In this day of dismal novels, it is a real pleasure to read a "feel good" story. The Long Happy Life of Robin Stackpole, by Maynard Fox, is such a one. Anyone who lived in the twenties and thirties of this century will appreciate the fascinating characters and landscapes described in this book. But anyone who likes a good story will like it, as well.

The stark realities of rural life in Colorado, New Mexico, and Kansas are portrayed in a gripping manner. And the people seem alive and real, not cardboard figures against a faded background. One really cares about what happens to them!

This could be called a "regional" novel, and it is; but it speaks to the whole country - it compares very favorably with the works of Paul Hogan - which is indeed high praise. Get this book and enjoy it!

Richard Gobble, Retired Librarian

Maynard Fox takes his readers to the New Mexico and Kansas farms of his childhood. He tells of family life with his brothers and parents, his school days in a one room school, his chores on the farm, and the crops they raised.

This brief description belies the depth and charm of Mr. Fox's first novel. It isn't so much the descriptions of the pristine and sparsely settled west, but rather the innocence of the characters and the integrity with which their interactions are governed.

When you read the long happy life of Robin Stackpole you will see for yourself how engaging this book really is.

Martha Bard Sun City Library - Sun City, Arizon

As one of Maynard Fox's literature students at South Dakota State College (now SDSU) in 1964, I found The Long Happy Life of Robin Stackpole to be thought provoking, historically educational, and a very good read. A novel can be a very complete way of writing one's memoirs. I suspect there were gaps in Mr. Fox's memory and that is why he chose to make it a historical novel. Of great interest to me was the insight provided about the Brethren. There appears to be very little difference between the Brethren or Dunkards described in the book and the Mennonites. There seem to be degrees in accepted dress for men and women. Since Mr. Fox made no reference to dress, I suspect the churches in which he grew up were more moderate than many that are still in existence, such as the Brethren in Perkins county, Nebraska. There are Lutheran Brethren as well, but they most likely believe in infant baptism and have chosen to go their separate way after a number of mergers in the Lutheran Church. Other than the methodology of performing the Sacrament of Baptism, their pietistic life style would be very similar to what Mr. Fox describes of the Dunkards. We learn much from the novel about technological and social changes that have occurred in the twentieth century. Our grand children should learn to appreciate these changes. Anyone whose father was a World War I veteran will really enjoy the book's opening scenes. The images of the era helped me recall many of my own father's long forgotten stories. I recommend The Long Happy Life of Robin Stackpole for its historical value in connection with rural farm life in the first half of the twentieth century, for the insight it provides on the Brethren, or simply for a compelling story of a young boy struggling toward maturity.

Clair D. Husby

In my view, Lane Fox’s book on Alexander is the finest in the field (followed by the works of Tarn and Hamilton). Reconstructing any ancient hero is always a daunting task and Lane Fox himself writes, ‘It is a naïve belief that the distant past can be recovered from written texts, but even the written evidence is scarce and often peculiar’, yet I find his picture of Alexander very sensible and convincing.
From the modern perspective Tarn can be criticized on many counts but among the writers on Alexander - Griffith, Hammond, Badian, Wilcken, Schackermeyr, Green, Engels, Bosworth - he stands as the tallest due to his deep understanding of both the West and the East. Lane Fox’s scholarship is an extension of Tarn’s and even though he is not aware of many hard facts about Palibothra, Chandragupta, or the rewriting of the altars by Asoka, his intuition carries him through. Lane Fox takes great care while addressing Indo-Iranian history and religion and a fine sense of balance prevails throughout the book. Although the discovery of Alexander's altars...dramatically changes the scenario his evaluation of Alexander still remains valid.
In the New York Review of Books Lane Fox was once harshly reprehended by Badian as having all the qualities of an Etonian aristocrat who missed the true Alexander but this can be brushed aside as a harmless fib. He was the Gardening correspondent of the Times and probably this has added that hidden dimension to his Alexander – something absent in all other works. In a sense Alexander’s breach with his compatriots had something to do with a garden (probably in Seistan) where our ancestors opted for knowledge in preference to perpetual happiness. In this garden, as the Bible tells us, there was homonoia, not only between men and women but even among other beings. On the negative side I can point to his awkward system of writing notes which only the very determined readers would be able to master. But then who else could write that there is something fishy in Diodorus’ account of Bagoas the elder’s death? This in a sense opens up a Pandora’s box. Again, to my horror, he is almost sympathetic to Harpalus.
I would recommend this book to all.

This book is insanely great. The author was shockingly young when he wrote it, but then, that's in keeping with Alexander himself. The author is so detailed and so knowledgeable, it's hard to believe anyone under 40 could have read so much. If you're into the period, Robin Lane Fox goes into marvellous detail on many fascinating points, most of which are glossed over by other authors. I wish someone had just told me to read this book and skip the others. The original works by Arrian and Plutarch only really make sense in the context of a work like Fox's.

In addition, Fox isn't scared to make a few conjectures - like the one that Alexander's mother was likely the one behind his father's murder. Now that you look at it, it sort of makes sense, but the thought never would have occurred to me.

I'm sure the book drives hardcore Alexanderologists (or whatever they call themselves) insane because of these conjectures, but it allows Fox to bring the man to life in a way no other author has - especially keeping in mind that no commentary direct from authors in Alexander's lifetime exists (quite like Christ, a point Fox doesn't fail to mention).

I just wish I could read it again for the first time!

This is an extraordinary history. Anyone expecting a conventional biography will be disappointed, since the biased and fragmentary nature of the primary sources makes modern biographical treatment for Alexander impossible, even more so than for other ancient heroes. However, one thing about the peripatetic conqueror that seems to be known with some certainty is the itinerary that defined his brief life. Starting from this, Mr. Lane Fox applies his own intimate knowledge of the middle and near-eastern landscape to create a book which, at its most basic, reads like a highly literate travelogue. This is all backdrop, though, for a kind of detective story as the author picks apart the tantalizing fragments of information and disinformation that, once boiled down, reveal for us Alexander's character. The bold military prodigy is clearly apparent here, but that's the standard textbook part of the story. Rounding out the picture, we see him as the cosmopolitan diplomat, beloved egalitarian leader-of-men, bisexual libertine, respectful supplicant to his gods, forgiving victor, gallant defender of women, ostentatious potentate, superstitious fool, charismatic orator, fearless in-the-trenches combat commander, wily tactician, boyish adventurer, child-like animal lover, sophisticated Greek intellectual, reckless gambler, visionary strategist, loyal and generous friend, bloody mass killer, and drunken lout. And the truly remarkable thing about the history is that all these persona somehow hang together, creating a believable portrait that makes it clear why Alexander has fascinated politicians, soldiers and scholars for twenty-three centuries. Stylistically, this book is dense and will deter casual readers. However, some patience through the early pages gives enough time to get into the exotic poetry of place names and the flow of the story. The turgid logic of the character study takes over from there, and the case unfolds majestically. This is a brilliant historian at work and I highly recommend the book.

Doubtless, the author knows his subject. But, like many contemporary academics, he is unable to clearly and concisely state a thesis, marshal the facts and arguments and to then move on. I suspect this type of thing results from a fear of making oneself an easy taget for some carping, caviling "scholar".

The author, with his undisciplined, meandering style, managed to turn a fascinating subject and his own deep knowledge into an insufferably long (799 pages) and tedious mass of mush. It is hardly surprising that this book is out of print.

Yes, there are some fine nuggets to be mined herein. However, they are easy to miss when your eyes are glazed over. This book is not recommended for the general reader looking for an interesting, informative book of manageable length.

The Christian Church does not talk much about how it obtained dominance in the European world. One reads of BIble stories and martyrs and popes but nothing on the events that led to the overthrow of the gods of a religious people. In this book, one discovers that early Christians were the "Atheists" since they did not worship a pagan god.

Pagan gods were wondrously easygoing. Each town or family had their own god. Acceptance or rejection was entirely personal. Gods could be adopted, created, borrowed or discarded depending on the social circumstance. Christianity demands that only "God" (Jesus) receive adoration, thus setting up a conflict that resulted in one side winning and outlawing the former gods.

What is particularly interesting is the daily life of the people and how their religion affected them. Pagans were generous with their money, held services, performed rituals and prayed for success or money. Even more interesting is the manner in which Christianity adapted and adopted from pagans - both in theology and ritual. The mystical union of god and man was a uniquely pagan thought as was the "Mind of God". We read about the ferocious fights concerning divinity ("Was Jesus one or separate with God?"), scripture (books were "voted" holy at synods) and ceremony. Christianity owes at least as much to paganism as it does Judaism. Get this book and The Unauthorized Version, Fox's other masterpiece.

I came away from reading this wonderful book with a feeling of "those sly dogs" refering to the Christians. After reading this book your eyes will be opened to how everything we accept as truth today has a very spotted past. The book describes how the Christian Church learned from their Pagan past how to manipulate its flock. A practice that goes on to this day. The exegete, Mr. Fox digs up the dirt so to speak on the most pius of institutions. The book is vast and very detailed. Not one to pick up for mindless Christian entertainment. You might just learn the flawed truth about our most hallowed institutions and be set free. This is not a book for fundamentalist and will be damned by them.

It was interesting to find out that the early church was not prosectuted for it faith...A lession the church has learned to use today on those they consider "unsavory". I came away with the impression that the Christian church today is and was no better than the pagans it drew most of their traditions from.

RL Fox, who has spent more time researching ancient Western history than have all reviewers (on this site) of his book (combined), presents his views of who were the authors of the Judeo/Christian Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is the the literal Word of God will reject the very idea of the book outright -- in that case, who cares who may have written the Bible, or the social conditions that may have influenced the writing?

Others will find this very interesting. Extensive familiarity with the Bible is probably required to get the most out of Fox's work. Those readers who, like me, have a general familiarity but haven't committed the entire work to memory, probably should have a Bible at hand for reference.

Robin Lane Fox is one of the leading classical historians today, known for major works on Alexander the Great and the clash between Pagans and Christians. And there is much in this book that many readers will find useful and interesting. Lane Fox starts off right away against those who believe the Bible is reliable history. He points out the two differing creation stories in the book of Genesis. He notes how Luke irretrievably muddled his nativity story by tying Herod's reign with a census conducted under Governor Quirinius of Syria, not aware that Quirinius, and the census vital for moving Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, were separated from Herod by at least a decade.

And then Lane Fox goes on. He discusses the history of the actual texts and the earliest copies, and how there are in fact thousands of differences. Most of these are relatively minor, but the last twelve verses of Mark and the story of the women taken in adultery in John were clearly not in the original versions. We learn about the practice of pseudonymous authors, and we have a long discussion of the claims of the Tanakh or Old Testament, and how they usually do not match the claims of archaelogy or surrounding records. We learn the interesting fact that no-one in the New Testament quotes the Songs of Songs or Ecclesiastes. We also learn this amusing anecdote about the plant that temporarily shades Jonah: "Traditionally, the plant has been seen as a gourd, but the Hebrew word is uncertain. When Latin biblical translators changed it to ivy, Augustine knew of congregations in north Africa who rioted until the gourd was brought back to the text."

And Lane Fox is especially good on how Christians muddled the relationship between the "New" and the "Old" Testaments: "When Christians quoted those old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals: they ran separate bits of a text into one; they twisted the sense and reference of nouns (Paul, at Galatians 3:8, is a spectacular example); they mistook the speakers and the uses of personal pronouns (John 19:37 or Matthew 27:9)...they muddled Jeremiah with Zechariah...they reread the literal sense and found a non-existent allegory..."

Yet although Lane Fox is an atheist, there are times when he is surprisingly uncritical of the New Testament. He tries to argue that Jesus was crucified in 36, instead of a far more likely 30. His argument is that since Jesus died after John the Baptist and John the Baptist, according to Mark, was executed for opposing Herod Antipas' marriage to his half-brother's widow, that marriage must have taken place no earlier than 34, when the half-brother died. The problem with this argument is that a) Mark gets the half-brother wrong b) Josephus doesn't say John the Baptist's execution had anything to do with Antipas' marriage.

This leads to a larger problem. Against most scholarly opinion, and against most evidence, Lane Fox insists that the Gospel of John was written by a primary source, possibly John himself, and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by a genuine companion of Paul. Lane Fox's arguments are weak. He claims that John shows a firm knowledge of first century Judea, which is a) not directly relevant and b) open to question, since John 8:33 has the Pharisees claiming that they have never been captives of anyone, forgetting both Egypt and Babylon. He sees the references to "the other disciple" in John and the we passages in Acts as references to the authors, when in the first case they could be a subtle pseudonymous device, while in the second the use of "we" is a common literary device when characters travel over water, which is where the we passages appear. One should see Donald Akenson's "Saint Saul," for why we can't put our faith in Acts, but there are obvious problems with Lane Fox's account. If Jesus really said "I am the Resurrection and the Life," then all four gospels, not just one, would have it. John's Jesus emphasizes his divinity, while Mark's, famously, is secretive about being the Messiah, a difference which to me is only compatible with the idea that Mark is an earlier and closer source to the historical Jesus. Likewise it is questionable to put too much faith in "Luke," who not only gets the date of the census wrong, but at the end of Luke has Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday while having him ascend 40 days later at the beginning of Acts. Lane Fox seems to keep as much of the Gospel accounts as possible, except when they are clearly contradicted by other information. This is understandable for a historian for whom scarcity of evidence is a constant problem, but it is wrong.

After reading the egregiously weak "Case Against Christianity", I decided to move onto this book, which is, my far, by favorite book that is critical of the Bible. In all the places that Case Against Christianity failed, this book succeeded.

Unlike CAC, this book was written by a professional (which the author of CAC wasn't) who doesn't have any type of theological or philosophical axe to grind. He even makes the interesting statement that he "believes in the Bible but not in God." Throughout the book, we are treated to a very sophisticated analysis of the Old and New Testament.

Most of the time is spent on the Old Testament. I am so unfamiliar with the Old Testament that I couldn't tell if a single statement made by Fox is accurate. He is, though, very critical on the OT, and seems to conclude that most of it is "false".

As for the New Testament, he was quite generous and seemed to conclude that most of it was "truth". The only decisive argument he brings up against the NT is the Luke and Quirinius issue, where I felt Fox's statements were "fiction" (hence my subject title). As for the rest, he doesn't even bring up (in any sort of depth) the resurrection claims of the NT. He does argue for John priority (very interesting and unusual) and puts out Luke's use of "we" in Acts where Fox concludes that Luke must be of a very early date. Besides this, most of the book is dediced to the OT.

Something I appreciated from Fox was how he put the OT in it's historical context. While it may seem so unusual and amazing to us, once put into the correct social setting, it loses those qualities.

Another flaw I felt this book had was its indecisiveness at times. I would read through a whole chapter and not be able to answer the question, "What's the point? What is Fox getting at?". As a conservative, I found this book to be very a sophisticated and enjoyable read that is well worth the Christian and non-Christians time.