I must agree with the other reader who insisted you ignore the Kirkus review. I found this book to be incredibly moving and fascinating in its exploration, not of various conspiracy theories (as the Kirkus reviewer wrongly says), but of the different ways the Kennedy assasination myth affects Americans, even those of us who were not alive when it happened.

As far as I'm concerned, who ever wrote the Kirkus review above is even more of a hack than the worst potboiler scribblers, of which Mr. Thomas is definitely not one. Come to think of it, who else but the lowliest hack would review for Kirkus? Forget the dumb, ad hominem Kirkus attack and read the book. It's well worth your time.

F. Scott Fitzgerald may be remembered most often as the author of "The Great Gatsby", but during his lifetime, he earned most of his income by writing short stories for magazines. This compilation includes many of his earlier classics, all dealing with the same wealthy class of people that appear in his novels. "Bernice Bobs Her Hair" is a delightful tale about the lengths (literally) that girls will go to in order to fit in socially. "The Offshore Pirate" is a compelling and romantic story with an exciting and climactic ending. In addition, "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz", a longer and quite famous story has a brilliant plot; a boy visits his wealthy friend's home, and while he enjoys himself immensely and even falls in love, he finds out that the visit may come at a hefty price. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a hilarious story about a man born looking like he is 70 years old, and looking progressively younger as he "ages", so that he eventually seems younger than his grandson. All in all, you cannot miss with any of his stories, and they make great evening reads - one a day will surely keep the doctor away!

Nostalgia has an inevitable foreshortening effect upon reputation. For most of us, Fitzgerald is the perenially young, perenially arch chronicler of the 1920s Jazz Age -- of bathtub gin, flappers, rumrunners and boats born ceaselessly back.

This collection of short stories does much to restore an unappreciated side of Fitzgerald the writer, most notably his willingness to experiment with technique, his almost existential grasp of human absurdity and his articulation of unease and pessimism about the possibilities of the American Dream.

The stories range widely in quality from precious parodies from his Princeton years ("Jemina") to profoundly moving glimpses of the human condition ("The Lees of Happiness"). Even the most insubstantial of the stories printed here are worth the read for, if nothing else, they show that even at his youngest and roughest, Fitzgerald had a keen grasp of voice and description and how to use it to breath life into wispy plot lines.

I take issue with some of the critical recommendations contained in Patrick O'Donnell's fine introduction to the collection. I did not, for instance, find "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz" particularly impressive. I think the best stories are those that hew to a psychological theme prevalent in Fitzgerald's fiction and his adult life -- the dread of what comes after youth and a nostalgic fixation on youth as the best time in a person's life. The stories I liked most -- "The Lees of Happiness," "The Ice Palace," "The Cut Glass Bowl," "Benediction," "The Four Fists," "'O Russet Witch!'" -- all tackle this theme.

Many of the stories in this volume aren't profound, but are just a delightful read. I defy you, for instance, to read "The Camel's Back" without bursting out loud in laughter over its protagonist's gyrations and setbacks in quest of his true love.

There is a wistfulness at the center of Fitzgerald's prose and his life story that seems to have faded from our collective remembrance of him as a Great American Author. This volume does much to remind us of that winsome note and to remind us that Fitzgerald paid dearly for it in his personal life as it lit up his writing at the same time.

METAPHORS OF IDENTITY crosses and combines disciplines to examine the nature of identity in human society. Fitzgerald, in deftly separating "identity" from "culture," clearly provides a reasoned and critical view of social, biological, and political factors which thwart understanding and cohesion among groups of people. This book should not be confined to the academic world, but should be enjoyed by literate humanists who find the canon of "political correctness" politically, intellectually, and spiritually pinching, but who despise bigotry in all its many forms.

Clearly exhaustive research went in to this novel. A well told story within accurate historical settings, very hard to put this great book down!

As historian Robert Dallek explains in his forward, this is Thomas Whalen's debut and this work reflects that fact. The writing is sometimes wooden and some quotes are added more to impress the reader, or other historians, that Mr. Whalen went to the effort to interview some of the remaining survivors from that election half a century ago. However, Mr. Whalen's analysis is thoughtful. JFK's 51.5 %-48.5 % victory over Henry Cabot Lodge was historic in many ways. If he had lost, Jack Kennedy's presidential ambitions would most likely been crushed and he may have decided on another line of work. A Lodge victory may well have propelled him to a showdown with Richard Nixon for the 1960 Republican presidential nomination (and this would be dependent on Lodge being re-elected for Senate in 1958, one of the greatest Democratic years in election history). A Lodge Republican presidential nomination in 1960 would certainly have delayed the GOP's rightward turn that was to follow and may have altered the GOP for a generation or more. Ironically, by losing to Kennedy, Lodge would become Vice-President Nixon's running mate in 1960. The author is pretty clear about the reasons for JFK's narrow victory. Joseph Kennedy's money was of great use in this era of comparatively cheaply run elections. The Kennedy campaign charmed women voters with tea parties held by the Kennedy women and door-to-door campaigning. Eunice and Ethel were especially energetic. Lodge did not begin his own campaign until September, spending most of the summer working for the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower as the Republican presidential standard-bearer. Interestingly, Lodge's efforts for Ike angered the conservative Republican Massachusetts newspaperman Basil Brewer, who supported Robert Taft for the GOP presidential nomination. Brewer owned the New Bedford Evening Standard and the Cape Cod Standard Times and he threw his support to JFK rather than Lodge in an act of political revenge. Kennedy mauled Lodge in Irish-Catholic areas where Lodge had performed well in the past. Lodge had won 40 % + in most Irish wards in his election victory in 1946 over David Walsh. JFK reduced Lodge's totals to around 20 % in those same Irish-American neighborhoods. Kennedy cut into Lodge's advantages in traditionally Yankee/Brahmin neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay and Cape Cod due to his non-ethnic outlook. As JFK advisor and future Democratic National Committee chairman Lawrence O'Brien explained, "Kennedy represented a new generation, a new kind of Irish politician, one who was rich and respectable and could do battle with the Lodges and other Yankee politicians on their own terms." Kennedy also improved upon the Democratic vote amongst other ethnic groups and in economically stressed manufacturing towns like Lynn. Interestingly, neither JFK nor Ted Kennedy was able to save Massachusetts manufacturing from decline in the years to come. One weak point of the book is a lack of understanding of Massachusetts's changing demographics in the 20th Century. By the time of JFK's victory over Lodge, the Massachusetts Irish were growing in numbers and power and were confident that the future was theirs politically. On the other hand, with much smaller families than the Irish, the Yankees could see the handwriting on the wall by 1952 that they were doomed to lose their control over a land they had dominated since 1620. Emphasizing this point was the landslide defeat of George Cabot Lodge, Henry's son, to the lightly regarded (at least then) Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy in the 1962 Senate race. After the defeat of the last political Lodge in 1962, Yankees largely surrendered the political arena to the Irish and other Massachusetts ethnic groups. Many, and probably most, Yankees would change their political allegience to Democratic within a generation or two as the modern day Republican party moved to the right. Fifty years after the Kennedy-Lodge Senate race, the Massachusetts Yankees are a small bulwark in the Democratic predominance of the essentially one-party state of Massachusetts.

While there have been many books written about presidential campaigns, relatively few books have been written about important congressional campaigns. Thomas Whalen's "Kennedy versus Lodge" attempts to correct this bias by offering the reader a well-written, well-researched account of a truly historic US Senate race in Massachusetts between two of the most important political families in American history. Until 1952 the dominant political family in Massachusetts and New England was the Republican Lodge family, and they were far better-known and more distinguished than the Kennedys. The Lodges were descended from the original English, Puritan colonists who had settled Massachusetts in the 1600's, and they had made their millions in the nineteenth century while the Kennedys and other Irish Catholic immigrants to Boston were fighting just to survive. From the 1880's to the 1920's the family's most famous figure was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. A close friend of Theodore Roosevelt and one of the most powerful men in Congress, Lodge led the fight to keep the USA out of the League of Nations and became President Woodrow Wilson's most hated enemy. Lodge also looked down his nose at the "grubby" Irish Catholic immigrants who were beginning to outnumber the older Protestant English families (called "Yankees" or "Brahmins") who had dominated Massachusetts politics since the United States became an independent nation. In 1916 Lodge faced a stiff challenge for his Senate seat by John "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, the popular Irish Catholic Mayor of Boston, and who was John F. Kennedy's grandfather. Lodge narrowly defeated Fitzgerald, thus beginning a great rivalry between the two families. Fitzgerald's daughter, Rose, desperately wanted to avenge her father's defeat by the Lodges, and in 1952 she got her chance when her handsome and charming son, Congressman John F. Kennedy, ran against Lodge's grandson and namesake, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., for a Senate seat. Lodge was the dominant politician in New England and a national leader of Liberal Republicans (and there used to be lots of Liberal Republicans). Kennedy was originally seen as the underdog in the race, and Lodge had beaten some tough Irish Catholic politicians before. Lodge even advised JFK's tough father, Joe, to "save his money" and avoid the race. Of course, that only made the Kennedys even more determined to "get even" and defeat the Lodges once and for all. They poured a huge amount of money into the race, ran a slick advertising campaign, and John F. Kennedy himself repeatedly visited every town and village in Massachusetts. Lodge, however, was so confident of victory that he ignored his own race and spent most of 1952 helping to lead the fight to get the Republican presidential nomination for Dwight Eisenhower and defeat the conservative Republican candidate, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Eisenhower won the nomination, but Taft's angry supporters in Massachusetts vowed revenge against Lodge and defected to Kennedy's campaign. Lodge didn't get his own Senate campaign started until August 1952, and by then the Kennedy's campaign "machine" was running at full steam. In the end John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Lodge and "evened the score" for the Kennedys. As Whalen points out, this Senate campaign truly made history. If Kennedy hadn't beaten Lodge, he almost certainly would never have become President. And if Lodge had won, then he would have become one of the most powerful Republicans in America, and could have been the Republican presidential nominee in 1960 instead of Richard Nixon. And, of course, Kennedy's victory allowed his family to replace the Lodges as New England's most powerful and famous political dynasty. After their 1952 defeat, the Lodges never again elected a member of their family to political office, and today the family has "retired" from political life. Overall, this is a fine book about an important Senate race between two wealthy and prominent politicians whose careers would change American history, for better and for worse.

Here is an engaging account of a seminal election campaign, the results of which would reverberate through Massachusetts and national politics for decades to come.

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. was the grandson of an early 20th Century political titan and Teddy Roosevelt confidant, and in 1952, an accomplished, three-term Senate incumbent in his own right. John F. Kennedy was the upstart Congressman with star power: the charismatic war hero with a natural electoral base in the Bay State's sizable Irish Catholic community and plenty of Daddy's money to bolster his campaign.

Thomas Whalen tells the story of the election that would catapult Kennedy into national prominence and put him on the road to the White House eight short years later. Whalen explores many reasons for Kennedy's victory, including his assiduous courting of the women's vote, adroit use of the new television medium, and the electorate's strong affinity for an "Irish Brahmin."

Another major factor, according to Whalen, was Lodge's role in helping to engineer the Republican nomination for Dwight Eisenhower at the Republican convention. Lodge, who served as Ike's campaign chairman, earned the eternal enmity of the Taft loyalists, who meted out their retribution by openly siding with his Democratic opponent in the 1952 Senate campaign. Kennedy's position as an avowed Cold Warrior helped to facilitate the flight of Republican conservatives such as the influential newspaper publisher Basil Brewster into the Kennedy camp. Even Ike's superb showing at the top of the ticket -- he won Massachusetts handily -- could not carry the day for Lodge, who would never again hold elective office.

Lodge's defeat would signal the beginning of the end of Yankee Republican primacy, and cement Democratic hegemony in the Bay State. After Ike, no Republican Presidential candidate would carry the state again until Reagan in 1984.

For the Kennedy clan, the victory was sweet revenge. JFK's maternal grandfather, the irrepressible "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, had failed in a bid for the elder Lodge's Senate seat in 1916.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in U.S. politics.

For years I had wandered around with many questions in my mind that were unanswered; why am I on earth? What is the purpose of life? Who is actually telling us something that resembles the truth? This book really the cleared my mind of the clutter I had acumulated in over 45 years. Everything really started clcking in my mind about why we are actually here on earth and what is that place called "The Other Side". Thanks Tom, you really made a difference in my day to day living practices. It's as if you brought me back out of amnesia, after many years of being unconcious.

Into Eternity... literaly jumped off the bookshelf in the library and fell on my foot. That was the begining of this vision to understanding read. Clear concise explanation's for anyone that is on a spiritual quest. I suggest buying two one for you and one for the person who's hands it falls into next.

Easy to read answers to hard to ask questions A+

The Confederate fighting man is the subject of these 11 very touching short stories written by the likes of F.Scott Fitzgerald and Thomas Wolfe. You don't have to be a Civil War fanatic or a Southerner to appreciate this book. You only have to love a well crafted story

As he cuts through the myths of Camelot, Thomas Reeves could have been content with dragging the name of JFK through the mud. That certainly would have been easy enough to do; all the affairs, the dubious origin of the family fortune, the murky ties with organized crime...it all has the makings of a wonderful chop-job, a character assassination.

However, Reeves rises above this. He acknowledges that good morals do not necessarily make for a good president, and that an effective president does not always have a scandal-free private life. This book was written before the Clinton presidency, which would have made for an interesting comparison.

Reeves is not content to throw one prurient revelation after another at the reader; that is Kitty Kelly's job. He is interested in good history. How did these moral defects apply to the man's ability to be an effective president, and how did the president's effectiveness have an impact on the course of our nation's history?

Reeves believes that important theme here isn't the questionable behavior in and of itself, but the fact that Kennedy's lack of any real commitment to anything but the acquisition and wielding of power ultimately made him an overall weak president. Despite Democratic control of Congress, Kennedy could get barely 25% of his legislation passed in Congress in 1962-63. Members of Congress had little regard for the man as a leader, and his luke-warm commitment on various issues did little to induce the Congress to act on his legislation. Compare that with LBJ, whose legislative success rate and mastery of Congress between 1963 and 1966 stands in stark contrast.

Reeves does observe that JFK was beginning to grow into the office by the time of his death, but stops short of predicting a glorious Kennedy legacy had the man lived. It was far from a given that JFK could have won re-election in 1964, and Reeves knows this.

Overall, this is an excellent example of a measured, critical biography that contributes to the scholarly dialogue, rather than simply being a "tell-all" book.

The title of the book says it all, A Question of Character. This is one author's attempt at looking at the political life of President John F. Kennedy's, before and during his time in the White House. It details the differences in what the spin is and the private life that is described as being close to Hugh Hefner's. We also get a very detailed and for me, somewhat troubling, view of the constant controls his father, Joe Kennedy's had of JFK throughout his career. Not that comforting given the somewhat dubious reputation of Joe.

The author came close to a Kitty Kelly sex scandal tell all, but did not completely let himself drop that low. I thought the author was almost sad to be telling me, the reader, some of the less then faltering truths here. Almost if he was a firm believer in Camelot and this book and research pained him. Overall this is a well-written book that has some interesting conclusions. The author could have spent more time on the domestic policies and international issues that faced JFK to make the account better rounded. I do not think it is the one-volume definitive story of JFK, but it is a very good start.

This book is riveting, and very well written. It is not a sensationalistic book per se. Rather, I would counter that anything about Kennedy's life is, at this point, sensational by definition; there will always be hordes of JFK defenders and critics. This book is intelligent and, to this reader, balanced. As a Canadian, perhaps I have a more objective, less emotional reaction to the book than readers south of the border, but we loved JFK too, and still do...to a point. After reading this tome, my general feelings of respect for the man remain largely unchanged, although one chapter in particular was very sad, quite sordid and totally believable.

I disagree with the reader who claims the author failed to mention any positive achievements of the 35th President. I distinctly remember credit given in many instances, and that is precisely what gives this fine book its balanced view. This is not slanderous typing, it's intelligent investigative journalism. (It's not Seymour Hersch.) This book will outlast them all; I highly recommend it.

Aside from personally destroying potential evidence in the Oswald case--a note from Oswald in November 1963 that could have shed light on Oswald's frame of mind around the time of the assassination--what does Hosty know to increase our understanding of the JFK assassination? He knows nothing about the real nature of Oswald's activities in New Orleans in 1963--events leading up to the assassination. He knows nothing about the possible role of the USG in the assassination. Forget about Cuba or Russia's role in the assassination events. Could they have switched key frames in the Zapruder film for the use of the Warren Commission? Hoover himself admitted to the FBI's role in this "mistake." Did the Cubans or Russians hide information from the Warren Commission? No, Allen Dulles did so. Did the Cubans or Russians manipulate the writing of the Warren Report? No, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the language of the report regarding where one of the bullets struck Kennedy (making the report inaccurate but trying to force data into a preconceived notion). Try the books of Dick Russell or Jim Garrison or Gaeton Fonzi instead in order to gain understanding of the events of 1963.

Like I said in the title, it is an interesting read. Hosty deals with the assasination as he perceived it (and it was he who investigated Oswald). He also tries to brush off any conspiracy theories pertaining to the shooting, in particular Stone's "JFK". I must say he does a pretty good job at it, with his claims being solidly motivated. However, I still stubbornly choose to believe in the conspiracy.

Hosty's book provides a candid recounting of the tragic events of Nov. 22, 1963. While Hosty acknowledges his own mistakes, he tries to put the president's assassination in proper context and explain what was really happening behind "closed doors." An exciting read, and a must read for buffs. Hosty's candid recounting will surely get under the skin of conspiracy theorists.