal vivdly portrays the monotonous, near hopeless, life of the laborer: long hours; miserable working conditions that considerably shorten life expectancy and routinely cause medical problems early into middle age; and the almost common manner in which many young girls encounter their first lover (and often future husband) in non-consensual circumstances- in the mine, behind the barn, etc. Many readers were shocked or even outraged.

Zola's characters are fairly well-developed, and their patheticness is disturbingly believable. The plot (which seems secondary) details the counterproductive attempt to strike by the organized coalminers. The book is peopled with aristocrats and bourgeoisie as well as workers; but its most salient and revolutionary aspect is its primary focus upon the miserable lives of the oppressed. The particulary egregious plight of the workers in this story may slightly overstate the plight of Zola's contemporary workers, but the detailed and informed nature of Zola's description of the coal mine's operation leaves little doubt that the oppression faced by this generation of workers was all too real.

As a work of fiction, it is marred only by its incomplete, or unresolved ending, and the feeling that the development of the main character, Etienne, has not been fully realized, for better or for worse.

Germinal is generally considered the greatest of Emile Zola's twenty novel Rougon-Macquart cycle. Of these, Germinal is the most concerned with the daily life of the working poor. Set in the mid 1860's, the novel's protaganist Etienne Lantier is hungry and homeless, wandering the French countryside, looking for work. He stumbles upon village 240, the home of a coal mine, La Voreteux. He quickly gets a job in the depths of the mine, experiencing the backbreaking work of toiling hundreds of feet below the earth. He is befriended by a local family and they all lament the constant work required to earn just enough to slowly starve. Fired up by Marxist ideology, he convinces the miners to strike for a pay raise. The remainder of the novel tells the story of the strike and its effect on the workers, managers, owners and shareholders.
Zola weaves a strong plot line along with a multitude of characters. The hallmark of this novel is the wealth of people who populate the pages. The miners are not the noble poor but men and women who live day to day, cruel in some ways, generous in others. The managers are owners are not evil, greedy men but complex characters who in some ways envy the freedom of the miners from conventional morality.
As with most Zola novels, don't expect a happy ending. But the reader can expect to be transported to a world and a way of life almost unimaginable for its brutality and bleakness. Like other great works of literature, the novel explores the thoughts and actions of people who suffer the daily indignities of poverty and injustice. Germinal is different however because the thoughts and actions are not noble and the consequences of their actions are felt by all. I would strongly recommend Germinal as one of the major novels of the 19th century but one that transcends time and place. The issues evoked in the novel regarding labor versus capital are just as relevant to today's world.

In addition to their renowned pievishness, the French are expert pessimists. Indeed, they have raised pride, scorn, and sarcasm to such high art. But they were also great pioneers, from the political caricatures of Daumier to modernism.

Germinal was one of the first truly excellent muckraker novels, exploring the complex tableau of oppressed workers in early industrial society. THough there is some excessive melodrama in the characters, they open a world that few would be able to know without direct experience. We should never forget how new this was, how much of a pioneer Zola was. It is a huge success.

But the novel also stands very well on its own. The writing is austerely beautiful, textured to feel as dusty and cold as the mines themselves. THere are realistic good guys and bad guys, highly complex characters who enter into difficult fights, who were types that Zola largely invented and that have been copied many many times. On every page, I wanted to find out what would happen to them, how they grew or died, where they were from. I hoped for them, pitied them, and hated them and even wept from them in the climactic ending when a glimmer of humanity transcended the class struggle for just a moment.

I was fascinated and repelled by the world Zola recreates, which has been my reaction to French culture throughout my contact with it for the last 32 years!

There is a new book on them every year. This work includes Theodore sr., Bamie, the Eliots, Quentin, Kermit, Anna & all the rest. This is not American history. It is family history: one family two clans, Hyde Park & Oyster Bay. Their orgins from the 17th century are discussed briefly including the split. Then it proceeds with Teddy's childhood. He was sickly, almost dying several times, except for his father Theodore sr. He was a great man & loving father. He undoubtedly made Teddy the man he was to become. He was worthy of the veneration TR carried for him all his life. Theodore sr. died early. So did Eliot "the golden boy" TR's brother & Eleanor's father. The impact that Eliot had on his daughter was huge & mostly negative.
Being a son of TR was tough. He & wife Edith were good, attentive, loving parents. They had four sons, all filled with a passion to measure up to TR. It wasn't enough to enlist in World War I but to see action & if possible get wounded. Talk about pressure! TR probably didn't see things in such a harsh light but the sons felt this was the way to please their father. It killed the youngest son, Quentin. Of course they never rose to TR's heights. But a cousin did: Franklin Delano. His life started out differently with an older father he didn't know & a domineering mother. He studiously followed TR's path: state legislator, under Secretary of the Navy & govenor of New York. As good parents that TR & Edith were FDR & Eleanor were terrible & neglectful. The way their children turned out was somewaht predictable, racking up 15 divorces amongst them. The Roosevelts rank up there with the Adams, Kennedys & Bushes(?) as great American political families. This was from the the audio version & throughly enjoyable.

As a U.S. History teacher I often get this question when my classes reach the early twentieth century: "How are Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt related - were they brothers, or father-and-son"? When I point out that they were distant cousins, the students are amazed, and I suspect that many Americans with only a minimum knowledge of history would be, too. As this excellent book by Peter Collier and David Horowitz points out, there were two distinct branches of the Roosevelt family. One branch became Republicans and settled into the wealthy neighborhoods of Manhattan and Oyster Bay, on Long Island; while the other branch became Democrats and lived on a huge, English-style estate along the Hudson River in upstate New York. Although the two branches of this Dutch-descended family got along fairly well in the nineteenth century, in the early twentieth century a venomous feud erupted between the children of Theodore Roosevelt and their distant yet ambitious cousin, Franklin, and his revenge-minded wife, Eleanor. The first part of this book focuses on the rise of Theodore Roosevelt to fame and power in politics. In many ways "TR" represented the best of the American past - he was young (at 42 the youngest ever to become President), dynamic, and progressive. His large brood of children were no less energetic and flamboyant (in particular his eldest child Alice, who shocked polite society by smoking in public and making "unladylike" comments - Theodore himself said that he could "be President or control Alice, I cannot possibly do both"). As their beloved father grew older and his political star began to wane after 1909, his children assumed that the mantle of family and national leadership would be passed on to his oldest sons, especially Theodore, Jr. But they soon discovered a "nemesis" - Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic Hudson River Roosevelts, became an assistant to President Woodrow Wilson and began manuevering to oust Theodore's children from the throne. He was assisted by his wife Eleanor, who was the daughter of Theodore's tragic brother Elliot. Unable to keep up with his wildly successful older brother, Elliot simply gave up and fell into a life of drinking, gambling, and womanizing and died at an early age. Young Eleanor always blamed the Oyster Bay Republican Roosevelts for "destroying" her adored father, and she vowed revenge. In the 1920's she derailed Theodore, Jr's attempts to become Governor of New York by smearing him with a political scandal, thus ending his political career and earning Eleanor the embittered ridicule of Alice, who thereafter often enjoyed making fun of Eleanor's buck teeth and nasal accent for her dinner guests. (She also took numerous verbal swipes at her cousin - after hearing that Franklin was having an extramarital affair, Alice snorted "He deserves to - he's married to Eleanor"). The second half of the book describes the rise to power and Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the career of his wife Eleanor, and the many problems and failures of their children - largely brought on, Collier and Horowitz argue, by the neglect of their famous parents. This family feud doesn't really end until decades after Franklin D. Roosevelt dies in 1945, and both branches of the family have left politics for the quieter pursuits of business. My only disappointment with this book is that it skims over many of the great accomplishments of both Roosevelt Presidents - this book is NOT a comprehensive history of their Presidencies! However, it is an extremely well-written and engrossing account of the rise and fall of two branches of one of America's greatest families.

"The Roosevelts" is the fascinating, 75 year long tale of two branches of an American dynasty during its of era prominence.

The main characters are Theodore Roosevelt, patriarch of the Oyster Bay Branch, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, patriarch of the Hyde Park branch, and Eleanor Roosevelt, who bridged the two branches.

Theodore was the founder of the dynasty who set the pattern for the others to follow. Assistant Secretary of the Navy, hero of San Juan Hill, Governor of New York, Vice President and President, TR blazed the trail which others attempted to follow.

This book follows TR through his career, focusing on the themes which made him the Lion that he was. TR's love of family, love of country, martial ardor and thirst for the limelight are all well explained. The post-presidential years of frustration with Taft and Wilson are shown as hard times for TR. TR's call for entry into World War I made him the leading opposition figure to Wilson's peace policy. U.S. entry merely brought more frustration as TR was refused an Army Commission while his four sons all saw combat. TR was proud of his sons, bled with them when they were wounded and grieved when Quentin was killed.

The story is more than just the stories of the main characters. It is, in essence, the story of a family, the relationships of parents and children, brothers and sisters, cousins and in-laws. The role that family life played in the lives of each individual is skillfully woven throughout the book.

With his passing, TR left an idol to emulate and a trail to follow. All of his sons, in war and peace, tried to carry on TR's ideals through public service.

The two family members who most clearly tried to follow the trail blazed by TR were Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like TR, both would serve in the New York legislature, serve as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and run for Governor of New York. Both attempted to run for vice-president and both as aspired to the presidency. It was the rivalry of these two which split the branches of the family into a bitter feud.

Theodore, Jr., Ted, was the first to try to journey down the trail. Nominated for Governor of New York in 1924, he was beaten by Al Smith, due, at least in part, to his unjustified guilt by association in the Teapot Dome scandal. The prevailing wisdom of the day was that there was room for only one Roosevelt in New York politics at a time. A tantalizing "what if" of history is that had Ted not been tarred with Teapot Dome, he could have been elected governor. This probably would have made him the front-runner for the 1928 presidential nomination, leaving FDR frozen out of politics. As fate had it, Ted's gubernatorial service would occur in Puerto Rico and the Philippines whereas FDR would be elected Governor of New York in 1928. Despite vice-presidential speculation in 1924 and 1928, Ted's career as a public official ended with FDR's election as president in 1932.

Although Ted's political career was ended, he continued to play a role as an opposition leader who contested FDR's claim to TR's spiritual legacy and who consistently reminded the public that FDR was not TR's son.

FDR also idolized and emulated TR. After a vice-presidential run in 1920, his political career seemed to have been ended by his contraction of polio. Initially depressed by his illness, FDR, "Feather Duster" to his Oyster Bay cousins, overcame his handicap and was able to return to the arena after a long convalescence. The recuperative days at Warm Springs are given ample attention by the authors. The reader follows FDR's long road back to public life.

Although the fathers of TR and FDR had been friends, the strongest link between the branches was forged when TR, standing in for his deceased brother, Elliott, gave his niece, Eleanor, in marriage to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Eleanor and Franklin are portrayed as a misfit match. Unable to find satisfaction in Eleanor, Franklin sought it in other women. Eleanor, for her part, found companionship in a series of confidants, both male and female. Their union became more of a business partnership than a true marriage. Eleanor gave Franklin the appearance of a stable marriage, while he provided her with an avenue into public and political life rare, or even unique, among women of her day.

The effect on their children of the Eleanor and Franklin's partnership is portrayed as disastrous. Unable to maintain a normal relationship among themselves, Eleanor and Franklin could not build a nurturting family environment. As a result, their children drifted from one relationship to another, in and out of shady business deals and had, what was for them, small success in politics.

One test of a book is whether it presents facts which leads the reader to a conclusion. "The Roosevelts" passes this test. Although many other Roosevelts play roles in this story, we are basically introduced to two families. Theodore Roosevelt headed a family bound by love and devotion to duty. Although the hand of history weighed heavily on later generations, TR's family is portrayed, for the most part, as remaining loyal to duty, honor and each other. Eleanor and Franklin, by contrast, begot a set of related individuals, for whom their heritage was not a call to service, but merely an asset to be sold. Before reading "The Roosevelts" I had a much greater respect for Theodore than for Franklin. This book has widened the gap immeasurably. Read and see if you come to the same conclusion.

In Destructive Generation, Peter Collier and David Horowitz put together an account of 60s radicalism that acts as an excellent antidote to the songs of U2 or Howard Zinn's chic People's History of the United States. The book goes a long way toward discrediting the fantasy of the 60s as a time of idealism and harmless rebellion, and resurrects the nearly forgotten "dark side" of the 60s.

At times, the book reads almost like a latter-day version of Dostoevsky's classic, the Devils. Like the Devils, the radicals portrayed in Destructive Generation -- notably Huey Newton, Bernadine Dohrn, Billy Ayers and Tom Hayden -- seem to behave the way they do not because they believe in revolution, but because they hate the system and they seem to be fascinated by nihilism and violence. The chapters on the Panthers and the Weatherman are the most instructive, while Horowitz's "letter to a political friend" is the most moving part of the book. If you are looking for the antithesis to Noam Chomsky, you will find it here.

The only drawback to the book is the way in which it uses sources. Footnotes are sparse, and paraphrases are often vague. Because of this, the book reads like one long editorial, rather than a work of history. One hopes that Collier and Horowitz will return to this work and create a second edition, with better notation.

Must read for anyone who overslept and missed the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. If you always wanted to know what it was like to hang with the Panthers, but couldn't find the Ramparts office, get a peek inside those romantic days of yore. Of course Horowitz and Collier may not remember quite the way you heard it on the street back then, but, hell, what do they know? huh? If you figure the millions massacred after the US left Nam got what they deserved, this book is not for you. But if you're willing to take an honest look at the consequences of the 60's and more, plug in the coffee pot, unplug the phone, and dive in. Very, very thought provoking

How does it feeeelll... To be on your own... no direction known... like a rollin' stone...

This Dylan lyric depicts the disarray in which the intellectual Left finds itself in the aftermath of voluminous setbacks over the past century. David Horowitz and Peter Collier recount their personal intellectual metamorphoses' as they wend their way through the chapters of "Destructive Generation."

They begin with a particularly heartfelt portrayal of a Leftist attorney, Fay Stender, trying to do good for poor black victims of a racist society. What Stender fails to comprehend, which leads to one of the purported victims shooting her in a bizarre ritual of hatred for all white people, is that these victims are thugs who prey on the very people she presumes she represents. Her actions are borne of a fatal miscalculation of murderers like Jonathan Jackson and his friends. This story, skillfully related by H&C, shows that the law of unintended consequences always seems to prevail, and often fatally, when put to the test by Left-Liberal nostrums. They next visit the rise and fall of the Weather underground, Huey Newton, and the Black Panthers, all grisly stories with a less than savory end.

The Second section of the book deals with how the Left-liberal press poses as a 5th column for America's Marxist intellectuals. It shows how their intellectual allegiance to the social policy concepts of Marxist regimes leads them to conspire to deceive the American public. Their goal is shown to be undeniably subversive to America's national interest. Prominent public figures of the Left mentioned here include man of the cloth William Sloane Coffin, former Democratic congressman from Oakland Calif. Ron Dellums and his aide Carlottia Scott, NYT journalist Anthony Lewis, and former Dem. Cong. woman from Denver, Patricia Schroeder, with a host of lesser light attorneys and enablers achieving minor notoriety.

They next romp through the Left's portrayal of Joe McCarthy. History has absolved McCarthy even though his method for outing U.S. government Communists was reprehensible. This chapter is followed by a marvelous piece on the Left's takeover of the city council in Berkeley California. All the familiar antics of Leftist rule are on display here and the chapter provided me with many belly laughs. In another way it's just plain sad that these people seem to learn nothing from history. They act like an intellectual version of the mindless Kudzu weed that if left untended continues to grow and expand over any and all obstacles until it consumes the landscape. All Communist-Socialist governments end up creating shortages and a vastly reduced standard of living for all people, but these idealists never seem to get the message. H&C hope to help them. Perhaps a 12-step program will be forthcoming.

In chapter eight H&C reveal their assumptions which have led to their transition from Radical innocence to Radical guilt. They do a wonderful job of dissecting the American-hating propagandist from MIT, Noam Chomsky. They also take apart Tom Hayden and his ilk, showing them for what they are and what they stand for; it's not a pretty picture.

The final section of the book deals with their growing up and beyond the Leftist mythology that held them in its thrall in their early years. They also explain the reason that former comrades must treat them with such disdain as they recount the smearing administered at the hands of these old friends, who remain continuing Communist sympathizers to a man/woman. Their views are recapped in a series of letters and other correspondence.

They conclude the book by citing how the Cold War caused comrades, from their legions of the Left, to leave the faith in the face of mountains of lies and policy failures resulting from the Fatal Conceit of Communist-Socialist Utopians.

This is a great book for anyone, especially disillusioned post-graduates who sense that something is awry in their worldview. They should read it two or three times just to make sure they retain some of its wisdom.

Horowitz and Collier sure know how to bash their old friends from the Sixties. But after reading their account of the Old and New Left, one can hardly blame them. It would seem that most of the Left failed to learn anything from the Vietnam War and gleaned even less from the collapse of socialism. H&C describe how the Left of the Sixties was really about radical change, namely abolishing the American "System" (i.e. capitalism) and replacing it with a socialist utopia. C&H demonstrate that the Left may have changed it's name when it realized that Stalin's socialist utopia murdered millions and when America lost the war in Vietnam, but it's still driven by anti-Americanism and pro-Socialism. And little has changed even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. C&H would appear to be onto something when they suggest that the Left never re-evaluates their positions and is therefore doomed to repeat history. Over the years, the Left has remained focused on the illusion of a peaceful utopia even while the Right has discredited it in theory and history has now discredited it in practice. Perhaps it is arrogance or a refusal to admit a mistake. Or perhaps it is really true that the Left is so enamored with socialism that it is unable to examine it objectively. A pretty hard-hitting book that is sure to piss off those that failed to re-evaluate their Leftism after the "glory days" of the Sixties.

On the misinterpretation of this book, Bourdieu writes in the preface: "All of this was there in the text, waiting to be read, but it was rejected by the guardians of orthodox interpretation, who have felt their privileges threatened by the unruly progress of the new sciences, and so have clung like fallen aristocrats to a philosophy of philosophy, whose exemplary expression was provided by Heidegger, erecting a sacred barrier between ontology and anthropology."

Surprisingly enough, the seeds of this book was written nearly a decade before the "Heidegger contoversy" that swept through the French academy in the late 1980s. Rather than denouncing Heidegger as a Nazi or defending Heidegger's philosophy as exempt from his political miscues, Bourdieu offers another route: forget the singularity of the discourse on Heidegger, rather, we must look at the historical, cultural, social, and political context that made Heidegger's involvement with Nazism possible. Forget the "man" and let us examine the context...

This is a brilliant insight: we focus on the merits of the individual, even as great as Heidegger, and forget that individuals are actors in a larger matrix of culture, politics, economics and history. To this, Bourdieu discusses the homology of the three fields of production: philosophical, academic, and political. In this, Bourdieu argues that there is no possibility of reducing the discourse on Heidegger to any specific field. We must look to the ways in which Heidegger's activities and writings both reflect and are determined by the constructs of the three fields. By "political ontology," Bourdieu challenges the statements of pure ontology that have been circulated by both Heidegger and his commentators. "Pure ontology" is contrasted with "political ontology." Despite Heidegger's claims, and despite his enormous philosophical insights, can we ever claim to notions of the "pure"? In this, is not Bourdieu making a stake for himself as a faithful Heideggerian by virtue of opposing the pure?

Beyond the discourse on the Heidegger controversy, Bourdieu strongly contends that we must give up notions of "pure" disciplinary studies whether they be a pure reading of philosophy or a pure political or social reading of an event. In the end, as Bourdieu suggests, this book isn't necessarily about Heidegger in any sense; rather, this book is a practical exercise--that is, a preliminary exercise for a possible method, which must always remain reflexive and changing.

This book reads a lot like watching a soap opera, or a Lifetime movie. In fact that might be a good way to characterize it: the made for TV movie of Kennedy books. That does not mean, however, that it is not enjoyable. It is an easy and entertaining read, and a great introduction to this famous, or infamous family. The best that it has to offer is the parts about the third generation, which cooperated with the authors and granted them interviews. However, in the rush to seek an explanation for why the young ones turned out bad, the authors blame everything on Senator Ted Kennedy, which is not quite fair to a loving father and uncle, and a legislative giant, who is passed off in this book as a moron who rides his family's coattails. This book is a good read, but not a one-stop place for information.

This book is by far one of the most telling stories about the Kennedy dynasty I have ever read. Having read Thomas Reeves profile of Jack Kennedy in "A Question of Character" I found that "The Kennedy's" gives much more information on the inner workings of the Kennedy family. I especially enjoy the stories of old Joe Kennedy, how he made his fortunes, and his political power. The book is very well done, and I recommend everyone interested in politics, real politics, to read.

An excellent account of the Kennedys from the beginnings up to 1984, when the book was written. This book gives you a blow-by-blow history of the family and the kids. I found it most interesting learning about the little known real story of Camelot. There has been so much written about the Kennedys but the authors did some serious research and told some never before written stories, such as the JFK's back problems and Rosemary's retardation, also stories about the Kennedy kids and their drug problems. Quite informative and thorough, this book is excellent history.