Excellent Map. Everything you need is on one side. Color coded attractions and Metro are well marked.

When I described my fascination with Balzac to a pal of mine, I said, "yeah, it is all about disillusioned and cynical people" and he replied: "I am already disillusioned and cynical, so why should I read it?"

Why indeed. This is indispuably one of the best of Balzac's novels, with clearly drawn characters and grim lives in an inexorable descent to self-destruction, which are the classic Balzac themes. It explores the life of a libertine as he ruins himself and his family for the sake of pursuing pretty girls. Unbekonst to him, he gets help from Bette, a cousin full of secret hatreds and bent on vengence. It is very sad to read. One minor character even commits suicide by repeatedly smashing his head into a nail, his only means to finish himself off he could find in his jail cell.

So why read it? Well, again, it is for the wider social portraits that you can find, which are offered almost as an aside. Balzac in one section explains the politics behind the statues you see all over Paris, which is fascinating. You also learn of the career of courtisans, as they use their sex to advance themselves. The book is simply full of these thngs, in addition to the psychology of the many interesting main characters.

Also unusual for Balzac is the coherency of the story, which does not degenerate into ramblings like many of his other novels as they weave the tapestry of his Comedie Humaine like so many threads, that is, as vehicles in his vast project to fully portray an entire society with characters re-appearing in different situations and venues throughout his interrelated novels. The characters stand on their own here and are more clearly drawn. Hence, it is a great intro to Balzac and may get you hooked for more, that is, if you are masochistic enough to subject yourself to it!

Warmly recommended.

This is a remarkable book, setting the template for Flaubert and Zola's respective journeys into the sordid human psyche.

Lisbeth is a peasant girl from Alsace, bitter at her cousin Adeline's preferential treatment during their childhood. Vindictive Bette decides to cut the family from its wealth, as well as to debase her family personally. It's not difficult when Adeline's husband Hector becomes so weak-kneed over a pretty face that he would compromise his family if it came to a choice between sex and relatives. Lisbeth maneuvers skilfully, befriending Madame Marneffe, an unhappily married woman with numerous lovers who only wants to see her sickly husband made a manager of his governmental department. Installed in this household as a spy for hector (who is smitten with Marneffe), Lisbeth works toward an alliance with Marneffe, on one side to destroy the Hulot's, on the other to gain the love of Count Steinbock, to whom Lisbeth is a benefactress.

I saw a feminist agenda in this novel. Consider: Whereas Hector Hulot is not frowned upon for his numerous infidelities, and indeed feels no guilt even though his longsuffering wife turns a blind eye, when Adeline, in trying to save her family, attempts to seduce a wealthy perfumer named Crevel, she fears dishonor for herself, and feels immeasurable guilt over the infidelity she never even commits. Could Balzac be commenting on the fact that both women and men should be allowed their indiscretions? Call it immaterial. Also, the female characters are by and large either intelligent and conniving (Madame Marneffe, Lisbeth), or beautiful and virtuous (Adeline, Hortense). The men are scandalously disloyal (Steinbock, Hector), or inneffectual and dissolute (Monsieur Marneffe, Crevel). A fresh perspective...from a male author. Great in every way, even if quite convoluted.

"Beauty is the greatest of human powers. All autocratic unbridled power with nothing to counterbalance it, leads to abuse, mad excess. Despotism is power gone mad. In women, despotism takes the form of satisfying their whims". This remark engulfs Balzac's opera: To collate the audience with the obliterating debauchery society of 18th century France. Lisbeth Fischer aka Cousin Bette lurks in every chapter as a concealed beast coveting her prey (The house of Hulot) under the same roof. Perhaps Balzac's major achievement in this master piece, is to portrait a flauntering society feigned by its ostentatious opulence but immerse on a licentious and decadent life. "The savage has feelings... only the civilized man has feelings and ideas." Balzac seems to banter at Parisians with this idea: how civilized, civilized society can be. I strongly recommend this book if you intend to follow De Laclos work in Les Liasions Dangereuses. As an amateur reader I founded the characters difficult to identify at the beginning, however is an strategy smartly set by Balzac and very much appreciated as soon as you start to realize and pace through the richness of the narration.

'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is the story of the 12th century French queen of both England and France. Hers was an interesting life, and Marion Meade tells it quite well. In a real Epic, Eleanor marries the kings of France and of England, goes on a crusade, gives birth to no less then 10 children, including Richard Lion Heart and King John. She divorces one husband and participates in a rebellion against the second. She helps to of her sons reign as kings, and finally dies before watching the collapse of the empire she so desired.

The problem with Meade's narrative is that much of what she describes seems debatable. As a previous reviewer noted, this seems as much fiction as fact. hardly a page goes by without the words 'must have' appearing somewhere. Much of the thoughts, plans, and ideas of Eleanor and other characters is pure speculation. Worse yet, often some of the actions and whereabouts of characters are given based on extreme circumstantial evidence.

Meade is also trying to hard to model Eleanor into a modern style feminist. Although she constantly attempts to depict Eleanor as an active, resourceful and wise woman, who rarely if ever makes mistakes, it is quite clear that Eleanor does not fit into that model. In fact, I got the impression you could easily have written the story of Eleanor as an essentially passive bystander in the political dramas involving her parents, husbands and children.

The footnotes, by the way, are complete waste of time for anyone trying to distinguish fact and fiction in Meade's work, unless one is a scholar of the period.

Ultimately 'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is a very good read, but one suspects it is a poor history.

Name 5 important women born between 100 a.d. and 1900 a.d. Eleanor of Aquitaine has to be on your list, perhaps in the first or second postion.

Born in the 12th century, she married Louis VII of France, divorced him and married Henry II King of England. She bore 10 children, 2 to Louis, and 8 to Henry. Among them Prince John and Richard the lion hearted of Robin Hood fame.

It was a time of great change. The Church was changing. It no longer saw women soley as the spawn of Satan. The cult of the Virgin Mary was taking hold. The politics of monarchy were changing. King Louis VII ruled only a small portion of what is modern day France. King Henry II wasn't even English, but a French nobleman who benefited from the untimely death of William the Conqueror's heir, and Civil War in England. He could "seize the day".(Horace) The second crusade led by Louis, failed miserably; perhaps some of modern day Muslin/Christian conflict has roots here. It appears that Louis did not heed Horace's advice.

And Eleanor, where was she? Well she joined Louis on the Crusade. In fact she was blamed for the outcome of the first disasterous battle. It seems that it is easier to blame the queen and her excessive luggage, than the head of the crusading army. Thousands began the Crusade, only hundreds returned. It is not hard to imagine how Eleanor and the others felt. But, she was stuck with Louis. Or was she? Louis needed a male heir, and Eleanor had not produced one. Divorce was not what Louis wanted, but he did need that male heir, and Eleanor was not getting any younger. And so, he freed Eleanor.

Imagine Louis' surprise at her marrying Henry just 8 weeks later. By the way she forgot to ask his permission. Louis was not happy.

But Henry was. He got Eleanor and Acquitaine, 5 sons of which 4 survived to manhood, 3 daughters who through marriage, could be used to achieve his political ambitions. Everything is going so well. Then what does he do? Well, Henry falls in love. Eleanor moves out, back to Aquitaine. And then? The male children of this estranged couple plot against their father, then seek asylum with Louis Capet, Eleanor's X. Of course, mother Eleanor is easy to blame.

In modern terms we might refer to this family as disfunctional. However, that disfunction had a price, and a payoff. France and England warred on and off over the next 300 years. Eleanor's decendants sat on the thrones of England, France, Jerusalem, and the Holy Roman Empire. We remember her today. And unlike many of the middle ages chroniclers, we think that she was important and we admire her.

It is difficult to write a biography from the distance of eight or nine centuries. There are few reliable, contemporay sources. It is most difficult to write one about the most powerful woman in Europe, since few thought that women were important enough to chronicle except in the blame game. Marion Meade has done such an admirable job. Her biography make Eleanor come alive. That this book, copywrited in 1977, remains in print is a testament to her impecable research and excellent writing.

I highly recommend this book.

Just as with most world-wide examples today, the historical lives of English monarchs and other persons of power and fame was dominated by men. But, as women mature I personally believe we grow weary of so much exposure to one-sided male perspective. This book helped alleviate my weariness. Meade does Eleanor, and the rest of us, a service by telling Eleanor's incredible story of power and politics and gender with a historians well researched, reasoned clarity, a scholar's forth-rightness, and a woman's sensitivity. And what a story did Eleanor's life make!

Frances Marion knew EVERYONE! Mary Pickford was her best friend; Louis Mayer was her boss for years; Anita Loos was a pal. Who knew? I kept marveling at what an unsung influce she was. The book is thoroughly detailed and a nice read. Ms. Beauchamp maybe doesn't pay off the "powerful women" part of her title; the book is really just about one of the powerful women (Marion). Though Pickford, Loos, Meredyth, Dressler et al are all a major part of FM's life, their role in the power structure of early Hollywood isn't explored all that much. But so what? The title may be a little off; the content of the book is spot on. A must-read for any Hollywood buff.

Cari Beauchamp has written a fascinating biography of early Hollywood through the life of Frances Marion, one of its most powerful and highly paid screenwriters, Without Lying Down, Frances Marion and the Powerful Women of Early Hollywood. The working life of Frances Marion has the advantage of coinciding with the birth of movies as Marion began working on scripts for silent movies in the teens and continued into the sound era and the advent of World War II. This biography also has the joy of highlighting many of the other unique women of Hollywood as Frances Marion traveled in a powerful Hollywood clique. It is a wonderful look at Hollywood between the wars from the vantage point of Frances Marion. Occasionally, it would have been helpful if the author could have expanded the view a little to give a larger context outside of Frances Marion's own sphere of influence and given a broader perspective of the film industry. But what is seen in both entertaining and informative. There was for me real sadness at the end of this book as all these great women pass away but, now at least, one of them is captured lovingly and brilliantly in this fine biography.

I bought this book on a whim. I was looking for books on some of the great silent stars..Marion Davis, Mary Pickford, Colleen Moore, Olive Thomas, etc. I find it incredibly hard to find books about the Golden Age of Hollywood. After reading this work, I was taken back to a time when flickers were just coming in to vogue and when women could thrive in a burgeoning industry! The author - Cari Beauchamp did an excellent job of capturing the feel of the Golden age of Hollywood. I thought that her research was extensive and considering the limited amount of information available on women in this era, very complete. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in recapturing the essence of the Golden Age of Hollywood in their very modern living rooms of today.

I began this book believing that William Randolph Hearst's granddaughter Patricia Hearst would be able to provide some insight into her grandfather's life and character, as well as her family's idea of what happened to Thomas Ince. However, Ms. Hearst opened the book with a disclaimer that her grandfather was not much discussed by her family, and that with his having died before her birth, she could only speculate along with everyone else about what Mr. Hearst was like, and about what happened to Tom Ince.

In addition to having boring fictional characters and an uninteresting, unresolved plot line, this poorly-written book was filled with fictional, inaccurate stereotypes of actual people that are no longer alive to defend themselves. Were any of the real people Ms. Hearst wrote about still living today, she would have been liable to lawsuits for slander. Hearst and her co-author paint Marion Davies as a mean, conniving, stupid, ill-mannered floozy who was with Hearst strictly for his money. Every other reference I have ever read about Miss Davies spoke of her generosity and kindness, her fun-loving nature, and her deep admiration for Hearst. None of that appears in this novel. Ms. Hearst doesn't spare her grandfather an ugly treatment either; nor is she at all kind in describing the movie stars that filled San Simeon with gaiety, laughter, and good-natured hijinks. In addition to gratuitously trashing the reputations of the well-known people in this novel, Ms. Hearst and her co-author also get wrong the few well-established facts concerning Tom Ince's death.

Read Marion Davies' own book, "The Times We Had," or any of the numerous biographies of stars of the early motion picture days to get a picture of what Hearst and Davies were really like, and the facts and rumors that circulated after Tom Ince's death. Even the speculative movie "The Cat's Meow" will provide a somewhat more accurate view of the people and circumstances involved.

I hate this book. The writing style and flow of thoughts the authors composed were fragmented. Annoying characters like Marion the dipstick, made reading torturous especially since she's on like every page - "OOhh daddy poo!", talking in her damn baby drivel. The heroine, Catha Burke was soo bland. She never affected me in any kind of way so having to read about her as she pursued the investigation was a bore. This book doesn't resolve some of the main reasons for reading the story, like who killed Thomas Ince, and is mostly flashbacks of boring snobbish parties with a lost heroine going nowhere.

As a speculative story on the alleged events surrounding film producer Thomas Ince's death in 1924, it greatly disappoints, offering no clear or conclusive hypothesis and relying heavily on sleazy innuendo. It is rather sloppy on historical detail (e.g. Greta Garbo did not arrive in the U.S. until 1925, John Barrymore was in London rehearsing for Hamlet at the time of the alleged events.) What makes MURDER AT SAN SIMEON truly reprehensible, however, is its trivialization of the silent film era. Fascinating performers like Charlie Chaplin and John Gilbert are reduced to tabloid fodder. Poor Marion Davies comes off the worst here; Hearst and Biddle's hatchet job of her almost makes Welles's mockery of her in CITIZEN KANE seem complimentary. In order to fully appreciate and understand silent movies, watch films like THE GOLD RUSH and SHOW PEOPLE instead.

This was my first Balzac, and I was very disappointed. The story line was both thin and unconvincing, and I felt Balzac struggled in vain to make it interesting. Much of the novel was a brave attempt by the author to pad out the story to make up for the inadequacies of the plot. The introduction stated that Balzac was influenced by Sir Walter Scott - this explains a lot, as this novel belongs to the same sorry collection as Scott's worst.

This early novel is set in the civil war which followed the French Revolution, betweeen Republicanists and Royalists, called "chouans". These were guerrill-type bands sponsored by aristocrats, fighting to depose the new regime and reestablish the old one. In the plot, a Republican woman is sent to France to help with intelligence-gathering. But she falls in love with one of the chouan leaders. Another spy maneuvres to make her think her lover has betrayed her, and so she conspires against him. I don't share the other reviewers's opinion that it is a bad novel. It is just an average one by a great writer. I enjoyed it, though.

I am shocked at the negative reviews here. Sure, this is Balzac's first published novel and it may not have the elegant maturity of the many wonderful works he later wrote. But it gives us an exhiliarating heart-on-your-sleeve romanticism and a youthful audacity that makes it very special.

If you are going to read only one Balzac in your life, then maybe you wouldn't choose "The Chouans", but then I would wonder why you would ever choose to go through life and read only one Balzac.

I love the 19th century French novel...Balzac, Hugo, Zola, Flaubert. It may be somewhat of an acquired taste, but if you have the taste, "The Chouans" is a deserving member of the club.