This is a very interesting history of the Rosenberg case from the point of view of David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother... I would recommend it to all Rosenberg case buffs for its portrait of Ethel's family relationships and background... Greenglass comes off as one strange and unlikeable guy...

I do have a couple of criticisms of the book. For a NY Times editor, Sam Roberts, the author doesn't write all that well. Some of his sentences are confusing with pronouns that refer back to previous sentences, only the reader doesn't know to which person previously mentioned. There are a also number of passages which seem to me to contain confusing non-sequitors... reading The Brother is a bit like coming in in the middle of a movie.

This is one of the most brilliant works of non-fiction I have ever read. The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg has always been a sensitive and controversial subject for Americans. Although many authors have written books on the subject, only one has been able to talk to the chief witness who testified against the Rosenbergs and sent them to the electric chair for espionage, Ethel's brother, David Greenglass. Sam Roberts did some excellent research and has found a bounty of never before told information about the case and the family. Every chapter is more exciting than the one before it. Excellent job Sam

In 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for passing information about the atomic bomb to the Russians. They remain the only Americans to get the death penalty for spying in peacetime, which indicates the extraordinary nature of their case. Current spies might expect prison at worst, and possibly a country club prison at that. The Cold War is over, and we have new fears, but an examination of the fifty-year-old case is welcome. _The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair_ (Random House) by Sam Roberts gives a surprising, fresh view of the case. Roberts can rightly claim that this is an "untold story" because after years of persistence, he was able to find Greenglass, living under a different identity, and conduct interviews. True to the nature of a disreputable stoolpigeon, Greenglass started singing for a fee.

Greenglass, a member of the Communist Party, somehow got assigned to work on the Manhattan Project after being drafted in 1943. His brother-in-law Julius Rosenberg persuaded Greenglass's wife Ruth to talk to him about supplying atomic secrets, and David agreed. He got paid for the information. When the FBI nailed him, he was ready to implicate Julius. When Ruth implicated Ethel, days before the trial, David changed his testimony to corroborate his wife's, always cooperating in order to keep Ruth from getting charged. Playing the wife card again, the feds attempted to get information on Julius's contacts by charging Ethel and then holding the death penalty over her. The idea was that Julius would sing in order to keep Ethel alive for their two young sons. This seems immoral today, and indeed, it is now illegal to use the death penalty as coercion towards cooperation. The eagerness that the feds had to execute the Rosenbergs proved to be a gigantic misjudgment. Communist sympathizers the world over took advantage of the Rosenbergs' plight, especially of the electrocution looming over Ethel. The Rosenbergs were more valuable as martyrs than any information about bombs which Greenglass had stolen.

It is certainly controversial that Greenglass is getting paid for his participation in interviews, but the new information seems worth it. Greenglass had no say in what was going to be written in the book, and could not tell what was to be in it until it was printed; the picture Roberts paints is far from flattering. Remarkably, his wife did not know of his participation in the interviews before the book was published. Roberts has gone to other previously unavailable sources as well, and the story is fascinating. There were serious mistakes made in the trial, well detailed here, and as a result the controversy about the outcome will never be settled. Roberts often gives details that aptly summarize the era; for instance, an FBI account of Ethel's arrest says that she "made a typical Communist remonstrance, demanding a warrant and the right to call an attorney." There are other candidates for the nomination of "Trial of the Century," but it is hard to top this one. If it does not measure up to a laudable presentation of gathering of evidence, prosecution, and execution, and was eventually more comfort to our enemies than to ourselves, we might, living under the threat of terrorist attacks fifty years later, learn useful lessons here about excessive government zeal.

Note: The review cited above refers only to the first volume in this excellent history of Byzantium (the whole trilogy will apparently appear in abridged form in March 1998).

This second volume covers the period from 800AD and the coronation of Charlemagne (which irrevocably split the Roman Empire into "West" and "East") to the battle of Manzikert in 1071 which saw Constantinople cut off to a large degree from its principal resources in Asia Minor (after the Imperial army was defeated by the Seljuk Turks). Throughout the narrative Lord Norwich concentrates to a large degree on the constant conflicts between the Empire and its neighbours - the Bulgars to the north-west, the Rus to the north east and the forces of Islam to the south.

A sense of ultimate doom is inevitable as you read the book, and yet some of the greatest characters in Byzantine history make their appearance in this period. This appears, indeed, to be the apogee of the eastern empire and you are left in little doubt as to what would have happened to the subsequent history of Europe if emperors with the power and wisdom of Basil II had not come to the throne and countered the forces pressing from the east and south.

There are so many frustrating questions as well: how might the history of Christianity have differed if the personalities involved in the "filioque" controversy - which contributed greatly to the schism between the eastern and western church - had been different? Might there still have been an Eastern Empire (or its close descendent) today if the amicable terms agreed between the Seljuk Turks and the defeated emperor Romanus Diogenes been honoured by those who overthrew him?

We will never know, of course, but it is fun to speculate and this excellent overview of the highpoint of Byzantine history provides an excellent platform for asking that most intriguing of historical questions "what if ......?"

This book was the first I read of Norwich's trilogy - by accident, of course. I didn't realize it was the second of three books until I started reading it. It is SUCH a fascinating account of an empire that is now gone. I became interested in reading about the history of the Turkish area when I visited Istanbul last summer, and am now very interested in the rich history of that city. The debt owed to Byzantium is more than most of us ever learn about. Byzantium's rich culture retained much ancient learning which served eventually to spur Europe out of the dark ages.

It is impossible to read this book without becoming consumed with curiosity for the other two books of the trilogy. The reader gets a very good look at the inside of the empire, but also is given glimpses of other empires and peoples as they affected or interacted with the direction of Byzantium. Personalities, politics and intrigues; families, buildings and architecture; religion, government, and commerce; geography, weather, and natural disasters; armies, navies and strategy; invasions, skirmishes, disease, torture, destruction, death and birth; all are given in depth treatment by Norwich in order to show the meandering evolution of the Byzantium Empire and its interactions with Europe and the Middle East. The book is richly annotated, which adds greatly to the enjoyment, in my opinion.

The beginning of the book sees religious dogma continuing to widen the schism between the Western and Eastern Empires and the end of the book sees the Byzantium facing its first major loss of land in military defeat to the Turks.

I highly recommend the trilogy to all history buffs.

This, the second volume of Norwich's Byzantine history, is the climactic center of the story. The book begins with Charlemagne's corronation in 800 -- an act that destroyed the idea of a universal Christendom -- and concludes with the battle of Manzikert in 1071 -- one of the most consequential and regrettable military losses in European history. In between we learn about the Viking impact on Byzantium, conflicts with Kievan Rus, the rise of the Bulgar Empire, and the growing and intensifying conflict between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Family and court intrigues are illuminated, while changes in religion, art, and leisure are explained. Norwich uses his amazing command of the English language to take us on a wild rollercoaster ride through the changing fortunes of Europe's chief protector, finally leaving us with a strong sense of the impending doom in store for both Byzantium and Europe as a whole.

Caesar's Commentaries as they were suposed to be seen contrast markedly with say the "Histories" of Tacitus. How strong is this constrast, well we will see. But first, Caesar's Gallic wars covers his years as Consul and the gradual conquest of the lands known today as France, Belgium, Holland and the western parts of Germany. The book itself never mentions any of the political infighting taking place both in the Senate itself and among the enemies and friends of Caesar. Many things stand out in the history itself such as Caesar's advanced age before he started his conquests, given his birth in 100 BC and the start of the Gallic consulship in 58 BC Caesar was aready 42 years old. Interesting as well, is Caesar's insistence on the use of the third person to comment on the subsequent wars, and then even more surprising the change to first person in a very few instances to make a point. No doubt this is a device often invoked at the time to try to ensure impartiality or some fashionable way of writing. Certainly these commentaries were intended to be read by military and senatorial leaders on the way to wage war in Gaul and for that matter maybe even in Germany.

Now we come to the fascinating contrasts with Tacitus's "Histories" for example. Somehow in the intervening time between the conquests of Caesar and the year of the four emperors, about 100 years, much had changed. Not only in the style of writing itself but in the way both Roman and foreign society was envisaged in Roman eyes. Nowhere except in a very few occasions did Caesar mention that his men needed encouragement for the fight, or lacked bravery. But then in Caesar's day the men were indebted to him to ensure both pay and security, Caesar or one of his generals having recruited them himself and being levied only for a number of years rather than the long term service required from a certain date onward (possibly Augustus's time). We see again and again the expressions of bravery and courage witnessed by Caesar of his own men in action and the determination requiring incredible effort to construct siege engines or wait out a siege, or for that matter the persistance by the armies involved in continuing the struggle to conquer territory when there was no real incentive to do so apart from honour in war and the gratitude of their general.

First came the invasion of northern Italy into Cisalpine Gaul where the Helvetii, an Alpine tribe, planned a migration into other parts directly imposing themselves on client tribes under Rome's protection and north Italy itself, a situation not tolerated. From there, after their defeat, Caesar continued into Gaul ostensibly to help other tribes against Germanic invaders originally called to help in domestic disputes between Gaulish tribes. In this way Caesar gradually eliminated tribe after tribe in clever tactics designed to disrupt the banding together of the whole of Gaul against him. Obtain hostages and promises from one and nove onto the next fight a decisive battle usually against odds such as 2-3 or even 5 to 1, defeat them and punish whatever was seen wrong in Roman eyes, establish Roman control and so the law and get Caesar as judge over disputes and Bob's your uncle, one conquered country. Caesar was not only a brilliant commander and very clever man but also excellent at getting his men to trust and love him, as well he knew how to plan and carry out a campaign, taking risks when necessary, all in all a natural talent.

He writes fluently with litte influence of personal detail but rather in an entertaining style easily captivated by. But the book is a commentary and intended as such, this must be remembered.

Throughout we see the vast difference in the times of Caesar and say Nero, in Caesar's time the eagerness and devotion and determination as well as courage of the Roman army could not be faulted, nowhere do we see cowardice in play, his men running or being frightened by the Germans with their reputation for ferocity and toughness. The confidence of the army grows as victory builds on victory. Unfortunately very little is said of military tactics in battle itself or the troop movements or how commands are given or how men are relieved with fresh troops in close combat fighting in multiple lines, this has remained a mystery but nonethelss a known ability which would have required astonishing discipline and bravery. On the other hand we see in Tacitus's day that corruption and fear and cowardice are ripe, everywhere one looks such a decline is obvious, where did the vital, proud and brave army go, or for that matter the people themselves. What a difference 100 years make and maybe a couple of defeats as well, such as the Varus disaster which basically ended a conquest of Germany, the one enemy, even more than the Parthians which were implacable and undefeated watching and waiting in the background for a hint of weakness. It is also seen how the way Romans saw foreigners changed significantly in this time, in Caesar's time they were simply barbarians and non-Romans, in Tacitus's time after decades of service in the army and long trade and contact they came to be seen in a new light more human and less barbarian. The Roman himself less stoic under pressure and more prone to weakness. Why did this happen ? Not simple questions if indeed it is true.

An excellent narrative unsentimental and thorough as the man himself.

I absolutely enjoyed reading this 2000 year old play by play campaign account of Caesar and his conquering legions in Gaul. The text is anything but boring which you might expect from your experience with latin readings from highschool. It has intrigue, treachery, fighting and spectacular engineering feats of a modern war novel. Caesar relays all of this in the most non-chalant manner as if there was little effort involved. From building a bridge across the Rhine in 20 days to the 14 to 10 mile line long seige fortification at Alesia, it testified to the awesome capabilities of the Roman army in addition to it's fighting prowess. We also see Caesar at his best: when the situation turn to mush (sometimes due to his own lack of forsight) Caesar would not only prevent disaster but frequently completely reverses it and turns it into a victory. One wonders how history would have unfolded if Caesar had been destroyed with his legions at the Sabine River by the Nervii....
However, part of the attraction to the book is also because Caesar wrote it to be a great propaganda piece for himself. Those Roman historians out there know better not to take Caesar's word on everything point and try to read between the lines. After all Ceasar conquest of Gaul was stepping stone in his grand plan to achieve absolute power over Rome (not that Pompey was slacking either) which explains why Caesar had to achive a decesive victory in Gaul at any cost.
As military history text it is one of the better ones of its time because of its attention to detail (terrain, weapons, tactics and logistics) and Caesar's habit of being present in most of the battles. There are some general maps of the important regions in appendix but it is lacking in tactical diagrams and one as has rely on the text to get a picture of the fighting. For more detailed analysis of the military aspects of Caesar's career and better situation and tactical maps I would recommend T. A. Dodge's "Caesar". However, the latter is not a light read and not recommended for beginners in ancient history.

Amazingly well written and easily readable personal account of the war in Gaul by Caesar himself. Caesar would write these memoirs each year at the end of the Campaign season when in his Winter camp and they have an enormous level of detail. For example, during his first campaign season there is a very detailed account of how the Celts/Gauls built their city walls that made me feel like running out and building a minature reproduction with Lincoln Logs, stones and dirt in the back yard (my wife would have loved that). Clearly, Caesar is recording this for future Roman armies so they know how the Gallic walls are built and how they can be destroyed. At one of the first cities in Gaul that Caesar lays siege to, the defenders gather on the walls and call the Romans names and throw things down at them, reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python movie where a Gallic defender hurls epithets and other objects down at soldiers in front of a castle. However, when Caesar's troops begin to slowly wheel a massive, multi-story siege engine out of the woods and up to the walls, the occupants throw open their gates, run out, and surrender without a fight. The Romans usually faced lopsided odds in their battles and were frequently outnumbered 3:1. They overcame these odds by the incredible disipline and physical conditioning of the Roman troops who would march up to 50 miles per day with armor and weapons. The battles would usually be lost by the first side whose men panicked and fled the field. Caesar's accounts of battle give you an idea of how critically important discipline and physical strength and conditioning were to the military success of Rome. There are also hints at the possible causes of the later downfall of Rome to the Germanic invasions since Caesar is clearly impressed by the Germanic tribes ability to fight and their physical size and strength. However, it is also clear that Caesar was a great general and would choose the location of his battles very carefully. In multiple instances Caesar retreats to a more favorable location before offering battle. With the better Gallic generals, this would lead to a game of cat and mouse to see who would pick the terrain and therefore fight from a position of advantage. In nearly all instances, Caesar was able to fight on his terms through his own patience and discipline as well as that of his troops. All in all, this is a fascinating historical account that really comes alive and one which I have gone back to several times to re-read.

McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series is a remarkable achievement. Who can fail to be in awe of McCullough's research, focus, and dedication?

"The October Horse" is essentially the story of Caesar's adventure in Egypt, his subsequent assassination, and the subsequent rise of his designated heir, Octavius Caesar. It is possible to learn a lot of late Republican Roman history by reading this book.

In "the October Horse" McCullough's writing is much less like a novel and much more like a historical summary than the rest of this series. Her prose is less intimate, more detached, and frankly, less clear and direct than her other books. From this standpoint the novel was a disappointment to me. I also felt that McCullough glossed over Julius Caesar's evident megalomania in his latter days. Possibly because McCullough is herself so enamored of Caesar, whom she portrays as virtually a god on earth, she seems to gloss over Caesar's frank undermining of the key institutions of the Roman Republic. Once Caesar became dictator for life, the Republic never recovered and eventually declined into the Imperium.

One strong point of the novel is that it does a pretty good job of portraying Octavius Caesar. By the end of the novel I felt that I knew him, and that I understood how he was able to rise to eventually become Rome's first emperor.

I would have liked the novel better if it had focused more on how the Roman Republic was ultimately destroyed by Caesar and Octavius (and, to be fair, by their enemies including Cato and his "Good Men"). I felt that the novel would have been better had McCullogh engaged in more novelization and less historical summary. Despite these criticisms (which, to be fair, not everyone may agree with) the novel is a good read and certainly constitutes fine historical fiction.

Unlike Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series avoids moral or philosophical themes. McCullough takes all known historical facts about republican Rome and turns out a novel. Where there are gaps in what we know, she imposes her own interpretations and extrapolations, which all serve to develop her characterization of historical figures. All this makes for a rollicking good read.

The Rome series spanned the life of Julius Caesar whose time to die has finally arrived; McCullough could not stretch him out for another novel. She gets the death scene right, presenting Caesar's fall with understated elegance, in spite the gore.

Besides Caesar, we are treated to a legion of other characters: Cleopatra, Brutus, Mark Antony, Cato, to name a few, and also interesting completely fictional characters such as Caesar's Egyptian doctor Hap'fadne. But my favourite of all is Octavius. Octavius closes the series the end of the book, we are left with just a twenty five year gap before he reappears as Augustus in Robert Graves's "I, Claudius".

It's interesting to note that McCullough wrote two non-Roman books between Caesar and October Horse. I suspect she was putting off killing Caesar because she had grown too fond of him. There is precedent: Alexandre Dumas went into a deep depression after killing Porthos in the last book of the Three Musketeers series.

I'm a huge fan of McCullough's Rome series. I've been entranced since "The First Man in Rome", which was quite a while ago. I honestly wish this wasn't the end.
Having said that, I found this one a little hard to get through. The dozen principle characters are well drawn and three dimensional, but the 752 other people who populate every corner of the novel kinda muddy the waters. Many seem superfluous, although those with a better classical education than I will no doubt enjoy their presence. There are passages which read so fast, I was left breathless. But there are also several passages where I literally had to back up, get some momentum, re-read a few pages, and hammer my way through.
Caesar, Cato, Octavian, Brutus, Cicero...these portrayals are so vivid they will affect every non-fiction account about this time period I'll ever read.
The worst thing I can say about this book is that now I have the urge to go back to Book One and start over. I hope she'll change her mind and take us through Octavian's life...I've got to go get some history books so I can find out what happens with him, Antony, Cleopatra, Caesarion...

Fantastic history of one of the most fascinating places in the world. My wife and I are going to Venice for a two-week vacation in September, and I ordered the book to get an idea of what we'll be seeing there. This history was much better than I ever expected it could be. Unlike most histories, it was not dry nor boring, but brought the city and its background to light in a way that reads like a good novel.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Venetian and/or Italian history.

I picked this book up in preparation for my first visit to Venice, and soon became enthralled with the unique and fascinating history of one of the most unusual cities to have ever flourished. I read this book with pleasure even while standing up on the train commuting. Lord Norwich writes with gusto about the enormous economic power of Venice, its entrepreneurial ventures, its home-grown political structure, the art and architecture, the special esprit that Venetians showed and the in-fighting among the various Italian city-states. Highly recommended for being both a very well written book and also covering some fascinating history. Will enhance a visit to Venice by a factor of 10

Readers of Lord Norwich's Byzantium will appreciate this look at the history of Venice, and at the events and personalities which contributed to creating this jewel of the Mediterranean. Norwich navigates successfully through his detailed treatment of frequently repetitious events such as Venice's senseless struggle with Genoa for supremacy with his usual humour and knack for lively detail. Like his history of Byzantium, with its recurring theme of usurping emperors' physical mutilation of predecessors, this history too has a recurring theme: the attempt by the Venetian oligarchy, through a complex electoral process, to limit the power of the Doge by perpetuating a gerontocracy whose selection alternates among several prominent families. Readers of Byzantium should know that the chapter on the Fourth Crusade was recycled nearly verbatim from the present work, but this fact does not diminish the integrity of either volume

Norwich's shorter, colleted version of his three larger works bears many similarities to the many condensed version of Gibbon's classic "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Norwich's piece, having been written more recently moves at a much quicker pace and is not restrained by more antiquated language. Chapter by chapter the author fires blazing tales of corruption, intrigue, scandal, war and devastation. I particularly enjoyed the pieces pertaining to the reigns of Constantine (particularly the background around his conversion), Theodosius the Great, Justinian, and Basil II.

These are fascinating stories, and the author makes sure to put them in the proper historical frame, to let the reader understand what else was happening in the world as Byzantium continued to shine as the lone beacon from the collapsed Roman Empire. As other historical characters fade in and out of Byzantium's historical spotlight, Mr. Norwich is careful to provide them with a proper introduction, allowing the reader to understand their motives and ambitions.

One of the reasons I found this history so interesting is because it is so new. We learn so little about this culture through traditional American history classes that all of this information is enlightening. Mr. Norwich does lament this fact towards the end of the book, and he has certainly done a good job of helping correct this oversight.

If the textbooks used in our school were written in the way A Short History of Byzantium was, history classes would have been more fun for each and everyone of us. Of course, this book is not without its flaws. The fast-paced narration would probably lose your attention for a second or two, but, when you think about the fact that it was a condensed version of a originally large three-volume work, you still have to give credits to the author for his successful attempts in keeping the essence of the whole subject. This book would have no problem serving as a good reference for history classes dealing with western civilization and alike. It also gives a pretty good insight into the theological conflicts during the time of late Roman empire and throughout the Byzantine era. The violent scenes of the early warfare were also well described.

It is not a large book and it does not provide every details you want to know about Byzantium. However, after reading the very last page, you can be sure that you will know a lot more about this christendom, unless you already are a specialist in the study of Byzantine.

This is a very fast-paced and enjoyable history from Norwich, cramming a gigantic amount of history into a rather short book. Here Norwich has condensed his masterwork, a 1200-page trilogy on the Byzantine Empire, into a single volume for maximum impact. The intricate details, references, and notes are left to the trilogy - so this book, while short on evidence and details, is full of action and intrigue. For various reasons the Byzantine Empire has been unappreciated by Western scholars, being condemned to obscurity in favor of the less cultured and shorter-lived Roman Empire. In fact the Byzantine Empire survived for another thousand years after the Romans fell to a bunch of scraggly barbarians, keeping the classic culture of Rome and Greece alive while Europe languished uselessly in the dark ages. In addition to his competent research and sharply enjoyable writing, Norwich performs a real service in bringing to light the religious and cultural accomplishments of the Byzantines. He also has a real eye for the empire's never-ending political intrigues and skullduggery (an example is their love of gouging out their opponents' eyes). Due to this book's focus on the action, it can get confusing at times. Short-lived emperors, and a few empresses, often zoom on by without making much of an impression, while intricate political shenanigans with Europe (especially in the later days of the Empire) are hard to follow. Another problem is the Byzantines' habit of giving everyone the same names, as about a gazillion Constantines, Johns, Michaels, and even Andronicuses blur together in confusion. The lack of detail and clarification in some parts of this book may be frustrating, or may make you yearn to read the much larger trilogy. In either case this breakneck tour of Byzantium is a fascinating read.

Julius Caesar is probably one of the better plays written by Shakespeare. This play if full of intrigue, action, betrayal, and emotion. This play is not very long (5 acts), which makes it a quick and exciting read. The characters are built nicely, and what is nice about this version of the book, is that it is easy to read, and any words that may be unfamiliar are defined on the opposite page, making it easy to look them up, and understand Shakespeare's difficult writing style. This is definately a play worth checking out. It's a fun read, and with plenty of helpful tools built in to help along the way.

This superb play by Shakespeare somehow reminded me of Antigona, the first play which directly examined the always complex interplay and usual confrontation between political reason and moral reason. This play is an excellent account of the immediately previous and subsequent days of Julius Caesar's assasination by Brutus, his best friend, and other conspirators. Brutus is persuaded by the resentful Cassius that Caesar has betrayed Rome by abandoning the Republic and turning to Dictatorship. Brutus gets to be convinced that, in order to save the Republic, Caesar must be killed. This puts him in a great dilemma, for he loves Caesar and he's his closest friend. Here we see in an acute form the way in which political power gets in conflict with morality and feelings. Friendship, power and betrayal are the basic subjects of this excellent piece of work.

A while back, a friend of mine and I decided to pick a Shakespeare play every couple months, read it, then get together and discuss it.

It worked with pretty good results for ROMEO AND JULIET, but then we ran out of gas somewhere in the middle of our next selection, JULIUS CAESAR.

Now that I've finally finished reading the play long after our allotted "couple months," I have to say that the fault (the mutual disinterest that effectively brought our little Shakespeare club to a halt) doesn't lie in the play itself, but rather in my preconceptions of what the play was about.

I can't speak for my friend, but since I took the Cliff Notes route in high school when we were supposed to be reading about Caesar and Brutus and the rest of the treacherous Roman senate (and didn't do a very thorough job at that) I always assumed the play's action revolved around the plot to kill Caesar and culminated with his death scene. I wasn't prepared to find Caesar dead halfway through the play, with two-plus acts remaining. I think I just lost interest once Caesar blurted, "Et tu, Brute?" and slouched over lifeless on the cold marble.

But thankfully I eventually kept going, and discovered what the play is really about: the manipulation of the public that goes on after Caesar's death. The speeches in JULIUS CAESAR, given by those who would take his place, are full of the damage-control, image-making spin that happens everday on our "all news" channels. It's an interesting play, maybe not Shakespeare's best, but one that has certainly has some modern relevance and is worth examining.

Now if my friend and I can just get our club back on its feet. Maybe a comedy next time...

Shakespeare's play, "Othello" is usually recognized as one of his "great" tragedy's (with Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth). It certainly has a quite exciting plot and great poetry. If you have not yet had an oportunity to read this great work, I recomend it strongly. It is still an intelligent treatment of race, family and civic duty, and sex. It also has one of the most interesting bad guys around - Iago.

I read it in the Arden edition, edited by Honigmann. Honigmann argues that Othello has a strong claim at being Shakespeare's greatest tragedy and makes a strong case for the work. He has a good introduction that gives a quite balanced and clear overview on many topics regarding this play, from the "double" time method Shakespeare uses, overviews of the various characters, as well as a the stage history. Amazingly, he can be remarkably balanced, even when he is talking about his own views. While he is a decent writer, Shakespeare is better... In the text itself, he gives quite ample footnotes to help explain the language, why he picked particular readings, as well as where themes came from...

Like all scholarly Shakespeare editions, the notes are in danger of overloading the text. This reader, however, recognizes the distance between myself and Shakespeare and so I find it comforting to be able to look at the notes when I have questions. At times his "longer notes" were awkward, but there is no easy way to handle this amount of material.

Jealousy is perhaps the ugliest of emotions, an acid that corrodes the heart, a poison with which man harms his fellow man. Fortunately for us, Shakespeare specializes in ugly emotions, writing plays that exhibit man at his most shameful so we can elevate ourselves above the depths of human folly and watch the carnage with pleasure and awe.

In "Othello," the "green-eyed monster" has afflicted Iago, a Venetian military officer, and the grand irony of the play is that he intentionally infects his commanding general, Othello, with it precisely by warning him against it (Act 3, Scene 3). Iago has two grievances against Othello: He was passed over for promotion to lieutenant in favor of the inexperienced Cassio, and he can't understand why the Senator's lily-white daughter Desdemona would fall for the black Moor. Not one to roll with the punches, he decides to take revenge, using his obsequious sidekick Roderigo and his ingenuous wife Emilia as gears in his transmission of hatred.

The scheme Iago develops is clever in its design to destroy Othello and Cassio and cruel in its inclusion of the innocent Desdemona. He arranges (the normally temperate) Cassio to be caught by Othello in a drunken brawl and discharged from his office, and using a handkerchief that Othello had given Desdemona as a gift, he creates the incriminating illusion that she and Cassio are having an affair. Othello falls for it all, and the tragedy of the play is not that he acts on his jealous impulses but that he discovers his error after it's too late.

It is a characteristic of Shakespeare that his villains are much more interesting and entertaining than his heroes; Iago is proof of this. He's the only character in the play who does any real thinking; the others are practically his puppets, responding unknowingly but obediently to his every little pull of a string. In this respect, this is Iago's play, but Othello claims the title because he -- his nobility -- is the target.

Shakespeare's Othello is an interesting and dramatic tragedy. If you like imagery and irony, you will like Othello. Shakespeare uses the power of imagery skillfully to develop themes throughout the play. For example, recurring animal imagery is used to sharpen the contrast between people and beasts, showing how Iago and Othello begin to act more like beasts than human beings. Irony also adds much to the plot of Othello to make it interesting and exciting for the reader. Much of the irony used is dramatic irony because the reader knows of Iago's plot, while the characters in the play have no idea what is about to unfold. The relationship between men and women in Othello is another aspect of the play that makes it interesting to read. Iago's wife Emilia, for example, is very cynical towards men, probably from years of living with Iago. Othello and Desdemona's relationship is also intriguing. In the beginning of the play, Othello and Desdemona are seemingly deeply in love with each other. Othello, however, is rather easily convinced that his wife is cheating on him and becomes angry to the point where he cannot forgive Desdemona. He decides to kill her. As she is being murdered, Desdemona tries to protect her husband's innocence in her own murder. Another interesting aspect of the play which makes it stand out from other Shakespearean plays is the race of the main character. Othello is black and a Moor, or Muslim. This fact brings up issues to be explored in the play. Shakespeare shows the characters being separated not only by status and rank but also by their place of origin and their religion. Overall, Shakespeare's Othello is dramatic, well-written, and thoroughly explores how evil a human being can become.

It is a bit ironic that a sociologist (as Mr Wilson is) would stress economic causal factors, while economists (such as Thomas Sowell) frequently refer to the sociocultural determinants (emphasis on cultural). Ironic, but understandable, especially if you view all human behavior (including the books that scholars write), as having sociopolitical motives (emphasis on political). That is is what makes this book so refreshing. WHEN WORK DISAPPEARS offers explanations other than the tiresome cant of cultural deterministic causes favored by 'cant'servatives, and the acidic analyses by 'vitrioliberals' who incessantly blame racism.

Mr Wilson states that the inner cities have seen the disappearance of unskilled factory jobs; the low wage economy was characterized by stable black neighborhoods, and even with low pay, the situation was sustainable. These neighborhoods are gone and have been replaced by crime-infested slums. The causal factor is global economic reorganization, not racism, nor culture (although Mr Wilson does refer to "ghetto-related behavior and attitudes").

Blaming racism is a meretricios argument, especially when analyses such as Michael Dawsons' BEHIND THE MULE show that blacks are themselves divided on the issue. Upper income blacks are much more likely than lower income blacks to blame poor blacks for their own plight. The complexity of the matter is further illustrated by works such as Jennifer Hochschilds' FACING UP TO THE AMERICAN DREAM where she says that poor, urban, blacks are optimistic about the eventual success of the next generation, and they are often "touchingly gratified by their own or their children's progress.".

Mr Wilson is obviously aware of this complexity, and he shows that he is not politically naive. He rejects the favored term of conservatives - the underclass - when refering to the inner city poor. Some argue that it is used as a euphemism for lumpen. Mr Wilson calls the word an "epithet." The specious argument that 'racism is to blame' and the cruel 'change your culture and get a job' policy prescription, should be rejected as that of blinkered polemicists.

If the book has a fault it is in its policy prescriptions. Without providing sufficient details as to how the remedial programs will be paid for, there is scope for criticism that Mr Wilson is proposing increased spending by a larger federal bureaucracy. He refers to the role that private sector companies have in hiring former welfare recipients, but he seems pessimistic about the prospects. What else then? Certainly, Mr Wilson knows that the probability of an enlarged government role in a new war on poverty is slim to none.

The essence of my reading of the book is that concentrated joblessness, not just concentrated poverty, is afflicting many people in old urban areas, and that prolonged joblessness, even more than prolonged poverty, is a profoundly disabling condition not only for individuals, but for communities, and has intergenerational effects.

Support for his theories is drawn from survey and ethnographic reseach with ghetto and non-ghetto residents and Us census data, as well as evidence from projects which involved relocation from ghetto to non-ghetto areas.

Focused on the American urban ghettos, with most of its data drawn from Chicago area studies, Wilson discusses the overlap of ghetto poverty areas, jobless ghettos, and the effects of living in each. He gives significant attention to the role of race- segregation, racially coded policy, ghetto culture, and attitudes of employers towards race and their employees. Of special interest is his aside on the opinions of black employers to black employees (reflective of the general pool of employers opinions towards black employees).

Wilson also examines ghetto related culture, the informal economies of the ghetto, and the place of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in the decision making calculus of ghetto residents.

What is, IMHO, key to reading this book is keeping in mind that areas of ghetto poverty and ghetto joblessness are growing, deepening, and are not in a position to self-correct. Put simply, if joblessness is a key factor in the creation of ghettos, it needs to be addressed by supply-side solutions (job creation & employment of last resort, fostering adequate social supports (childcare, etc.)), and not simply reconfiguring the stick of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (the successor program to AFDC ).

If you're looking for a detailed set of proposals, Wilson retreads several good ideas (universal healthcare among them), but you'll be able to find far more developed versions of the same proposals elsewhere. If you're looking for a more in-depth look at poverty and joblessness in urban areas, however, this is an excellent place to start.

I think there are two major problems with theories that attempt to explain black poverty as something completely or primarily due to welfare, "culture", or genetics: first, they seem to lack a comprehensive understanding of African-American history. Second, from everything I've seen, such theories totally ignore the very similar conditions experienced by other ethnic/national minority groups in many advanced as well as developing countries (ex: Gypsies, Maori, Aboriginies, etc.). On the other hand, an author such as Wilson offers a very refreshing insight into the conditions of the urban poor. While his policy prescriptions call for a much stronger, activist government, the focus of this book is the analysis of the current conditions of the black urban poor and how it reached it's current state. In that sense, it should be accesible to all political stripes. Also, this book is not in any way a "marxist" critique; it never criticizes American or global "capitalism" as the cause of the poor's suffering. The citing of socio-economic factors, such as technological and industrial changes, as a major factor in the deteriorating conditions of the urban poor is quite a different thing than stating that one can only solve such problems by overthrowing capitalism (this is a marxist perspective, not Wilsons). Also, the author's analysis does not lack addressing issues of "personal responsibility" or cultural, behavioral norms. On the contrary, he takes these very sensitive issues head-on and concludes that in some important ways there is a distinctive sub-culture (a "culture of poverty"), but not for the reasons some intellectuals assert (welfare, genetics, etc.). Differing social norms concerning work ethic, education, attitudes at work, etc. primarily exist because of the high rate of concentration and separation of the black urban poor from white, middle-class society. Those who grow up in a community where joblessness is actually the norm (and all of its associated ills) will not have adequate preparation for decent-paying jobs that require good education, work references, and interpersonal skills. I could say so much more, but I should probably limit this review to concluding that Wilson's work is destined to become a classic sociological reference and an important guide for other writers as well as policy-makers.

I received this book as a gift, probably because I had been lamenting how Congress lost a great leader in J.C. Watts, Jr. In this book Watts asks the question: "How can a black man be a Republican, a conservative one at that?" (p. xi.) For him it is common sense; his upbringing and experience growing up on the "wrong side of the tracks" in small town Eufaula, Oklahoma, led him to become the conservative that he is today. The book is littered with examples of how his life experience controlled his voting record.

What particularly interested me is a theme Watts repeatedly returned to concerning a new kind of segregation and bigotry, based not on our skin color but rather what we might believe. Many have fallen victim to the Intolerant Left - Walter Williams, Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell are a few names - merely because they have conservative values. One reviewer below makes our point: "File this one next to your biographies of Clarence 'Uncle' Thomas, Colin 'Token' Powell, and Kindasleezy 'White' Rice." Such asinine and inflammatory comments do not deserve a reply but Watts says of this attitude:

"Could there be any sadder commentary on the state of black America today than this? That one of our nation's greatest heroes [Powell], a man of unquestionable integrity, courage, and compassion, who has dedicated serving his life to others, doesn't 'reflect the African American community'? What can any of us do other than shake our heads in sadness that an articulate, extraordinary talented, brilliant woman [Rice] who has ever served both the highest echelons of our government and one of the world's leading institutions of higher learning doesn't 'reflect the African American community'?" (p. 247.)

One problem though is Watts' high view of Abraham Lincoln. This is not surprising as almost everyone idolizes the man. Thus I recommend Thomas J. Dilorenzo's The Real Lincoln. But this is my only bone with Watts. The book is worth the read and you'll come out with a fresh perspective. I know I did.

J. C. Watts' book can be read on two levels. On the one hand, it is an inspirational story of a boy from a small town who grew up to achieve the American Dream. On the other, it is a manifesto which boldly describes how a "compassionate conservative" approach to solving problems can make America "a better place."

Watts, who is black, grew up in a rural community in eastern Oklahoma and came of age before racial segregation and Jim Crow policies had completely died out. Although he faced formidable obstacles to success, he found inspiration from his parents, his coach, the legendary Barry Switzer, and others who molded his character and instilled in him the virtues of faith, personal responsibility, hard work, and tenacity. Armed with these virtues, Watts found success on the football field, where he become a star quarterback for the University of Oklahoma, and on Capitol Hill, where he quickly gained a reputation as a mover and shaker after his election to Congress. Throughout his book, Watts emphasizes his formula for success: focusing on an objective, acquiring the necessary skills and knowledge to achieve that objective, and maintaining the right mental attitude.

Watts describes how his conservative beliefs are a natural outgrowth of the virtues and values in which he had come to believe and from his growing realization that the Welfare State has been a failure. His views appear to fall into the school of thought which Ronald Reagan dubbed "the Creative Society" in 1967, and which George W. Bush later rechristened "Compassionate Conservatism." He believes that the federal government's approach to solving domestic problems should be to set an agenda for action and then remain in the background while private and faith-based organizations do most of the work aimed at carrying out the agenda. This approach, argues Watts, can be effective in dealing with issues ranging from social security reform to pollution abatement. Accordingly, Watts calls for removing government restrictions on such organizations so they can act effectively.

Although he is a committed conservative, Watts remains an independent thinker, and he recounts the occasions in which he has crossed swords with his fellow Republicans and conservatives.

Whether or not readers agree, Watts' arguments should inspire them to think "out of the box" and consider new approaches to solving social problems. In any case, readers should find his life story to be inspirational.

When I picked up this book I had intentions of learning about how J.C. dealt with politics in his life. After reading it I was pleasantly surprised about how in-depth the book goes into his life in general, not just politics. He discusses in great length, what it was like for him to grow up in Oklahoma, and how the views of his parents have molded him into who he is today. Some people might disagree with a lot of his political stances, but it is hard to disagree with the merit at which he chose those stances. His views are views that many American's share, whether or not many believe it. For those who like sports, his descriptions of sport analogies, and how they tie into life, should be adequate enough to get you to understand his political views. For those who perfer a pure political book this may not be for them. In retrospect, he could have used the title Leadership in his book just as well as Conservative. I think that the title of 'What Color is a Conservative' is not quite enough, as this book touches on much more then politics, which I think is the basis of our general definition of Conservative when we discuss those who hold a political office. It is a great book, and a shame that the people of the U.S. will lose a great Congressional member. But no matter what office he holds, his legacy will be based upon his ability to lead, which nobody who reads this book should question.