This book is very poorly written. There are a number of flash backs that if my teacher hadn't pointed out, no one would have that it was a flash back. The ending is also terrible. Only read this book if you have to much time on your hands.

This book was okay. It was a first draft, and therefore it wasn't edited. I thought that it was historically accurate, and I liked the book up until the ending for its detail, imagery, and language. There was no correlation between the ending and the story, however. You can't skip about 4 - 8 years, and show a guy completely pro-Mexican and anti-gringo suddenly change into a man that lives with those he once hated, and scorns that which he once loved so much. That may be how the story in real life would have ended, but I personally don't like the idea of filling in all the details. I would have preferred to read an extra 100 - 200 pages to find out how Gualinto became who he became. Although I was disappointed in the last 20 pages, I was impressed by the 280 preceding it, so I gave the book 3 stars.

Most readers know Americo Paredes as the great folklorist that he was. Because his book George Washington Gomez was not published in the late 1930's when Paredes wrote it, only a rough draft version was released shortly before he died.

To me, this version of Texas historical fiction along the valley border presents a side to Mexican American settlement that few other books reveal. I find Paredes' story powerful and well worth reading.

Gualinto, little George Washington Gomez, is the American born son of his illegal immigrant parents; his father is an outlaw of some notoriety. The birth name his parents give him symbolizes their hope that he will become the leader of his people in America. But their hopes take a big detour as this little boy grows up in fictional Jonesville as a spoiled only son in a matriarchal household. With his father dead, the only strong male role for Gualinto is his reformed outlaw uncle.

Gualinto suffers the insults and taunts of growing up as a member of the poor and powerless society of South Texas. His family is subjected to the cruelities of racist Anglos, including the unattractive side of El Renche, the Texas Rangers. Even in an all Mexican American school for children, Gualinto is embarrassed and punished for his lack of academic accomplishment by the spinster Mexican American teacher . Those classroom scenes remind one of the cruelties found in Tom Brown's School Days and the writings of Charles Dickens.

Surrounded by love at home, treated kindly by some of the Jonesville citizenry, insulated from the cruelities exacted on his sisters who do not adhere to their mother's demands, Gualinto grows to adolescence and a time of continued social positioning that often leads to rejection.

The values that Gualinto develops reflect his survival in the South Texas that is his home. When he heroically departs the community to gain that all important college education, he also departs from the hoped for role his parents once projected. In the end, his story is one of betrayal and tragedy, but not unrealistic.

From having my senior Hispanic students read Gomez, I experienced feedback that was invaluable. They were amazed that such a novel, telling the side of many of their people existed. Tragic or not, the novel rang true for them. I recommend this novel over and over to students, fellow teachers, and readers. It offers an eye-opening view of another side of the South Texas story.

My school, George Fox University, recommends ("hint": requires) that all students read this book upon enrollment. This book might have been a valuable contribution to the public's outlook on character in public figures, but is incredibly dry and dull in presentation. These historical figures were real people who deserve a bit...well...a life. This book was written for a great purpose, but will never achieve a lasting impact on many people due to the poor judgment of the author in his choice of style of presentation.

by a discouraged Freshman

In a time when our nation (United States) no longer produces true statesmen with character such as Washington, Mason, Henry, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, I'm saddened that Abraham Lincoln is seen by the editor as a man of character. It would seem, if one is to be a thinking evangelical, that the horrors that Lincoln permitted in the South would un-nerve the most honest of scholars. Here, Os Guines has done a serious disservice to the orthodox Christian community. Abraham Lincoln rejected the Virginia Peace (which included former president John Tyler) accord and Sen. Critendem's compromise for peace. Surely had Lincoln accepted these plans for peace, thousands of lives could have been saved. But most of all, the total war theory Lincoln allowed is the most offensive and repugnate to any thinking Christian. Women and children were implemented in Lincoln's so called war to save the Union. He jailed opponents of his position, threatened the Supreme Court justice Roger Taney with arrest for writing against his war plan. Lincoln usurped the Constitution of the United States by declaring War against seceded states in violation of Article I sec. 8 (this is solely congress's domain). A nation birthed in secession hardly has the right to chastise those who operated from the same principle i.e. the right to govern themselves and self-determination. Os, you should be ashamed of yourself for lack of scholarship in this arena. Particularly over such a sensitive subject as the American War Between the States (Civil War). A man (Lincoln) who waged an offensive war against those who defended their rights and family against an unjust invasion has no place in a book where character matters. Maybe Robert E. Lee or Joshua Chamberlain could have saved you the embarassment. And no, Lincoln's war was not over slavery. Men do not take bullets so 10 % can own slaves. Character counts, so does scholarship.

Did the reviewer who found this "dull" read the same book as I did??? This is a very well-crafted, nicely written, penetrating look at some important topics. I greatly enjoyed it.

Starting with George Washington as a boy, this book follows him throughout his life. It focuses on his early military career fighting with the British against the French and Indians, working his plantation, and responding when his new country needed a general and first President.

Unfortunately, this book aimed at kids could have been better. The narrative is uneven, making it hard to follow how much time has passed between stories we're reading. Furthermore, the style is choppy with too many simple sentences strung together. On the other hand, there are some thrilling stories from his days fighting in armies that will keep young readers interested. And his writing is used creatively to show his belief in God without interrupting the flow.

George Washington was a great man we can all learn from. This biography gives some interesting information and a good overview of his life and times. Unfortunately, it's not quite polished enough to get a full recommendation.

George Washington was born on a snowy day, Febuary 11(22 on new calendar), 1732. From then on he was a devout christian and a great leader. His father taught him how to ride a horse, shoot a rifle, and hired a tutor to prepare him for his schooling in Appleby. Appleby was an elegant boarding school in England. When 11 year-old George was visiting his cousin's mansion on the Chotank River about 20 miles away from hsi home in Ferry Farm, a servant from his home burst onto the amnsion lawn and told him that his father was deathly ill. Shortly after he arrived his father died. This was only the childhood part on George but the book goes on about how he got interested in surveying, how he became a great military leader, and how he eventually became the U.S.'s first presedent. The book showed his great leadership and his commitment to the Lord and the teachings of the Bible. Overall it was a great book and made you experience George Washington and his beliefs.

As a die hard Redskins fan, I was very sorry to see this excellent concept so badly muffed. The idea behind this book is to cash in on the Washington Post vault, providing great photos and articles combined with new pieces by long-time Skins beat reporters to tie it all together. Sadly, whoever edited and proofread this thing reeeally dropped the ball. Sentences at the bottom of the page are repeated at the top of the next, photographs are mislabeled, pieces of sentences are missing, words are chopped off in the middle. Probably still of some value for the die hard Skins fan, but a real black eye for the Washington Post. If their newspaper were produced as shoddily, Richard Nixon would have finished his second term.

Yes, there are some typos and such in the early chapters but the book isn't as lousy as described in the 2-star review. Most of the problems are hyphen-ated words that are not at the end of a page or line. It is like the typeset was changed but the book was not reproofed.

Still, there is a lot of good information in the book. I think it covers items that Loverro's book (very good as well) ignored or glossed over-- how Gibbs wanted to sign and trade Riggo and how Joe Jacoby ended up sticking around in that first camp. The Times summary makes it sound like Gibbs and Beathard were geniuses building a team. This book shows that they were also lucky geniuses. If you are a Skins fan, you should own this book.

I see there is also a newer edition out with the Synder years (ugh).

This book is interesting from a child's perspective. However the vocabulary and many of the concepts were a little too advanced for my twelve year old students to grasp. I was disappointed that the focus of the book was only on the youthful George Washinton. Since nothing much is known about his childhood, the author took a great deal of liberty in fleshing out the story.

So long as Bart Simpson can say, "George Washington Carver is the guy who carved up George Washington." and so long as Black Americans are portrayed as lacking math and science aptitude, there needs to be publication about the importance of George Washington Carver. This book said many important things. For example, George Washington Carver was a credit to dark-skinned blacks because many critics at the time (and many people today) note that most famous or achieving Blacks were partially white. Also, this book suggests that the relationship between Carver and the famous black activist at the university where he worked did not always get along. Still, if Langston Hughes' biographer was criticized for downplaying Hughes' gay experiences, equal noise should be made here. The author repeats in several passages that no proof exists to say Carver was gay. Well, why would that be a concern? Who made the suggestion? Why isn't the allegation examined in more detail in this text? The author mentioned that Carver loved to give young men massages in peanut oil. Is that not considered homoerotic solely because it doesn't involve genital contact? This book was published a year after AIDS was discovered and when homophobia was at an apex. Thus, perhaps the author's avoidances can be contextualized and forgiven. Nevertheless, I find this book disturbingly heterosexist and I would avoid reading more works from this biographer.

There was quite a bit of interesting information in the book. The book is written as a chronology of Washington's life. This in itself is not a bad thing, but it is done with very little coherency, rendering the book very difficult to read. The only reason I read it was because it was required reading at my school. I give it three stars because, while the writing style was terrible, the quality of the information it contains redeems it to a certain degree.

Robert Darnton's latest book consists of a series of assorted essays. Most are from the nineties, though one is from the eighties and one is a reworking of a chapter of his doctoral dissertation in the sixties. Darnton starts with a defense of the Enlightenmnet, then goes on to discuss information networks in ancien regime France ("the eighteenth century Internet.") He then goes on to discuss cosmpolitanism in 18th century Europe, Voltaire and Jefferson's differing ideas of happiness, Rousseau as an anthropologist, the debate in pre-1789 France over the nature of the United States, the Girondin leader Brissot and stock market speculation in the 1780s, and finally an autobiographical essay on his work in the archives and his research on Brissot.

The result is a work that is less successful and less interesting that Darnton's two previous collection of essays "The Great Cat Massacre" and "The Kiss of Lamourette." Only the essays on the Parisian Internet and the quarrel between Condorcet and Brissot on America show new scholarly research. We see some of Darnton's old themes: the communication of ideas, the quasi-pornographic Enlightenment Undergound, but little that is new. The essay on Rousseau is an intelligent, not unsympathetic discussion of his career which looks like it could be a good article for Harpers' (and where in fact it was published in the eighties). The discussion of cosmpolitanism seems superficially interesting: in the 18th century publishers spewed out French books from London to Amsterdam to Dresden. During the Seven Years War Laurence Sterne travelled around France without any concern that the French might object to his presence, while Voltaire personally congratulated Frederick the Great for his victories over Voltaire's king. But these facts tell us little that would not be already known to students of the eighteenth century. The same lack of insight hurts his essay on happiness.

The title essay in defence of the Enlightenment is definitely the most lively. Darnton criticizes those who accuse it of such sins as imperialism, Orientalism, Nihilism, Positivism, and Totalitarianism. He makes some good points but the result is not fully convincing. For a start, he is not fair to the criticism of Adorno and the Frankfurt School. They saw themselves not as the enemies of the Enlightenment but as critics, as its loyal opposition. Adorno himself several times stated that the only cure for the damage caused to the world by reason is more reason. So while it is true that in our day and age there are no alternative moral criteria than those set up in the Enlightenment, it is also, in Adorno's case, somewhat beside the point.

Another problem with the essay is a certain tendentiousness. It is all very well to point out Diderot's cosmopolitianism, Voltaire's campaigns against judicial murder and Abbe Raynal's defense of the Indians. It is vitally important to remember that the Counter-Enlightenment contributed far more to the evils of slavery, misogyny and anti-Semitism. But the failure of the Democratic Party to treat their fellow Americans of African descent with basic decency cannot be blamed on the heavy weight of the Habsburgs or the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Likewise, even if one is sympathetic to the Jacobins, one cannot disassociate the Enlightenment from Terror, as Darnton does, simply because Robespierre preferred Rousseau to the Encyclopediasts. And there is the other side of the Enlightenment. There is Hume's support of slavery and Kant's indulgence of racism. Helvetius can be horribly crass nor can Adam Smith be entirely exculpated from those who used "The Wealth of Nations" as an excuse to let people starve in famines. And where is Bentham? Bentham's crass philistinism, his plans for perfect prisons and his having his butler executed for stealing some silverware make him the perfect villian of "Discipline and Punish." He cannot be so easily ignored.

The best essay in the final one as Darnton recounts how as an archival student he learned by accident that Brissot may have been a spy for the French police while Marat had not been guilty of theft and imprisoned in the 1770s. At times it is amusing: when he visited Orleans, the chief archivist, a man named Le Maire, offered to give him a tour of the city. Darnton's French was so bad then he thought the mayor of Orleans was personally welcoming him. But as it goes on it is a touching story of how Darnton found out incriminating facts about someone he had once admired and found that he was guilty of crude huckstering and self-deceit. These days it is easy for people to join the winning side and claim that they were just facing the hard truths. Darnton's essay shows the real ambiguities such self-righteous bluster hides.

Here here, "A reader from Fort Lauderdale, Florida"

I bought this book due to my interest in history in the US Southeast, and in new ventures. The cover of this book promised "an eye-opening account of greed, folly and venture capitalism".

Wrong!

This history was meticulously researched, but reads like the many 18th century ledgers that the author no doubt examined. No story, little analysis, and just a brutal read. Somehow I persevered through to the end of this tome, but recommend the reader spend their time elsewhere. I wish I had.

This is an excellent study of life among the upper classes in Virgina and North Carolinia. This is the first book I have read that provides details on how many of the planter class struggled to keep their heads above water while trying to appear rich.

I have often wondered what motives some of the elites had in joiing the American Revolution. Royster points out that more than a few of the planter class had strong economic reasons to sever ties with Britian in the hopes of freeing themselves from a mountain of debt.

What my fellow reviews fail to realize is that this book's importance does not lie in the Dismal Swamp Company. Royster has woven a narrative that not only describes the economic climate in which America's elite lived, but also demonstrates that without the support of overseas investors our nation would not have been able to expand as quickly as it did. Granted, the Dismal Swamp Company represents a clear failure, but look at the investors. Prominent Englishman and Virginian planters poured money into this financial black hole. Why? For decades it returned little, if any, profit. The reason they kept investing was the belief that they could make something out of a most inhospitable plot of marshland. In short, do not get bogged down in all the names and places. Instead, think about the overall meaning of what you read.

As a teacher, I was very disappointed that a noted author would have such poor writing skills. There are so many sentence fragments in this story, I lost count. I do not know how many times I have to tell students to not start sentences with the word "and". This story has sentences that start with the word "and", and sentences that are just prepositional phrases. It is hard to teach students to write, when authors write poorly.

I am a fan of Jean Fritz, but I was disappointed with this book. It portrays Mrs. Washington in a very bad light, selfish, and greedy. While this may be true, I don't feel it is appropriate for this age level. Children this age should be taught to respect adults. If what Jean Fritz wrote about Mrs. Washington is true then I don't mind my children learning about it...when they are a bit older. Although this book was a disappointment, I do recommend other Fritz books such as George Wahington's Breakfast, and Shh! We're writing the Constitution.

I really appreciated this book. It shows that we are all human and even George Washington had a clingy dependent mother. Whatever flaws he had in his own personality and flaws in his relations, he still found himself being able to cope and acheive. That's a great message to send to readers. It also highlights the dependency women had on men. George Washington's mother was not able to support herself and believed she could not cope.