One of the most meaningful, descriptful pieces of literature out there

henry iv is misnamed since the play isn't really about king henry but about his son, prince hal, and his enemies, especially henry percy (aka 'hotspur') who is a rival to hal. hotspur is one of the leaders of the rebellion against the king and, at a tender age, is already an accomplished soldier. his story provides the drama of the play. hal, on the other hand, has fallen out of favor with the king, and is whiling away his days in the company of dissolute company, led by sir john falstaff, one of shakespeare's great characters. his adventures with sir john provide the comic relief. fortunately for the king, hal sheds his prodigal ways in time to save his father and his crown in the battle at shrewsbury, where, coincidentally, hal meets and slays his rival, hotspur.

this is one of shakespeare's best plays. the story of the rebellion is intriguing, and the adventures of hal and falstaff are laugh-out-loud hilarious. the culmination of the two stories in the final battle scene is wonderful. this is a fitting sequel to richard ii.

note that there are some historical inaccuracies and even outright inventions in this play. foremost is the character of falstaff who is pure invention (and genius). the story of hal's adventures stems from his reputation, enhanced by legend, as a playboy. falstaff was the perfect foil for a carousing prince. the biggest inaccuracy is hotspur's age. he was actually of the generation of henry iv, and not as young as he's depicted in the play. shakespeare made him younger to enhance, maybe even create, the rivalry with hal. there are other inaccuracies here, but better for the reader to consult 'shakespeare's kings', an excellent book by saccio that explains the history of the period and the discrepancies in the play.

This is the play where the Percy rebellion begins and centers around the Achilles like Hotspur. Eventually, Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Prince Hal (Henry Monmouth - later Henry V) battle in single combat.

We also get to see the contrast between these young men in temperament and character. King Henry wishes his son were more like Hotspur. Prince Hal realizes his own weaknesses and seems to try to assure himself (and us) that when the time comes he will change and all his youthful foolishness will be forgotten. Wouldn't that be a luxury we wish we could all have afforded when we were young?

Of course, Prince Hal's guide through the world of the cutpurse and highwayman is the Lord of Misrule, the incomparable Falstaff. His wit and gut are featured in full. When Prince Hal and Poins double-cross Falstaff & company, the follow on scenes are funny, but full of consequence even into the next play.

But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.

For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.

-Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.

-In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.

-After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.

However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

This is the play where Henry IV squashes the Percy rebellion but himself becomes ill and dies. So, Price Hal becomes King Henry V and this leads to the next play of that name.

The wonderful Falstaff is also on glorious display. This is also the play with the famous tavern scene (Act II, Scene IV) that can be read endlessly with new enjoyment.

Everyone has his or her own take on Falstaff and his treatment at the hands of Henry V, but I dislike it even though I understand it. Prince Hal and his transformation into Henry V is not someone I admire a lot. Nor is Falstaff's manner of living, but his wit is so sharp and his intelligence so vast that it is easy to still delight in him.

But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.

For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.

-Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.

-In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.

-After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.

However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

Fascinating story. The author, who is black, allows us with full sincerity into his heart and soul. Being middle-class white myself, I believe I know how other middle-class white people think because of our shared experiences. But blacks have lived other experiences. This book gave me a peek into the middle-class black world. For that I thank the author.
Reading how the author spent frustrating hours researching and searching for his genealogical past in different towns and states, and in archival and governmental departments was tickling. He showed me step by step how he got ever closer and closer to his goal of finding this lost branch of the family. Throwing in as a monkey wrench the fact that the branch he spotlighted was white whose patriarch disowned his child (the author's ancestor) during the slave days because she was ½-black made for a very interesting read. I recommend this book for all, esp. whites.
It's written in a simple open style except when he goes off on his black-politics tangents. But even that helped illuminate his inner workings. I have black acquaintances who hold the same hypersensitive political beliefs. But nevertheless I found that these tangents took away from the unity of the book. It could be argued that there are two books here under one cover: one is a fascinating story on finding a lost branch of the family, a black man finding his white kin; and the other is on impersonal racial politics. I skipped thru the politics. But it's OK, the first half was well worth the price. Also, I found that at times the author spent too much time on some of his immediate family who really had little to do with the book. Perhaps if he had delved more into his own experience as a black man in a white world rather then relating his parents' experiences in the Jim Crow era. But thankfully the story always got back to the struggle within the black author himself , of his anger, and of his conflicting black and (largely unknown) white heritage.
When the author finally made first contact with his contemporary (white) distant cousins, who were indeed vaguely aware of a black half-aunt from a few generations back, and after so many intervening generations of lost contact, and after so many steps of unending research, well, it was very moving. It was very deeply moving. Even a Klansman or a Black Panther would've been moved by this story of reunion of black and white in the same family. I couldn't put the book down,. What an adventure in closing the circle that spanned over a century. I hope the story didn't just end where the book did.

This is a splendid book on many levels for the historian, genealogist, or anyone who just likes a spellbinding story. For Mr. Henry tells a fascinating story of discovery. Mr. Henry
not only reveals the various paths he trod to find his other family--but reveals many insights into black/white relations and how they change, black/black relations within and outside black neighborhoods, and, in snippets, gives hints on how we all can get our act together to make this a better country for all Americans.
I was absolutely mesmerized by this book and highly recommend it.

I was shocked when Neil jumped up and angrily walked away from me saying that I was a racist. It was 1970 and Neil Henry and I were sitting with a group of friends in Franklin High School's library before the start of school. We often were together whether we were in math. class, playing chess, or basketball. Neil Henry is an old friend of mine who I haven't seen since high school, and reading his book brought back many memories. This one memory of him depicts the struggles that he must have felt about his own identity. "Pearl's Secret" tells an incredible and spiritually uplifting story of his victory to gain a hidden truth of his family that was his own identity. His life tells of a extremely capable young man who wanders through the world in search of something he isn't completely aware of himself. It is a story that many of us spend our lives dealing with in our own ways. Neil's strength and courage is his reward. That morning over thirty years ago when I felt I had hurt a good friend is now brought to light for me. I'm sorry Neil, and thank you.

YES - The essential facts put forward by Baldwin are correct: Ford was a major anti-semite and he gave money to the German Nazis, helping them into power.

Yet, Baldwin's research is pathetic... a great deal of it was his imagination. He fails to present facts put forward by Kurt Ludecke's I KNEW HITLER; or Bennett's WE NEVER CALLED HIM HENRY; with any accuracy - he simply makes up what he wants.

For example, Baldwin states that the day after Nazi fund raiser Kurt Ludecke visited Ford, and Ludecke was turned away, a telegram to Lukecke arrived the NEXT DAY stating that Ford wouldn't give money through Ludecke to Hitler. Yet - READ Ludecke's I KNEW HITLER - the only primary source available on Ludecke/Ford. In this ONLY first hand account, Ludecke writes that several WEEKS (not ONE day) passed between his meeting with Ford and arrival of the telegram in question.

Baldwin has failed here as he does throughout the book to provide an accurate account of events. He makes no mention of the difference in Ludecke's primary source account and his own secondary account. Baldwin has shown himself as incompetent.

I have researched this subject for over 2 years. Baldwin makes a
serious error on virtually every page. His errors show an incredible degree of sloppy research. He seems to have only half-read his sources. His book is a joke as a serious work on Ford, anti-semitism, German inter-war history, and Hitler A far, far, better book is Albert Lee's Henry Ford and the Jews (1980). Interestingly, in the forward of Baldwin's book he writes that he put Lee's book (the one with the SAME title which inspired him) on the "shelf" while writing his book. YET, he quotes Albert Lee's: Henry Ford And The Jews, often throughout his book. How on the shelf could that book have been, since he was citing it so often?

Baldwin is a professor of poetry, not a historian, and his lack of understanding of the sort of research that goes into such a work is evident to anyone who has bothered to read the sources he cites. Baldwin constantly takes liberties; invents events that didn't happen; embellishes, and novelizes. He fails to demonstrate that his work is anything but the work of someone who should stay with what he has done very well in the past: writing books on poetry.

This is, bottom line, an appallingly ill-researched book - one of the worst I've ever seen that claims to be a serious work.

The only thing good that can be said about this book is that it helped to bring Henry Ford's support of anti-semitism, Nazis and so forth to the public's attention - but that is all.

If the material were not so important to discuss, I would give this book 1 star. As it is, I give it 2 because he did make an attempt (albeit pathetic, as it is) to take on a very hot subject.

Again... the broad facts in Baldwin's book are very correct, but the specifics are nearly all wrong. Baldwin wrote a historical fiction novel masquarading as a historiograhy.

Bottom line: get Albert Lee's Henry Ford and the Jews (1980) instead of this ill-researched "novel."

History must be revised when any new and accurate information appears. Neil Baldwin's book, "Henry Ford And The Jews The Mass Production Of Hate", utilizes some information that was only opened from archives in March of 2001. Further, no matter how much time may pass, history as portrayed in this book must always be available to new generations of readers. I believe that the darker aspects of this country's or any nation's history, must be documented accurately and fairly. Reality has demonstrated that with the passage of time facts are forgotten, and become the target for revisionists who replace history with fiction. Historical events like The Holocaust have been defended in court within the last 2 years. The defense was required to prove The Holocaust took place.

Mr. Baldwin has documented the actions of one of the most influential businessmen of the 20th Century. Mr. Henry Ford's achievements in the production of his cars are a fact of history. Mr. Ford was a talented man, and had he confined himself to what he was competent to conduct, his memory would be a very different one. Mr. Ford is portrayed in this book by a wide variety of sources as a man who was amazingly ill informed, a man who placed no value on education, was a tyrant to those who made his fortune, and a man who had the distinction of having his portrait on the wall of Adolph Hitler's Office. Like other notable names in American History he accepted the highest honor bestowed on a non-German by Hitler. Another recipient Charles Lindbergh could claim he had no idea he was to be presented with the, "Honor". Mr. Ford accepted his on the occasion of his birthday with 1500 invited guests. Another famous recipient of the award was Mr. Thomas Watson of IBM fame. Of the 3 men, only the latter had the common sense to return the medal. Mr. Ford proudly stood for photographs of his presentation on July 30, 1938. At this point there is no conceivable defense for claiming not to know what Hitler was about.

Mr. Ford claimed to hate those who were profiteers of war. His views changed as Ford operated in Germany throughout World War II producing tens of thousands of military trucks and cars, and unlike other companies, Ford was never nationalized, and retained majority ownership throughout the war. As the Nazi's invaded other nations they handed the production of cars over to Ford.

It helps to bring the idea of how influential this man was forward in time. Today you would need to take the head of one of the world's largest companies, and then imagine his conducting himself as Ford did. Today it is inconceivable that a person could buy a newspaper for the express purpose of spreading Anti-Semitic hatred, that a person could publish countless thousands of copies of, "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion", and continue to claim they were anything but the fiction they were. But this is what he did, for decades. He continually tried to force anyone who bought one of his cars to buy a subscription to his paper; he demanded that dealers tie his anti-Semitism to every sale.

Mr. Ford is often spoken of when better wages are discussed during his period in manufacturing history. What I had not read before was the private portion of the company that would inspect the homes and personal habits of workers to qualify them for this added pay. A worker was subject to any invasion of privacy to ensure he lived, as Ford deemed appropriate. Henry Ford never did anything that was not in his interest, and was not tangled in strings for those who would accept his "largesse".

The author was catalyzed to pursue this subject when The Ford Motor Company underwrote all the funds that would have been generated by selling commercials when, "Schindler's List", was first aired on television. This is the new Ford Company that came about almost immediately upon the founder's death. The present company in no way should be blamed for the sins of its founder, however after half a century has passed, the need to make amends is clearly still felt.

The book tells a tragic story of events that took place not so long ago. Events that will always be relevant, should always be available, and never forgotten.

While Henry Ford's anti-Semitism was not unknown before Neil Baldwin's terrific new book, it was always considered a small aberration of personality, nothing to stop Ford from keeping his valued place in American history. No longer.

In Baldwin's devastating account of the "Flivver King's" biases and how they grew, the reader is invited not merely to understand Henry Ford but the culture around him that fostered and nurtured his prejudices.

The cast of characters in this astounding book, from the hateful men in Ford's inner sanctuum to the leaders of American Jewry, are a fascinating lot. Baldwin also includes depictions of others who attempted to sway Ford from his chosen path, including the European feminist-pacifist Rosika Schwimmer and the labor leader Aaron Sapiro, whose lawsuit finally caused Ford to issue an apology for his misdeeds.

Among the most compelling facts that Baldwin has amassed are those tying Ford to the Nazi movement. I won't give away the particulars of that sordid story. Suffice it to say that America was linked more closely than we ever knew to Hitler and his henchmen, thanks to Ford's reckless behavior.

This book is much more than an embellishment of a footnote in the life of a great American: It forces a total re-evaluation of Henry Ford. Whatever his business triumphs, they have been neutralized for all time.

This is an important and timely book, gracefully written.

This is the best work of Shakespeare that I have read. It contains jems of wisdom, such as the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, or the sympathetic speaches of Queen Catherine. These are also events of history, not far removed from Shakespeare's own times; tragic events which ultimately reshaped the world we live in.

Flatly written and repetitive, this book misses many chances to illuminate the life and work of one of the most significant public intellectuals between the 1930s and the 1980s. Jumonville keeps calling Commager a Jeffersonian liberal but seems to have no idea about the difference between Jefferson's thought and the way that thought was understood in the era of the New Deal. Also, though Jumonville stresses that Commager used history to justify political arguments, he is silent on Commager's place in the 1960s controversy about historians writing contemporary history, on which Commager wrote extensively.

The sad thing is that this book is just scholarly enough to seem to occupy the field, but not scholarly enough to be the treatment that the subject deserves

In 1950, Henry Steele Commager was one of the best-known and most widely-read historians in the United States, and he would eventually be honored with over 40 honorary degrees. Today, he is virtually unknown to the public and, I dare say, is rarely read even by professionals in his field, American intellectual history. What a difference 50 years makes in the life of a historian's reputation and influence! The explanation may lie in part in a useful distinction, drawn early by Neil Jumonville, professor of history at Florida State University, between scholars, who write for professional audiences, and intellectuals, who write for the general public. Jumonville makes clear that Commager trained to be a scholar but, notwithstanding long appointments at New York University, Columbia University, and Amherst College, spent a good part of his career practicing as an intellectual. As a result, he was very popular in his own time but had relatively little lasting influence on scholars in his field.

Jumonville takes Commager's life from birth to burial in this wide-ranging and solid, if not entirely stimulating, biography. The ultimate issue for any biographer of Commager is: Why did he become passé, even while he was still teaching and writing? (Commager died at the age of 95 in 1998.) Jumonville posits several explanations for Commager's quick descent from national authority to obscurity. The first is that much of Commager's scholarly work had encyclopedic breadth but lacked analytic depth; his opinions and judgments were intuitional rather than carefully deductive and simply have not withstood the test of time. Second and not unrelated, Commager clearly, if unconsciously, showed a preference for being prolific rather than profound. His insistence upon writing, lecturing, and speaking to a large audience, largely for financial reasons, enhanced his popularity but may have contributed to limiting the impact he made on his professional peers. According to Jumonville: "Commager as a popularizer was not a major influence on the direction taken by intellectual historians." Although Commager aspired to recognition for a high level of scholarship, "he was not a research scholar." Commager preferred anecdotes, biographical sketches, and narrative over searching analysis. According to Jumonville: "Many historians felt [Commager's] work lacked appropriate sophistication." Third, some historians clearly resented the "breezy manner" in which Commager wrote, although that was not necessarily a criticism. Commager believed that "history is a branch of literature," and even critics of the substance of his oeuvre tended to admire his style. Fourth and finally, I believe, is the fact that he lost his intellectual curiosity and ceased to read his professional peers, which is an essential activity for scholars in any field. In the middle decades of the century, Commager was nationally known as an activist in "liberal Left politics." In particular, Commager was an outspoken foe of McCarthyism, and this brought him into sustained conflict with conservative commentators. (William F. Buckley once inquired, puckishly if not maliciously, whether Commager's middle name was a tribute to Stalin. It was, instead, a family name.) Later, Commager was an energetic critic of the Vietnam War, and he tended to be sympathetic to the student protesters of the 1960s. One of the issues which Jumonville attempts to address is whether Commager was a consistent Jeffersonian liberal. In my opinion, Jumonville spends too much time attempting to locate Commager along the liberal-conservative political continuum, although, in fairness to the author, Commager spent a lot of time thinking about it, too. This exercise would be profitable if it were necessary to explicate hidden biases, but Commager was an outspoken liberal in most senses of the mid-20th century use of that term. Furthermore, it also must be noted that, although Commager enjoyed engaging in public discourse about contemporary issues, his scholarly books were not partisan. Is professionalism in the writing of history inconsistent with partisan advocacy in public discourse? Or, as Jumonville puts, it: Must there be a clear dividing line between "the role of the historian as a scholar and as an activist intellectual"? Commager's life indicates that the answer is: Not necessarily. But, in purely practical terms, there may simply not be enough hours in the day to perform both functions well. Time magazine criticized one of Commager's books for lacking in thoroughness and suggested that he was a dilettante. That was unfair, but the tendency to write and speak glibly, which punditry requires, does not serve the scholar well because depth of insight is what proves the professional historian's mettle. Jumonville's Commager is likeable, if somewhat eccentric. When friends were invited to his home to dine, his wife entertained them during the cocktail hour, while Commager continued to work, and, when dinner was served, Commager joined them for the meal and conversation, invariably with himself as chief conversationalist. Although he was an energetic teacher, he rarely learned the names of his students. And I especially enjoyed the anecdote during which Commager was arguing with a colleague about the author of a line of Scottish poetry; when Commager could not find the line in an anthology, he concluded that the book was incomplete and tossed it out a window. On the other hand, Jumonville's periodic discussion of Commager's long friendship and correspondence with historian Allan Nevins is interesting but not especially revealing. And Jumonville's frequent references to Commager's relations with the New York Intellectuals do little, in my opinion, to add to Jumonville's thesis. Some readers will not find this book very exciting. But to the extent that intellectual history is a spectator sport, it is more akin to golf than football. I believe this book is a major achievement, but I also suspect that there still is room for another, more searching intellectual biography of Commager, especially one which examines his scholarly output in greater detail. What I am suggesting may be the equivalent of "inside the Beltway" political analysis, and, were he alive, Commager might object to this narrow focus, but it is the standard by which every professional historian is ultimately judged.

I was quite looking forward to this "star-spanning, swashbuckling, epic adventure" which hinted at being a lovely combination of space opera and Rafael Sabatini. Unfortunately it's not much more than a tepid tale of betrayal and revenge with hardly any swashbuckling and little action. Too many tongue-twisting names, titles, and unnecessary tweaking of everyday words to make them more alien to the reader. Blah. Read "Captain Blood" instead.

A slow, slow start as befitting the swashbuckling influences that Smith cites in his dedication. But once it gets going the action builds to a fun and satisfying ending. Archaic language that takes a while to muddle through will be charming to some, offputting to others. Also be prepared for some scenes that are shocking in the description of their violence.

If you are looking for Wrestling-like literature, turn elsewhere. This is a wide-sweeping adventure which is vastly entertaining on several levels. Mr. Smith has managed to create a universe which seems far-removed from our own, but which turns out to be amazingly similar at it's core. An inspiring story about a young lad who loses his home and family, but creates a life which inspires others. Like many of Mr. Smith's novels, this one has masterful character development and creates dramatic visual images. Would make an excellent film.

The forensic science covered in Cracking Cases makes for very interesting reading. Dr. Lee covers such subjects as the handling and preservation of a crime scene, blood-spatter analysis, and DNA analysis.

Though Dr. Lee is obviously one of the foremost scientists in his field, he is not a thrilling writer. He spends too much time on background issues of the 5 cases profiled here, and not enough time on the actual forensic issues. Also, his writing can become tedious, especially when he takes out time to shower praise on those who helped him with his cases.

The coverage of the subjects is basic, and can be understood by anyone. And, despite the drawbacks, the book reads fairly quickly, especially if one is interested in this subject matter. Recommended for all those interested.

Assisted by Thomas W. O'Neil, Lee wrote this book primarily for persons such as I whose understanding of murder trials depended almost entirely, at least until the O.J. Simpson trial, on plays, films and television programs. Lee played a key role in the Simpson trial which is among the five he examines in this book. The other four (all resulting in a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt) involved homicide charges against Kenneth Mathison, Richard Bunel Crafts, Edward Robert Sherman, and Theodore ("Ted") MacArthur. Although all of these other four cases were no doubt widely covered by national media, I was unfamiliar with them until reading Lee's book. Throughout, he generously acknowledges the importance of teamwork and praises all of his associates. Lee defines the term forensics as "the direct application of scientific knowledge and techniques to matters of law." He notes that "the wise forensic investigator will always remember that he must bring all of his life experiences and logic to find the truth. This means common sense, informed intuition, and the courage to see things as they are. Then he must speak honestly about all that it adds up to." The process is necessarily complicated and demanding, requiring as much patience as it does precision.

It would be a disservice to both Lee and his reader to share more than a few details in this review. "Each of the five cases presents the opportunity, through its respective facts, investigation, and legal resolution, to study particular aspects of forensic investigation and how the work fits in with the rest of the criminal justice system." What Lee accomplishes in this book is to help his reader to develop (or at least understand) some of the skills he (Lee) has used while accompanying him during the investigation of five different murders. Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Evans' The Casebook of Forensic Science: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Cases; Criminal Investigation co-authored by Swanson, Chamelin, and Territo; and Punitive Damages co-authored by Sunstein, Hastie, Payne, and Schkade.

This book, which I think deserves a higher rating than those I've seen for it, give an excellent description of the forensics process. It gives fairly good explanations of GSR (gun shot residue), use of dna and blood samples, ballistics, and the like.
Where Dr. Lee falters a bit is his "gushing" admiration for Johnnie Cochrane of the O.J. Simpson trial. No doubt Mr. Cochrane is a brilliant lawyer, but that should be for another book (i.e., his admiration for this man). Working through five grisly cases (with sometimes graphic descriptions and photos) he does a fine job in laying out the facts, the scientific evidence, and related details. If one is a fan of shows like CSI and CSI Miami; which I am, it gives one the real life "science" behind these programs. Otherwise, not bad.