I am bitterly disappointed with Douglas Brinkley's history of the Ford Motor Company, "Wheels For The World".
By way of background, my 84 year-old father worked for Ford Motor his entire life, starting at the Henry Ford Trade School in 1933 as a student and retiring as divisional manager in 1980. I worked for the Company during college summers as a vacation replacement secretary and later in Ford's Marketing Division.
What's wrong with the Brinkley book? It's sloppy. Whoever researched the quotes from long-time executives, like L.E. Briggs, the company's treasurer in the 1940s and 1950s, apparently didn't have the inclination to check company payroll records and give this person a first name -- "Leon" in this case -- or any substantive background so that the reader can better understand the context of his quotes.
It's sloppy in that instead of doing primary research by interviewing all of the living Whiz Kids, Brinkley only interviews the most prominent. He refers to other published works on the Whiz Kids for the majority of his information.
Many key retired executives at the rank of executive vice-president or higher, still living, who would have given this book the analysis and substance it lacks are noticeably missing.
Other people quoted in the book -- like Max Jurosek, who worked with my dad -- aren't listed in the index.
J. Edward Lundy's significant role in developing the Company's first professional finance staff -- that served as a prototype for most American corporations post-World War II -- isn't mentioned at all, nor are the effects of this development. Other important episodes in the Company's history are missing -- like the tampering of pollution control devices during EPA testing in Nevada in the 1970s, as well as payment of illegal monies to foreign governments during this period and the ramifications of those actions.
This is definitely not in the same class as the three-volume Allan Nevins-Frank Hill history of the Company, which ends in 1962. Brinkley's book is lacking any creative synthesis of information at hand. It lacks heart or soul. No wonder it's not on the best seller lists in Detroit.
The definitive work on Ford Motor, particularly post-1962, is still waiting to be written.

I've never read a corporate history before. But I saw an excerpt dealing with the Model-T in "American Heritage" magazine and was immediately hooked.

Douglas Brinkley parlays his well-honed historical research skills with an obvious passion for cars and a gift for storytelling in this excellent account of the first century of the Ford Motor Company. The history -- written with the encouragement and cooperation of Ford and particularly its CEO, Bill Ford, Jr -- is a "warts and all" presentation of Ford Motor's out-szed impact on the 20th Century.

The first two-thirds of the book, devoted to the life of Henry Ford, is by far the most interesting. We see a master promoter who had a penchant for co-opting the best ideas of others and for purging the best minds around him. He was also filled with abundant contradications -- the best friend of the "working man" (he summarily doubled wages with the stroke of a pen) who later stood by as his organization violently repressed the budding union movement; the vile anti-semitic (Hitler adopted some of his pronouncements) who was also ahead of his time in minority hiring; a committed (often irrational) pacificist who nevertheless took advantage of military contracts during both world wars; the pioneer who did as much as anyone to advance the industrial age as well as the spread of suburban sprawl, all the while clinging to the quixotic belief that America's redemption lie in a return to the rustic origins of his youth. The list could go on.

The book loses some of its narrative energy in the final chapter (ironically titled, "Momentum"), which is mostly a desultory account of the Ford Explorer tire recall imbroglio as well as a catalog of recent Ford marketing and advertising initiatives. Also, it is obvious that Brinkley finds Bill Ford, Jr. a kindred spirit, but his portrayal of the current Ford CEO is a little too fawning for my taste. For these reasons, I downgraded the book to a four-star rating.

Nevertheless, readers looking for a better understanding of America in the 20th Century will find this book most enjoyable.

This is the story of four men: Henry, Edsel, Henry II and Bill Ford. These four men built and guided Ford Motor Co. to where it is today. It is also the story of the many men who also shaped Ford but ultimately were tossed aside.

This book is a treasure trove of information. For instance, who knew that Cadillac had its roots at Ford? Who knew that the auto industry was so tied in together? The Dodge Brothers helped finance Ford. An executive left Ford and started buying up other car makers to form General Motors. The man brought in to add professional engineering left Ford to found Cadillac and then left there to found Lincoln, which Ford bought and brought this same man back to Ford. Such revelations will have you starting many conversations with, "Did you know . . .?"

Dr. Brinkley's work is not perfect, though. Not surprisingly, Henry Ford is the giant of the book and most ink is given to him. However, the 70's, 80's and 90's receive almost a summary treatment. Also, not enough time is given to the cultural shift to SUVs and how Ford moved from a car company that had a truck division to a truck maker that also happens to sell cars.

Most disappointingly, the book has too few pictures. Dr. Brinkley has strong descriptive powers that one wants to see the car or the plant or the person he is describing, but the pictures aren't there. If the Taurus is so important to Ford, especially in terms of styling, why not include a picture of the first model?

In the end, this book is a great read. One cheers for Ford when it triumphs and worries about it when it falters. Dr. Brinkley clearly loves Ford: the company, the cars and the men. His work is a labor of love.

I bought this book for once reason- to read the analysis of Figh Club in it, as it's one of my favorite works and I enjoy reading criticism of it. Giroux's take on the film was so basic and surface it was an utter waste of my time and money. At least "The Cinema of Generation X" by Peter Hanson had more substance to it.

This book marks a new watershed in his trademark theorizing of schools and society. Taking on corporate-produced cynicism he draws on several important theorists to articulate a viable oppositional pedagogy. An absolute must read.

Giroux's new book makes a major intervention in contemporary social thought as well as the field of education. Part of what makes the book so important is that it demonstates how a culture of cynicism about politics is produced largely by corporate media -- that is, how citizens are schooled into inaction and hopelessness by people and institutions who stand to benefit financially by doing so. But the book doesn't stop with social criticism. It suggests ways that teaching and other forms of culture work can reinvigorate the political scene and civic life to expand democratic participation. The book is even more important since 9-11 as we turn on the TV and learn that questioning foreign and domestic policy is un-American and that the way to be patriotic is to give public wealth to big corporations. Giroux's book shows how culture and money are central to the way power is wielded. Yet is a hopeful, inspiring, and even patriotic call for a critical and engaged citizenship and a shift of power to people.

This is the last of the 14 Allan Quatermain novels that H. Rider Haggard wrote, and completes the loosely linked quartet that began with "Allan and the Holy Flower," continued into "The Ivory Child" and then "The Ancient Allan." (A reading of these earlier books is recommended before going into this one.) In this final book, Quatermain again partakes of the taduki drug, as he did in the previous two novels, and gets to see a previous incarnation of his--when he was Wi, the leader of a small tribe during one of the Ice Ages. The story is simply written but zips along at a brisk pace. There are several terrific action set pieces: Wi's fight with Henga, the previous chief of the tribe; the trapping of the wolf pack; the fight with the sabertooth; the battle with the Redbeards; the showdown with the aurochs; and the final cataclysm. The members of the tribe are sharply and sometimes humorously drawn. (Rudyard Kipling helped Haggard with the planning of this novel.) All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and thank Pulp Fictions UK for bringing it back into print. The great bulk of Haggard's work is currently OUT of print, and that is a real shame...

Victorian explorer Allan Quatermain experiences memories of a previous, prehistoric incarnation. If this book were written today it'd fit right in with the New Age Noodle crowd who like to do regressions to their previous lives, besides the usual Heroic Fantasy readers who know a bang-up adventure tale when they read one.

Romping good fun and sharply satirical. Fielding has none of the puritanical prejudices of his contemporary and rival Samuel Richardson.Rather he gives a graphic, humourous and insightful glimpse of eighteenth century rural shannanigans. Both stories are to some extent a response to Richardson's goodie goodie novel Pamela or Virtue Rewarded, Shamela in fact so much so- mimicking then epistulatory narrative and burlesquing the characters and style of the original novel- that you'll miss most of the jokes unless you've read Richardson first. Jospeh Andrews is far more substantial and rewarding containing the full range both of Fielding's humour and social concerns. Vividly presenting the self-serving cynicism of English society his particular speciality lies in puncturing pomposity by comically abrupt opposistions between what his characters preach and practise. Detached, sarcastic and well-read Fielding somehow manages to mix slapstick with Homer, blend eupheimism with innuendo and mangle anyone that he has a grudge against. A novel of the road- if you liked this, you'll love Tom Jones.

I loved this book. The adventures of Joseph Andrews are colourful and riotous. Highly recommended! Shamela, however, is a lesser work. It is a bawdy caricature of Samuel Richardson's "Pamela". Amusing, but slight.

So I was getting ready to reread Don Quijote (1605)(Miguel de Cervantes 1547-1616) in the excellent Burton Raffel translation and as I was looking for information about the book and author, saw repeated references to Fielding's Joseph Andrews. I'd read his Tom Jones a couple of years ago and found it kind of tough sledding, but when I stumbled upon this one at a library book sale for a quarter, it seemed a stroke of destiny.

The parallels with Don Quijote are readily apparent. First of all, the book consists of a series of humorous travel adventures; second, the travellers involved seem too innocent to survive in the harsh world that confronts them. When Joseph Andrews, the naive footman of Lady Booby, deflects the amorous advances of both her Ladyship and Slipslop, the Lady's servant, he is sent packing. Upon his dismissal, Joseph, along with his friend and mentor Parson Adams, an idealistic and good-hearted rural clergyman, who essentially takes the physical role of Sancho Panza but the moral role of Quijote, sets out to find his beloved but chaste enamorata, Fanny Goodwill, who had earlier been dismissed from Lady Booby's service as a result of Slipslop's jealousy. In their travels they are set upon repeatedly by robbers, continually run out of funds and Adams gets in numerous arguments, theological and otherwise. Meanwhile, Fanny, whom they meet up with along the way, is nearly raped any number of times and is eventually discovered to be Joseph's sister, or maybe not.. The whole thing concludes with a farcical night of musical beds, mistaken identities and astonishing revelations.

I've seen this referred to as the first modern novel; I'm not sure why, in light of it's obvious debt to Cervantes. But it does combine those quixotic elements with a seemingly accurate portrayal of 18th Century English manners and the central concern with identity and status do place it squarely in the modern tradition.

At any rate, it is very funny and, for whatever reason, seemed a much easier read than Tom Jones. I recommend it unreservedly.

GRADE: B+

This is a handy if somewhat eclectic little collection, with works by some poets who are hard to find elsewhere, such as Henry Howard. If you don't have a copy of the long-out-of-print Hebel and Hudson anthology of English Renaissance Poetry, pick up this.

I tried to read this late at night in a guest room in Palo Alto (while I was still on Eastern time), at a house where I was also urged to read _Up and down California_, the narrative based on Brewer's own letters, still in print (first edition 1930). I got the latter via interlibrary loan but the memory of Alsup's vistas of rock has brought me to Amazon to buy my own copies of both.

The late Elder Henry D. Moyle's family commissioned the prominent LDS historian Richard D. Poll to write this biography of the influential church leader. It remained unpublished for over a decade until after Poll's death. Poll wrote it on the principle of "warts and all." The result is a fair and carefully balanced portrait that depicts the man's strengths and weaknesses. Moyle was a hard-charging, energetic man who was full of faith. He was greatly responsible for the church's explosive growth after World War II. Poll vividly captures this crucial moment in church history. But Moyle perhaps pushed too hard in some ways: the church was brought close to insolvency by Moyle's enthusiasm for new buildings. The pressure to bring in converts to help fund all this expansion led to some excesses in the missionary program--the famous "baseball baptisms", where young people became members after only the most cursory contact with the church's athletic programs. Eventually Moyle was relieved of much of his responsibility and died soon after, some said of a broken heart. His optimism was typical of his culture and times. Poll's book tells with sympathy and honesty this important edpisode in our history.

I read about halfway through this book, and then I gave up. I read James' "Turn of the Screw," and "Daisy Miller" in high school, and I remember liking the former and thinking the latter was just okay. (I know, I know, it's a major classic by one of America's most celebrated writers, but just because something has merit doesn't mean I like it better.) One of my all time favorite books was James' "Washington Square." It's hard for me to believe that the same man wrote "Square" and "Maisie." This book is only for MAJOR Henry James enthusiasts.

I don't regret having read this book, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't already into Henry James. The style is hard to understand, apparently because it was dictated, and the subject matter is even more obscure. I don't think Henry James had much experience with children: even assuming that Maisie is twisted by her strange situation, she doesn't talk like any child I know or can imagine. Weird moral undercurrents and jealousy take up most, if not all, of the novel. I wouldn't take claims of this book's modernity too seriously - it's more on the byzantine side. Read The Europeans instead: so much more fun!

I think this is the most modern of Henry James' stories. Young Maisie's parents divorce and then seem to spend their lives using her to get a teach other, until they develop other interests. Sadly, the story resonates today - immature, self-centered parents and the children that they create. Henry James' insight into the life of such a child is brilliant.

Abysmal. Beyond introducing some previously unreported biographical minutiae, this volume adds nothing to what has been previously written about this great artist. It is claimed but not demonstrated that Lester has been misunderstood by "Eurocentric" critics. The book is poorly organized and often badly written-some of it reads like a junior high term paper. Here's the amateurish opening sentence: "Lester 'Pres' (or 'Prez') Young (1909-1959) was without question one of the most influential tenor saxophonists of the twentieth century."
It often seems that author, a professor of history and Black Studies, has chosen his subject arbitrarily. The book is filled with digressions and generalizations about the black American experience; Jim Crow, West African culture, etc. that are not specific to an understanding of Lester Young any more than to any other black musician of his era. That Lester was black does not "explain" him any more than it does less talented black musicians of his era for whom no claim to genius or eccentricity is made. Lester's "alleged inscrutability" is seen by Daniels as a reaction to racial oppression; is it not possible other factors shaped his personality and music?
There is little discussion of Lester's work; most of his greatest solos go unmentioned. The author's lack of comprehension of Lester's style is reflected in such preposterous statements as the claim (p.152) that he brought to the tenor sax the same techniques Lonnie Johnson and Robert Johnson used on guitar. (He seems to be referring to Lester's use of repeated notes with alternate fingerings, not characteristic of either Johnson. Lester has little in common with these guitarists,certainly no more than other saxophonists who played the blues.)
Daniels demonstrates no understanding, musical or emotional, of wherein Lester's greatness lies, or how his playing was a departure from that of Coleman Hawkins.

Unfortunately, this is not the great full, musically, and factually satisfying book I hoped it would be when I bought it. Still if you love Pres, you do need this book.

Everything the other comments say negative about this book is true. I say this as an academic who has written texts that have been used in Black studies for decades. I do find his comments about racism and reception of Young and his attempt to draw on comment on Young in the Black press to be interesting and to the general point. However, to explain why these forces had one effect on Lester Young, and say another effect on Duke Ellington is the real task of a biographer.

Daniels sounds like a neo conservative of the Albert Murray Wynton Marsalis variety. He tries to shoehorn Lester Young into his own beliefs in the strength of traditional conservative Black middle class culture and institutions regardless of the facts. To do this, Daniels goes off on long digressions where any practical information about or reference to Lester Young disappears, and instead we suffer under Daniels's blather.

For example, even though Lester quit school in the fourth grade and always said he hated school, Daniels tries to paint Lester's success as a product of his parents stressing the importance of education (LOL). Even though Lester stopped going to church as soon as he was old enough not to get a licking for it, Daniels tries to paint him as a product of his own fairy tale view of the "Black Church."

There little sytematic discussion of Lester's music, his saxophone playing as it relates to the real art of the saxophone, or of Jazz and popular music. There is no commentary on some of the more interesting studies of Lester's music: Günter Schuler's analysis in his Swing book comes to mind. In fact there is almost no discussion of Lester Young's real role in the Count Basie Orchestra on a musical level. This, the central part of Lester's work, is simply brushed aside.

Aside from the interesting comments about his relations with his family that mainly come from Daniel's hard work locating and interviewing friends and family of Lester Young, Lester Young's personality seems to disappear as the book procedes. What we get instead are excuses for Daniels to launch on 5-10-20 page essays on his views about African American culture, racism in America, the strength of the Black middle class, and other topics.

Even Daniels does not believe the reader can really understand Lester Young by reading this huge expensive tome. He constantly refers to matters that he expects the reader to already know about fully from somewhere else. He leaves out so many things and he has a number of factual errors. He seems to be ignorant of a lot of things that are available in other texts on the subject that would support his arguments as well as stuff that would not

One droll example is that in an interview about continuing swing bands in the 1950s, Pres sarcastically answered, "Bob Crosby is still swinging." Daniels is so ignorant of Lester Young and music that he takes this statement for good coin about Pres's appreciation of the Bobcats. Daniels' is ignorant of the obvious sarcasm in the remark. Pres considered Bob Crosby so square that he used "Bob Crosby" his nickname for narks! If he needed to inform a fellow pot lover to lay low because of a narc, Lester would say, "Bob Crosby is here." If the heat was heavy, Pres would say, "Yeah and his brother Bing too!" Isn't there someone who really knows about Lester Young and loves him enough not to make such mistakes able to get a research grant and a book contract to write the book this should have been?

What is good about this book is that Daniels has unearthed a lot of material about Lester's family, his growing up, and how relatives and other musicians viewed him personally. The portrait of Lester personally is much more like what people I have met who knew or met him have given than what any other book has given us.
He does provide some information, though scant, about Lester's marriages and female affiliations,

Even in this regard facts that are apparent in other texts that would question the picture of Pres as simply a family loving, square representative of Black middle class values that loved family and golf and had a good relationship with his wives all along are neglected. For example Daniels briefly mentions Elaine Swain, the woman who lived with and helped out Pres in every way in the last years of his life when Pres left his wife, home, and kids and moved into the Alvin Hotel in Manhatten. Daniels says nothing about Swain's relationship with Pres. He really doesn't seem to know that other sources indicate that Lester's scene had gotten so far Daniels' picture of Pres's supposed suburban bliss that Swain shoplifted to support Pres during those final days.

Daniel's tries to defend Pres's post war music against those who claim it deteriorated. I agree about that, and find Lester's Last regular recording, Laughing Just to Keep from Crying a masterpiece: it stayed replaying on my CD player a full day after I got it. However, Daniels just doesn't know enough about music to provide a real description of the place of his later music and its relationship to Pres's art as a whole and the history of Jazz. Daniels has nothing to say about Pres's self-destructive drinking other than to say other musicians and Barrymore were alcoholics. Because he is simply ignorant of Jazz and music, he can't really point out the great albums in Young's post war work like that one and The Jazz Giants, or for that matter the great cuts on his work with basie and Billie before the war either!

The information on the family and personal life--taken with a grain of salt and only accepted where Daniels is presenting documented information about Lester Young as opposed to his own general ideas--is useful, but only if it is added to other work on Lester.

Again, isn't there someone else who loves lester young, is really familiar with the literature about Lester Young, knows enough about Jazz music to write intelligently about the music, and who cares enough to write the book this should have been.

Douglas Daniels should be congratulated for digging deep in researching Lester Young's early ways with his father. The Minneapolis days are also explored, as well as the importance of group comradeship in the Kansas City Seven. Interviews with sidemen dispel the myth of a decline after WW II, and I would have appreciated more quotes from these interviews.

Some common themes throughout the book are the impact of race in the south and in touring and booking policies. Pres's integrity, independence, and perhaps stoicism is highlighted. The importance of Lester to swing, bebop, cool, and the "beat-nicks" is obvious in the well-written last "Legacy" chapter. Throughout the book one gets the historical feel of the history of Jazz from Minstrel to King Oliver to Basie to Jazz at the Philharmonic.

There are weaknesses in the book. Young left few written letters and had few interviews, but there are many cases where Daniels infers inner thoughts from external surroundings.... for example "Oliver was a father figure to Young". Daniels' style is academic, and the dryness doesn't always work well for a true individual like Pres. The narrative would have benefited from more antidotes and quotes from Lester, particularly with respect to his relation with Billy Holiday. More emphasis on Lester's musical style and important recordings would have been expected, and a complete discography with sidemen, would have been more beneficial than the over 100 pages of notes.