The premise is fascinating, however. I really DO want information on the religious and occult background on World War II, and I'm even prepared to accept that WWII is a modern continuation of political and religious divisions set up many thousands of years ago. But this book is entirely too wild-eyed and ill-organized for even my credulous nature. Don't buy it.

The Union attempted to take Richmond by the shortest and most direct route; but this way was blocked with natural obstacles. If the Confederates fell back they would be closer to their reserves, supplies, and reinforcements. These facts favored the entrenched defenders.

The western campaign ended in the capture of Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi from St. Louis to New Orleans. Liddell Hart contrasts the maneuvers here to the stalemate back east. But the conditions, or politics, did not allow a wide flanking invasion through West Virginia or North Carolina. The threat to Richmond kept Confederate troops there. Longstreet proposed an invasion of Kentucky, a far flanking attack, but was turned down by Lee.

It explains how Sherman out-maneuvered Johnston from Chattanooga to Atlanta. By threatening to outflank Johnston, the Confederates fell back. His replacement by Hood did not prevent the capture of Atlanta. This revived the hope of victory for the North, and helped to re-elect Lincoln.

Sherman then abandoned his supply and communication lines (vulnerable to attack) and marched on to Savannah and the ocean. His army lived off the land. This enabled his army to be resupplied by the Navy. He then marched north, seeming to attack other cities, but passed between and continued to destroy railroads and bridges.

The end came soon after this, as other armies invaded the South. Sherman designed an armistice and amnesty where the Confederates would be disbanded, and their arms turned over to the states. The latter would allow repression of bandits and guerillas. He was criticized for this.

Sherman was a man of modest habits. When admirers raised [money]to buy him a house, he refused to accept unless he received bonds that would pay the taxes! He lived within his means. The resisting power of a state depends more on the strength of popular will than on the strength of its armies, and this depends on economic and social security (p.429).

Liddell Hart gave preference to contemporaneous correspondence rather than Official Reports (which are written for history to justify a policy). Some of the ideas in this 72-year old book may not coincide with more recent history.

Interestingly, Henry has something in common with the liberal "elite" he despises, which is a contempt for the middle-class aesthetic. He reveals this in the seventh chapter, easily the worst of the book. He includes both sensationalistic news coverage and family photo albums in his indictment of our culture of celebrity (often appropriately called "star-f***ing") without distinguishing between the pernicious and the harmless. His tirade against karaoke is just plain weird--does he object to having fun?

Perhaps Henry's book should have been titled "In Defense of Merit" instead. His main thesis seems to be that people should look up to the successful and seek to emulate them, not destroy them, and that the aristocracy of talent has an obligation to encourage our better angels.

Unfortunately, this laudable reassertion of the individualist/meritocratic ethos is clouded by an authoritarian impulse that is more in line with the traditional notion of nobility rather than a society based on objective rewards and punishments. The problem of elitism is that all too often people appoint themselves as elites and then seek to impose their will on the rest of society like some Niezstchean superman. If you truly believe that you have ideas and values that are superior, the best way to enforce these ideas and values in a manner consistent with a (classical) liberal society is to SET AN EXAMPLE. Instead of sitting back and whining about how the masses are "uncultured" or turning yourself into a social hermit, get out there and DO SOMETHING about it. If your ideas and values are truly the best, the great filtering process of time will serve you and people will come to you. Henry never provides a call to action in a clear and forceful way, and by this failing his book merely adds to the cacophony of complaint.

In his DEFENSE OF ELITISM Henry defines what being an elitist is. Someone who believes "some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal, some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study." Nowhere here does he eschew egalitarianism in favor of elitism. Both are necessary in ensuring societal progress and for rewarding achievement. The problem, he says, is that there has been an "erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out and rank competing values". Bravo! In challenging multiculturalism, it's defenders label one as insensitive, and it's opponents read this as support for some pernicious ideologies that are offered as alternatives.

Mr Henry insists on what can be called an honest intellectual assessment of the merits of ideas and issues. Actually we could extend this to words also. Mediocrity is, we would agree, inferior to meritocracy but this book would argue refering to oneself as moderate does not mean that you favor mediocrity. Being an egalitarian is also not a defense of the cultural pluralism that is characteristic of multiculturalism. Mr Henry makes these distinctions clear but he stops here. He could have gone on to make the following distinction, which is in keeping with his argument. An assimilated, multiethnic America is not an issue, but a pluralistic federation of multicultural states is another thing entirely. That's the only problem I have with this otherwise excellent book - a failure to provide 'full-disclosure' of his views.

Of course, who am I to review Henry James? Granted, I read more books and watch less television than most of my peers, but still I think I might be too "late Twentieth Century" for this book. Maybe despite my strict avoidance of video games I just can't help detesting the millipede pace of this book. I've never had much affinity for drawing room conversations to begin with, and unlike my father I don't believe that wit must be meted out in tortuous sentences.

But it isn't my background or personal prejudices that make me recoil from "Wings of the Dove". There is something about the deliberate quality of Henry James that bothers me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing with his fat succulent sentences. He won't feed you a meal of lean pork and vegetables. He'll serve you tons of tiny truffles and oil-oozing, crispy skinned duck.

To read "Wings of the Dove" is like encountering a cookbook that decided to include as much of the delicious fatty foods as possible. Of course its a rare meal and quite wonderful in its way. But some how, it made me a little nauseous at the end.

As everybody knows, Hery James is not an easy writer. His appeal is very difficult and complex although it doesn't read very old-fashioned. The story is very interesting and timeless, because it deals with passion, money and betrayal. The books follows Kate Croy and her beloved Merton Densher when then both get involved - in different degrees and with different interests- with the beautiful rich and sick American heiress Milly Theale.

Most of the time, the book kept me wondering what would come next and its result and the grand finale. But, that doesn't mean I was fully understand its words. As I said, I was just feeling what was going on. As a result, i don't think I was able to get all the complexity of Henry James. Maybe, if I read this book again in the futures, it will be clearer.

There is a film version of this novel made in 1997, and starring Helena Bonham Carter, Allison Elliot and Linus Roach, directed by Iain Softley. Carter is amazing as always! Kate is a bit different from the book, she is not only a manipulative soul, but, actually, she is a woman trying to find happiness. One character says of Kate, "There's something going on behind those beautiful lashes", and that's true for most female leads created by James. Watching this movie helped me a lot, after finishing reading the novel.

As examined through a brief plot summary, Washington Square contains no clear-cut revelations in its message. Upon careful investigation of the characters, however, it seems that James wants the reader to decide whether Morris' love is true or not. In other words, in terms of the main character's conflict, should Catherine have chosen her father or her lover? In the end, James has Catherine choose neither, thus carefully creating a plot that can be scrutinized from different perspectives. With each of Morris' actions, it is unclear whether he does it out of love for Catherine or out of greed for her money. The author achieves this effect by judicious word use and careful insertions of flaws in the characters of Morris Townsend and Dr. Sloper.

Washington Square was a novel I read for school after having visited Washington Square itself many times. Having said that, although it's an excellent read for literary analysis, it's also a rather dry novel. For a student wanting to complete a literary analysis and enjoy a good book at the same time, this is not good news, thus the 3.5 stars. However, its strong points are the psychological power and the keen insight James has on human nature. Read it for those things, if anything.

This novella by Henry James finds the prolific author uncharacteristically tight-lipped. It's a good primer to his later, much more challenging Wings of the Dove, which is also about the way money, or the lure of money, ironically cheapens and devalues human relationships. But Wings of the Dove is an experimental novel, where the story is decidedly secondary to James's psychological probings. Washington Square -- more unassuming, more unpretentious, more straightforward -- is also much more disturbing. The central character, Catherine Sloper, is martyred by James right off the bat as "plain," without compensatory wit or intelligence. She has a good heart, but it's implied that this is just a side effect of her rather bovine complacence. Her martinet father can't help but blame her for his beloved wife's death, and her only companion is an insipid, scheming aunt, the kind of woman whose modern day equivalent scours Cosmopolitan for advice on how to land a husband. With no outlet for her untapped stores of affection, and more than one void to fill, the ingenuous Catherine is easy prey -- carrion -- for a handsome and unscrupulous fortune hunter named Morris Townsend.

Accustomed as we are to Jane Austen's tart-tongued heroines, not to mention modern day losers who have a knack for bucking the odds -- Forrest Gump, The Waterboy, almost any other piece of bogus Hollywood populism you care to name -- James's acceptance of Catherine's fundamental unredeemability leaves the reader in the lurch. It gets under your skin. The chilly effectiveness of Washington Square derives partly from the fact that seemingly everyone, author included, is conspiring against poor Catherine. Her aloneness is almost unbearable. We can't help but reflect how happiness is genetic, and that if she had been born with a more expansive personality ( or bust size ) the world of men would be at her disposal. Instead, the reader waits in vain for a reversal of fortune; either Catherine will blossom, her father will learn to love her unconditionally, or she'll come to her senses and shoot down her transparently insincere suitor. Nothing like that happens. In fact, there's the uncomfortable suggestion that Catherine knows she's being strung along, and lets it happen anyway. It's either that or stay home and knit.

By the end of the novel, it's clear that James is attempting something like an American version of Flaubert's Sentimental Education. Both stories track a confused character through a long period of time, zeroing in on their obsession with an unattainable love object. In each novel, the reader's hopes are raised for change, epiphany, victory, only to be rewarded with disappointment, anticlimax, and the ruthless thwarting of expectations. However, where the resigned Flaubert is simply sighing "C'est la vie," James is pointing a few stubby fingers: at capitalism, at stubborn pride, at the simple unfairness of fate. James may seem mostly apathetic to Catherine but he, more than anyone, could relate to the agony of spinsterhood. This book seethes under its mask of propriety.

Look carefully. Gray's Anatomy currently comes in two english editions. The British Version (now in its 39th edition) retails for about... The American Version (now in its 30th edition) retails for about ... If the edition you are looking at costs considerably less than those prices ASK YOURSELF WHY!. You are probably considering the "classic collectors edition" which is a reprint of the 1901 American Edition. There is nothing wrong with that edition, if you are interested in the history of science. However, much of the terminology has changed and in 100 years we have developed a much deeper understanding of human anatomy.

Know what you are buying. If you are a serious student of anatomy, you probably do not want this to be your first (or only) edition of Gray's Anatomy.

A quick warning. Since this book has been around since before 1901, there are many, many different versions. Make sure you check the printing date of the one you buy. The human body has not changed since this first editions, but our access to it has. As such, while some of the earlier books are beautiful to look at, the later editions are more valuable as a reference tool.

It begins as the news of Diana's death reaches the Windsor family, and the reactions of the people there. Then it shoots back in time to show the lives and backgrounds of Charles and Diana, the seemingly golden royal couple whose marriage deteriorated under adultery, lies, and the piercing eye of the press. William and Harry grew up in this bizarre enviroment, and the book includes some of what they have been doing since their mother's sudden death.

This might have been a good -- albeit slim -- book, if Anderson had kept his eyes focused on Diana's boys. But at least two-thirds is barely about the boys, but a rehash of all the stuff about Diana. We've seen it all before, and Anderson's presentation is not particularly interesting. Perhaps it's because Charles and Harry, royal hijinks included, just haven't done that much of note yet.

One of the biggest problems with the book is that the author tries to cover all the bases. In the matter of these two, it's really not possible to not take sides. So, Charles let his wife suffer, stayed with Camilla, and he went off to the opera when his son was beaned by a golf club. "Charles is scum," you will be saying -- Anderson is presenting him in that light. But after that, we are presented with a more ooey-gooey, sensitive, forgiving picture of Charles as an ex and a father. It's like Anderson wrote a postscript to his Diana love note, devoted to Charles. It doesn't work! Either you think Diana was right, or you think Charles was. You cannot say that they were both okay, kindly and fine -- if they had been, then presumably they would not have broken up.

The parts about Harry and William are actually the most interesting parts of the book; there are some cute photographs and anecdotes, like William playing with a tot, working as a rap deejay (cute "rock on" gesture here), and Harry giggling at his brother's inability to get his driver's license without press attention. But like many biographers, Anderson also descends to tabloid sniggering. We're presented with entire photographic pages of William's ex-girlfriends, including First Niece Lauren Bush. there's a weird anecdote about William creeping into girls' camping tents, which is never credited to anyone or even a publication.

This book has some endearing stuff about the "Boys," marred by a spattering of tabloid material (am I the only one who doesn't care who William is dating?). But most of it is the thousandth rehash of Charles and Di's messy marriage -- better to wait until their sons get a real biography written about them.

The book reveals how Princes William and Harry have dealt with the break-up of their parents' marriage, the death of their mother and the ever-growing presence of Camilla in their lives. It tells of the Queen's role in grooming the boys for the "Royal image" and how they have responded to her attempts. While the book does make interesting reading, if one were to take these two boys out of the public limelight and their "Royal position", they would probably react no differently from other boys around the world who have witnessed their parents divorce and their mother's tragic death.

Diana was a world-wide celebrity and one of the most beautiful ladies of our time. She exuded class and style in every life she touched. Her death was felt world-wide, particularly so in my country and in others who are a part of the British Commonwealth. It is highly likely the life lessons Diana gave her sons, and what she would have wanted for them, would be no different than what any loving parent would want for their children.

The book does go on to discuss "who blames who" for Diana's death. It is ironic that some people always seem to find a need to "blame someone" for life's trials and tribulations. I rather think Diana, being the compassionate person she was, would have raised her sons with a more positive, nurturing outlook on life, believing that forgiving the world for its tragedies is far more healing than blame.

So, how much is truth and how much is fiction? I suspect no one other than William and Harry will ever truly know the answer to that question, regardless of how many others may speculate. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but that does not make it factual. The reader will have to bear in mind the author's writing style and come to their own conclusions.