In response to Hank Adams review on Esther Ross, Stillaguamish Champion. Regarding the weakness ascribed to the book by Hank when Ruby is delving into comments made by Mad Bear about Dick Gregory. In footnote 6 of Chapter 7, a reference is made to the citation for Ruby's claim of Mad Bear's judgement of Gregory. The source cited is Arlington Times December 15, 1966: "Of the Nisquallies, the Tuscarora remarked that they had made a bad mistake by importing Dick Gregory, Negro comedian, to draw attention to their cause. (Gregory was arrested and brought to trial last month on a charge of illegal fishing.) The Indian and Negro problems are not the same. There is no parallel, Indians owned and occupied the land, while the Negro people were brought in as slaves of the white man. Therefore, he said, the Medicine Creek Treaty was not allowed at Gregory's trial." The authors properly cited their source of information before making the statement.

Esther Ross, Stillaguamish Champion, reads like a novel. It is the thirteenth book by Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown, co-authors of several popular Pacific Northwest Indian ethnohistories. American Indian activist LaDonna Harris describes it as "A story about an American Indian woman who takes incredible risks." Esther's daring schemes for tribal identification were played out over fifty years (1926-1976).
Legislators who met up with Ross still mention the fiery-eyed Indian woman chief obsessed with the goal of federal recognition of the Stillaguamish people. The tribe was a signatory of the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty, yet without federal recognition the Stillaguamish could not carry into effect the treaty promises-rights to certain lands, use of certain waterways. Eventually the policy makers with whom Esther kept company by way of her frequent trips to the Capitol declared her a nuisance. Her long-winded speeches, highly repetitive, and her disregard for protocol irritated the officials; she would talk far beyond her allotted time, and she wouldn't go home.
Ruby and Brown invested almost a decade piecing together Esther's story after her son Frank offered them the five footlockers of primary documents and secondary source materials which Esther had kept. While the materials provided a close look at twentieth-century Indian politics and federal policy, the compelling subject was Esther Ross, a woman ordinary and extraordinary, complex and creative, tricky and tenacious as a bulldog.
Ruby points out that Ross "was a double minority, one-fourth Indian and a feminist before that word was coined." Hard to believe that this same Esther never knew she was Indian until near the end of her high school years. Her father was Norwegian, and Esther lived her girlhood in white Northern California society. Her mother, not noticeably Indian, did not enlighten her daughter regarding Stillaguamish blood quantum. Esther's father died when she was ten. When Esther was twenty-two, in response to a call from Indian relatives in distress, Esther and her mother moved to Washington State where Esther, ignorant of tribal history, decided to "uncover her identity."
To strengthen her quest Esther searched the vicinity of the Stillaguamish River for a legitimate source of land to qualify as a land base for her people. She sought ancestral burial grounds from the whites who owned and plowed them. Instead she was offered some bones from an exposed site. Applying her flair for the dramatic, Esther would spill these human bone fragments across the desk of governor Dan Evans in Olympia and later, display them in the national Capitol.
In pre-war days Esther's foot-going treks to visit Stillaguamish families increased the tribal membership to more than sixty, but post-war visits revealed a group more interested in award moneys than in Esther's larger goals.
During 1964 Esther's path crossed that of Herbert Holdridge, a retired brigadier general who advocated buying up Nevada desert land and turning it into a sovereign nation for American Indians. However, she had far greater interest in fishing rights for the Stillaguamish, a matter of sustenance and revenue. Joining the Poor People's Campaign (1968), Esther and her son Frank were bused to DC where Esther made her presence felt.
The Boldt Case would make the difference. The federal government was contesting the state of Washington's control of Indian fishing rights. The government attorney advised that Indians were entitled to fifty percent of the fish harvest; the state had ruled five percent. Judge George Boldt would try the case in Tacoma's U.S. District Court. And Esther Ross would have her "fifteen minutes." Fortunately for Esther-and the courtroom-David Getches represented Esther as special counsel. When she took the stand, he guided her through a review of Stillaguamish River history. Judge Boldt's ruling favored the tribes. The grumbling of non-Indian commercial fishers was heard for years, but the Stillaguamish had won the right to fish.
It would be difficult to add up the thousands and thousands of miles Esther Ross traveled during her fifty-year crusade for Stillaguamish recognition by the federal government. Or to say how many state capitols she visited, how many elected officials heard her speak-badgering, cajoling, but never threatening-on behalf of all unrecognized tribes who 120 years ago had chosen to stay on their homelands rather than accept the reserves chosen by white men. Their great-grandfathers had signed a treaty that would preserve fishing rights, but those rights had been denied the landless Indians. Esther became, eventually, champion for the whole, her mission self-sustained despite her meager income. Esther's complete and absolute dedication was not doubted. Perhaps this accounted for her supporters even among those persons who deplored her outrageous schemes.
Among such schemes was one that would temporarily disrupt the national Bicentennial pageant. The escapade began June, 1975 in Blaine, Washington, near the Canadian border, where three horse-drawn wagons and Western-clad riders headed for the 200th National Birthday Celebration, a 3000-mile trek to Valley Forge. It was son Frank's idea to set up an attack, to waylay the wagon train until the Secretary of the Interior unconditionally recognized the Stillaguamish tribe. Frank called television and radio stations, and Paul Harvey on his daily national newscast announced the impending attack. Indian activism of the 1970s was recalled-siege at Wounded Knee, takeover at Alcatraz, trouble at Fort Lawton. The "attack" might prove to be more than symbolic.
At Stillaguamish headquarters (Island Crossing), Frank stopped the wagons. And Esther, age 71, a wrinkled little woman wearing Indian clothing, stood in the middle of the road and read her speech. An assistant to the interior secretary assured Esther that the document granting tribal recognition would be ready in thirty days. Eight months then passed without word from the government, and a new secretary of the interior, Thomas Kleppe, was appointed.
Two years after the Boldt decision Esther "recruited" a steelhead trout from the Stillaguamish river to play a part in a scheme that stunk to high heaven. Needing to familiarize Kleppe with her drive for tribal recognition, she air-freighted him a frozen 18-pound trout labeled "Washington Salmon." The flying fish had begun to age en route; on arrival, dockers, holding their noses, wanted someone from Interior to take it off their hands immediately. Kleppe's response to Esther was to thank her and mention his preference for beef, saying he had given the beautiful fish to his neighbors.
Esther had problems within her tribe. They referred to her style of leadership as nepotism and resented her hiring whites as assistants. They challenged her right to increase, then decrease, the blood quantum for tribal enrollment to suit her personal intent. They openly wondered how much of tribal funds she was spending on herself. The Stillaguamish wanted Esther stripped of privileges and functions. It was more than two years since the promise made at the wagon train; push needed to become shove. Esther Ross sued the Department of Interior. Judge June L. Green heard the case. On October 27, 1976 Esther Ross' goal was achieved: the Stillaguamish had a recognized place in time.
During January, 1988 Esther began to sicken. Ever-protective son Frank cared for his mother until her death August 1, 1988, a month short of her 84th birthday.

My name is Sandra M. Allen, Chief Esther R. Ross Was my Mom and grandmother.

My brother David has received a history book for his birthday about yrs after grandma passed away in 1990 and we had noticed that the full information wasn't in it about Stillaguamish and this is when we decided to have Esther's(grandmas)story written.

I spent from birth till I was 16years old on the road with grandma and I had an education that I thought should be shared and here it is. To me Grandma was a role model and someone I wanted to live my life by and follow. In the book tells everything both good and bad in some eyes, but everyone has a opion. When my dad (Frank)and myself talked about it too me I wanted a book out because I wanted to have people read and see what she did and was able to do. To me she did more then she was ever given credit for. David and myself gave our education while growing up but in this book everyone can see why we are proud to have had the experience. I have finished high school and college this year will be going on to law school to finish grandmas work... I will be going for Land and Water rights and am very proud to have had her as a Mom and as a role model. My Father Chief Frank Allen passed away one week before seeing the cover of the book on May 14.2001 it was given to us at the gave site, this is to us a wonderful book and has everything in it that we wanted and to my brother David and myself we hope schools will use it and hope that it encourages people to not give up and that one person can make a difference. This women you all are reading about was a legend, role modle,history maker,mother,and friend. She had people who couldn't stand to be around her and she had people who couldn't wait to see her she was a honor to be around and I am proud to say this book is a 5 star. This wasn't to be about facts or to please everyone this book is from us to you the readers its not just one more book Ruby and Brown have written, this is a part of our lives and a way to keep it all together for our children and grandchildren and so on this is opening up our lives to you to share with you what kind of women she was, she was a loving, caring and I wouldn't be who I am today if it wasn't for her and my dad Frank Allen, I would have been like my other siblings out drinking and no education or just given up but my goal in life is to be like her and do as she would have me do. So please take the time and read about my mother/grandmother, and see why we wanted to share her life with you and I hope she can be a role model for you also or your children. I was with Esther till she was taken from us and went on to school and when I graduated I dedicated my diploma to my grandma and dad cause without them I wouldn't have had the wisdom or strength to try and be the most I could be....

So please share this with others and I hope the memories of our life with our mom/grandmother and father will live on. Dad and Grandma always were together and now they are together in peace.
I miss dad and grandma so Dearly but with this it makes it as they are here with us still and I can still her my grandmas voice when I read the book so many memories. Some people have a scrap book we have a history richer to us then gold that is what dad and grandma left me the richest person on earth a life time of fighting and tears and sweat to give me and my children and theirs an IDENTITY and its one we hold close to our hearts.

The way Miller portrays the relationship between Catherine and Eddie is extraordinary, one can't help but wonder if his love is stronger than that of a father figure. We begin by seeing Eddies views on family loyalty and how strong the Italian links are. Then Eddie reverts to break these links when he sees himself loosing his most loved posession, a tragic tale of love and trust.

Essay: "A view from the bridge" by Arthur Miller.

In literature, as in life, characters often make decisions, than negatively effect the rest of their life. Let's take as example a play "A view from the bridge" by Arthur Miller. The man cannot change his fate. The man cannot raid against fate. I think that is idea of this play. That's why it useless to talk about decisions, that effect (negatively or not) of life. The main tragedy in the play began not when Rodolpho and Marco came to Eddies house, it began when Eddie decided to "keep" Catherine for him. But, as I think, there was no tragedy if there were no Beatrice. She decided to loose everything. She loved Eddie, and she decided to separate Eddie and Catherine any way, so, to save Eddie for her. She cannot imagine, that it could turn into tragedy. I'm sure, that she loved Catherine, not more, not less than Eddie, and she understand, that Catherine's love want only papers, but her love for herself, her pride, won. She loved herself and Eddie more than Catherine, so, her advice to 18 years old girl was to stay with Rodolpho. What comes next? Eddie do not want Catherine to be with rodolpho. But Catherine loves him and, of course, she will not listen to Eddie, who wants for her only best, she listen to Beatrice. Beatrice thought, if Catherine will be with Rodolpho, Eddie came back to her, but he does not want to leave Catherine with Rodolpho. Later, when Catherine said "In the garbage he belongs" [to Eddie], Beatrice said "Then we all belong in the garbage, you and me too. ...We all done it". She has no pride to say "I belong", she said "You and me too", "We all done it". Who "we all" ? Eddie - he just wanted to defend Catherine. Catherine - she is young girl, and she cannot understand so serious problems in her age, she should, but don't forget, that she was raised without parents by man, who loved her. Rodolpho - he needs only passport, nothing else. Beatrice - she needs Eddie, she wants Eddie to leave Catherine, she needs Rodolpho to be with her. But why I said that it's useless to talk about decisions, that effect of life? What alternatives does Beatrice had? No alternatives. She'd lost Eddie in any way. Let's try to change the way of the story. Beatrice wanted to save Eddie for her marrying Catherine and Rodolpho. But, if her advises were like Eddies, and Catherine gone from Rodolpho, Eddie will with Catherine. she'd lost Eddie in any way. Even if Catherine married Rodolpho, Eddie will never return to her. So, she'd lost Eddie in any way. And at the end of the play, we understand that Eddie loved Beatrice. Before he died, he said: "My B!". The life is strange thing. We want to change it, but it's very hard. We always want to make something better (it depends only on our character, for whom we want to make better), but it always turns to "As usual". People are not so smart to change their life, their fate. And this play is just an example.

A View From the Bridge is a compelling and exciting drama that delves into such issues as incest, manliness and justice. It's the story of Eddie, an illiterate longshoreman, and his anger towards his niece's affection for an illegal immigrant staying in his house. The complicated relationships between these and many other characters in the play makes A View From the Bridge a truly great piece of theatre. The play has the ingredients of a traditional Greek tragedy, complete with Alfieri, a narrator that fulfils the same purpose as Sophocles's chorus from his plays about Oedipus and Antigone. It's a really good read and unravels like a great page-turner.

This play is magnificient. I won't tell you the plot, because you really need to read it for yourself. If you enjoyed The Crucible and Death of a Salesman, this should be the next Miller book to your library. A great play to put on also.

A driving piece of work that sets up Miller's continual theme of personal versus business ethics.

All in all, the book is quite interesting. We give the story four stars, because we liked especially the end of it. It was unexpected, you never thought it was going to end like this. This story includes only a few persons, but every single men is important in a way. The tension increases more and more from the beginning to the end. It is thrilling . The plot is directly and clearly, and the text easely. The American English, used in this book, is not this difficult to understand. Through the whole book there is a red line and almost every dialogue is important for the plot ahead. Every word that is said has its own importance. Family tragedies are in the centre of it, and you cannot always see behind the faces of the persons.

When I first opened the book and read the first few lines, it was easy to tell that this book was going to be easy to read. But aside from that, All My Sons is filled with much symbolism, foreshadowing, and just a great plot.

The story is unique, the conflicts are twisting, and the ending is shocking. I've yet to read many novels or plays that contained all of these features.

I think what makes this play great is that it is written so a child can read it, yet the theme can relate to anyone young or old.

This book is an alright book to read, if you were acting it out in Drama. If the book was written in regular form, then it would be good for the classrooms. This book was interesting to read but hard to understand. You had to some what jump back and forth between people talking. I feel for the people who had to be put in the concentration camps, and were forced to work against their will just to keep their family members alive. I do not think that people have a right to degrade other humans beings of their own kind or culture.

In this book, not only does Miller define a modern hero, but he also finds distinct parallels between the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare. The book shows an array of impressionable characters who will not only spark emotion in you, but will make you think. There is the everlasting struggle between Good and Evil, Personal belief and Broad interpretation, Individual and Society, and most importantly personal judgement. Could a similar circumstance happen again right here in America? Most definitely. Do people allow themselves to be suppressed and deceived? Absolutely. Does Miller allow his readers to see their selves, peers, and beliefs in a new light? Without a doubt. This book is a piece of history in more ways than one.

The last time I read "The Crucible" was in high school back in the 1960s. Over the years I had forgotten much of what it was about, however it wasn't until I listened to the excellent production by L.A. Theatre Works that the raw emotions of this gripping story came to life.

As a few other reviewers here have suggested, this story works better as a play, not just a high school "textbook." I'd suggest that any students who have to read this book also take the time to listen to this recording.

My impression this time is that a merciless, judgmental religion is no true religion. I hope that young readers, or listeners, will realize that this is not the type of religion that Christ intended.

This book is good,but it's not great.It only contains 3 stories,which of have no Moriarity in them.I was kind of disappointed in this book,as it did'nt contain enough good stories in it.This book is great for kids,however.It's a good way to introduce kids to Sherlock Holmes.

This book is a great way to introduce children to Sherlock Holmes. It's easy to understand, and the pictures are superb! Will definatly keep their interest.

As Miller emphasizes in his essay, some of our best political leaders were excellent actors as well. Although, Reagan was the only actual actor elected as our president, many others have benefited from their skills as a thespian. During the presidential debates, one's countenance can be the deciding factor in the decision. Miller explained that on the outside, Reagan never seemed the least bit unsure of what he was saying. It was this talent that made him the best acting president. Miller also points out what bad acting skills can do for a president. In Einsenhower's case, his impromptu speeches and unprepared speaking style made him seem more like a bumbling comic than the actual intellectual he really was. During the Bush-Gore Debates, Miller commends Bush on his acting talent and criticizes Gore his attempts to try many different roles than the one he was most accustomed to. Miller has also stated that since Bush has been elected to office, his acting skills have improved dramatically. Just as an actor gains more confidence after reading positive reviews and is certain his work will be a success, Bush's confidence has also increased following his victory. Miller shows that politics comes hand-in-hand with acting and this witty work is truly something that should be read by any fan, or critic, of politics.

On a March evening at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC, in a packed auditorium, Arthur Miller, America's most distinguished living playwright, delivered the 2001 National Endowment for the Humantities JEFFERSON LECTURE IN THE HUMANITIES. Selection of the annual lecturer is the highest honor the federal government bestows for distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities. The great author's observations and insights about the twin arts of politics and performance poured forth in a memorable address. While Miller's liberal past is well-known, on that evening he hit (and occasionally praised) politicians both sides of the aisle. It was a fair and even-handed assessment, spiced with illustrations from antiquity to the present.

In the days following the lecture, my notes hasily taken in the dark were excitedly deciphered and shared with colleagues and friends. When this book, adapted from the lecture, appeared, I immediately bought copies for myself and as gifts. The book would have benefited from a preface, explaining the original purpose and audience, but it is a good read. Having been written before the recent attack on America, Mr. Miller's most important observation may be that "one of the basic conditions of [a president's] employment...[is] a willingness to kill for us." Many of those regarded as 'great Presidents' were war presidents. "As war leader, a president rises to the stature of tragic figure touched by the arcane, the superhuman, entrusted as he is with not only the lives of our sons and daughters but the purity of the ideals which justify their sacrifice."

I actually worked on this play a few years ago and it is an incredibly powerful and moving story of America during the Great Depression. It begins just before the crash and takes the audience through the tough years of unemployment and poverty. The play concentrates on one family and follows them throughout the year also stopping to look at other people in other parts of the world who are all affected by this tragedy. It is a really good play and I highly reccomend reading it!

Remember those television shows that displayed the perfect American families?
Like, The Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver, or Seventh Heaven. All these shows displayed
the perfect American families: happy, secure, no problems or conflicts, and all these
dreams that came true. These types of shows were composed of illusions. These shows
were far from reality. These illusions are a lot like the ones Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, by Arthur
Miller,experiences. Throughout the whole play Willy seems to have a hard time distinguishing these
two. The author does a good job at describing the journey of Willy and his problem
dealing with these two concepts.
The play starts out when Willy returns home from a failed sales trip. Finding out
his son Biff is home he criticizes him for not living up to his full potential. After feeling
really depressed he immerses himself in a flashback. These flashbacks happen quite
frequently throughout the play and are very confusing. On the contrary, the author's
placement of these flashbacks help represent the theme. His flashbacks are examples of
his illusions. Willy looks back on better times when his life becomes unsatisfactory to
him. He surrounds himself in these illusions so he does not have to face reality.
His flashbacks are only one of his types of illusions. Another illusion of Willy's
deals with his definition of a good salesman. He thinks that if there is a 'man who makes
an appearance in the business world, [a] man who creates personal interest, is [a] man
who gets ahead' (33).Willy feels that success in the business world is based on looks and
response from others around them. Hard work has no merit at all. This is an illusion as
well. This illusion replaced the little reality that Willy had left in his mind. It was this
illusion that explained the affair he had. He felt that if he was well liked and attractive
someone would want to have an affair with him. After this point Willy's mind only falls
deeper and deeper into his illusions.
By the end of the play Willy's sense of reality was so far gone he ended up
committing suicide. He could not handle what was really going on in his life. His inability
to distinguish reality from illusion is what led to his downfall. This was the point that
Arthur Miller expressed exquisitely.
This play is excellent at showing the affects of a life surrounded by illusion. It was
clearly stated that a life immersed in illusion leads a person to their ultimate downfall.
This play gives a dramatic look at this concept. It was probably very easy for Arthur
Miller to write this play because he said that he relates and understands, '[Willy
Loman's] longing for immortality, Willy's writing his name in a cake of ice on a hot day,
but he wishes he were writing in stone'(Miller). He understands the reason for Willy's
illusions. It is this understanding that helps the play be the masterpiece it is. These
illusions that Willy experiences are similar to the ones that television watchers can have
everyday. The television families that they thought were real were a lot like Willy's
flashbacks. Miller's play taps into that concept through a dramatic and tragic drama. A
drama that is good for anyone and everyone to read.

'Death of a Salesman' is a play written by Authur Miller. The plot of the play moves from the present to the past and back again from the life of Willy Lowman,who had been a salesman all his life.HE has two sons Happy and Biff and wife Linda.His brother Ben went to Africa when he was very young and found diamonds after which he became very rich.Willy himself had been trying to make it big all his life as a salesman and had high hopes for his two sons but had always been dissappointed. This is a story of hopes and happiness with success but all hopes fail and the Salesman gets kicked by life.His attempt to make it big never comes true. The book is very interesting to read and tells a lot about the characters. A pretty cool book!

Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman," while confusing when just read through the text alone, is an awesomely crafted play that takes drama to the next level. Now being interested in plays, I decided it was time to read this one, being that this is considered a classic by many (which I could easily see why). Reading this play makes me want to write plays. Reading something like this makes me believe that I can some up with something great too. I am glad that I finally took the time to read it.

The story is about a broken-hearted salesman, Willy Loman. He is a man no longer living in the real world but is mostly trapped in his own delusional world. He can't let go of the past no matter how hard he tries, and it's eating him up inside. He wants to believe that his family is a shoe-in for greatness, no matter how lonely and sad his wife is, or how much of a player/swinger his youngest son is, or how confused and anti-business his oldest son is. You put all of this together and you get a glimpse of an American tragedy that is so powerful and sad that it makes you think these things happen all the time. From Page 1 you know it's not going to end on a happy note, but you decide to take the path anyways. And a path worth taking it is.

I admit that I was confused at certain points, because through the text alone it is very hard to separate Willy's reality from his imagination. There are places where Willy departs from reality and goes back to the past and it makes it very hard for us to figure out what is going on if we're only reading it. When I saw the movie version after reading this, I was able to appreciate the play more. I understood what confused me and I was able to figure out what was happening. Despite some confusing moments it is still a tremendous play that is very involving from start to finish. You are able to sympathize with the main character, and with the rest of the characters as well. You know a writer has done the job right when you are able to feel or care for every single character (or at least almost all of them, being there will be a few minor characters you're really not supposed to care for that much. This is something that always happens in the world of fiction and is to be expected). Arthur Miller did an amazing job of writing such a realistic and emotionally driven play. The characters were realistic as well as the dialogue.

"Death of a Salesman" is more than just simply a stunning play; it is a beautiful portrait of a family dealing with hardships and troubles. As soon as I began the play I was unable to put it down until it was finished. If you want to read a great play and are interested in great works of drama, this is the one for you.

(Note: If you are confused by the play, see the movie afterwards. It really helps.)

The Price is a well thought out story of human growth. It is a story of family relationships, particularly one that has collapsed over the years. When forced to come together once and for all, the brothers reunite and are able to find some common ground if any over the price of their own old furniture which is to be sold to a dealer. Far more prominent in this novel is the lesson that relationships need love and attention to flourish, and one cannot put a price on them. This book is fabulously written by the famous author, Arthur Miller who has also written such reknown plays as Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. If you didn't pass up a chance to read those classics, you won't want to pass up a chance to read this one.

When talking about this play, arthur miller said "I don't write plays to conform to critical essays. I write about what interests me. That is my strength and that is my limitation." Yes, it had a very similar plot to DEATH OF A SALESMAN, but the character's, specifically the main character, were very different, which changed the theme of the play. I loved it. It made me think...got me more involved then death of a salesman did. It took serveral readings to get the full jist of it. Victor's sacrifice was for love: it didn't matter if there had been no love in his family--he brought love to it.

Miller's play surrounds the moral development of two brothers: one a dutiful policeman (Victor), the other a successful yet selfish surgeon (Walter). Their most recent encounter takes place during the sale of family furniture and heirlooms -- post a long and silent gap in their relationship catalyzed by an angry family breakup that completely separated the brothers.

During their encounter, Arthur Miller poignantly brings out each brother's personal ethics, and what moral debts each feels the other owes. The 'furniture' and it's price to be sold, which is their central concern (in addition to dealings with the only other two characters in the play - an appraiser (Solomon) and Victor's wife (Esther)) , is merely a bargaining object between the two - a prop - with which each may discover more fully the other's thoughts and ways of being, and somehow, at the end of the day, find some sort of salvation in each other.

Miller's play does have room for updating the "Say! What a swell..." type of older american-english diction for flow. This may be especially encouraging to those who may find some of the colloquialisms inappropriate.

The reader must keep in mind that this is not a novel, and really should not be read like one, word for word. This is more a basic screenplay type, where improvisation by actors who truly understand the characters - and Miller's intent - will ultimately bring the true and dramatic color to a wonderful and thought-provoking story.

This book is about him, this is not about tortures, nore the Argentina's dictadure in the seventies. He does not Know what torture is or what was be in jail in those days. He took advantage of The situacion of those days in the country to discriminate against everybody using his heritage in a very inteligent way I am not Nazi nore Marcista, I am PERONISTA. He is not an Argentinian, He is lucky to end-up with the militars and not with the Revolutionaries. This book is about Mr. Timerman religious believes.Nothing else

Este libro es un resumen de un pais de tristeza. Anarchia, luchas, gobiernos coruptos, y la militaria- es lo mismo ahora en este pais bella y riqueza. Los maleducados hay un nivel de estupidez - ellos solo quieren el pavo, el dinero - la renta sin pensar de la gente.

Tienes que leer este libro!

Jacobo Timerman has written a gripping and terrifying account of his experiences at the mercy of Argentina's Peronist regime of the late 70's. A well respected, professional journalist in Buenos Aires, he was editor of the major newspaper La Opinión until he was kidnapped by the military for publishing articles critical of their terrorist tactics. He details how as a political prisoner, and more signifigantly as a Jew, he was held and tortured by a military carried away by their own delusions and rationalizations of violence - and by their virulent anti-semitism. Timerman displays a penetrating insight into the mindset of his captors and of a society that tried to ignore what was happening. A must read.