Not only does Thomas C. Kennedy capture the story of Beowulf with page-turning suspense and great storytelling, the words carry a continuous meter without giving in to boredom (like some translations have executed). His preface gives an interesting account of the Anglo-Saxon language, history, metaphors, linguistics, and comparisons to contemporary Fantasy, all within seven pages of interesting reading. Also, notes at the back determine certain word origins, the words best kept in a good translation. And the mead hall is given a proper name "beer hall". Let's face it, reading needs to be fun, as well as entertaining, and this translation is excellent.

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.

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.

To those who want to get past the hype and drivel, Reeve's well written and researched book makes a convincing case that yes, character does matter. The argument that John Kennedy was a great, but flawed, leader is shown by Reeves to be erroneous. The seeds of the Bay of Pigs disaster was sown in Kennedy's youth. PT-109, interestingly, was the first and only PT boat ever rammed by an enemy destroyer. Not on a foggy night with the men topside, but in clear weather and daylight, with Kennedy and his men below decks sleeping and swapping war stories.

"My story about the collision is getting better all the time," Kennedy told a friend after launching his political career. "Now I've got a Jew and a Nigg-- in the story and with me being a Catholic, that's great."

Kennedy's bringing the U.S. to the brink of war was typical of the disasters he'd made in his personal and military life. The real reason the Soviets put missiles in Cuba was because of U.S. missiles in Turkey. School children are seldom taught that the U.S. had to withdraw its nukes from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets "backing down" in the Western Hemisphere.

From the Kennedys' dealings with the mob to the wiretaps of Martin Luther King, Jr., the fact that Kennedy could not remain faithful in a marital relationship is hardly a dichotomy in leadership.

So yes, Virginia, character does count. Now and in the latter part of the 1990s. Those who say it doesn't are probably also lacking in this area.

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.

Save your money on this dog of a test guide and instead, check out the Magill Masterpieces of World Literature, ed. by Frank Magill. Well written, concise, pertinent, and more timely for what the test covers. Good luck.

As part of my preparation for taking the GRE Literature Subject Test, I bought this book, in addition to McMullen's "Cracking the GRE Literature" and the official ETS study guide. My advice: save your money and buy the latter two books, the "Best Test Prep" is nothing of the sort, providing no strategies for reviewing for the Test. Instead, the reader gets six exams that inaccurately reflect the questions most likely to appear on the test. Read the McMullen book or the ETS book for a better reflection of what the actual test will look like. The reading list, for all its prodigious length (seven pages) actually seems inadequate for reviewing for the test.

I did, however, find the explanations for each question in the book useful and if nothing else, the book provides a wealth of questions and answers on English, American, and World Literature to supplement your study elsewhere. Borrow it from a friend rather than buying it.

The best test preparation gives you some guidance in how to prepare. Simply having a sample test and a list of all the works of literature that you could be tested is not helpful. Although these tests were not created by ETS (the makers of the GRE), REA did base the tests on past subject tests. This also gives you some guidance on what, and when, to study.

This book contains three samples tests and some drills. For the tests, the answers are explained so you know which answer is right as well as why the other answers are wrong. This is a big plus in studying. The drill questions are designed to see if you are learning the information from the study pages in the front.

The study pages are helpful. They discuss the main ideas and writers for the different periods of literature. As most books, they recommend going to the work itself, but if you do not have time, this information is helpful. With the writer, you get what the person was famous for, and if that work was very influential, what the main ideas of it were. It also discusses the major theories of literary criticism.

With the study pages and the tests is the timeline. I think this is the under-rated part of the book. It is designed for eight weeks of study, but it mentions that it could be condensed to two weeks. Although it is rather general, it still provides you with a guide to help calm you through the stress of studying.

I would recommend getting this book to help practice and prepare for the GRE Subject Test in Literature.