This book was written by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's sons. In light of David Greenglass' recent confession, I recommend this book. If nothing else, it shows the trauma these two boys went through during our national witch hunt.

I read this book during my senior year of high school for an English paper and was fortunate enough to have met Mr. Meeropol who is a college professor in my hometown (and apparently the author of other books available on Amazon.com!). This book was one of the first texts I had read that caused me to question the version of past events that History books tell. I had always been told that the Europeans had saved the "savages" in the New World, the Crusades had been about enlightenment, and that the Rosenbergs were guilty. After reading this book, things went from black and white to the subtle shades of grey that more closely resemble the world we live in. It also helped me understand the strength of character of the Meeropol brothers. No matter what your individual interpretation of the Rosenberg trial is, a person has to take notice of the great personal courage that it took for this average couple to stand up for their beliefs, even when it meant they would be killed. We have leaders nowadays that change their minds in a heartbeat at the mere mention of a high disapproval rating. While I am not communist, nor very liberal (in a Massachusetts sense!) I have to say that this is a compelling book of loss, strength and doing what is right, even when it is not convenient to do so:)
I would strongly recommend reading this book, or possibly making it part of a summer reading program for high school students. I'm so glad I looked up that college professor and didn't just write my English paper on a relative or a neighbor! I learned a lot:) Thank you for allowing an 18 yr old kid to interview you:)

Kat Roy, USAFA 98. Tell Mrs Moriarity I said "hello".

While clearly not written for specialists on Byzantium, nor for specialists in warfare during this period, the book (the first of 3) is an enjoyable read nonetheless. Covering the rise of Constantine the Great through the rise of Charlemagne in the West, Norwich does a very good job of creating a readable story of the confusing nature of alliances and political double dealing that was the essence of the Byzantine Empire.

Speaking from a military perspective, I would have like to have seen greater depth in the battles, which shaped the empire (along with some better maps), but I still enjoyed Norwich's humor and ability to create a gripping narrative.

If you are looking for something more serious and scholarly, look elsewhere. But if you are looking for an enjoyable history of a complex political dynamic and era, this is the book for you.

The first volume of Norwich's three volume set on Byzantium begins with the Roman emperor Constantine the Great, around the fourth century A.D., and ends with the rise of Charles the Great (Charlemagne) in the ninth century. Some memorable events covered include:
- The reign of Constantine I
- The sacking of Rome by Alaric the Goth, and the related story of Stilicho the Vandal.
- Atilla the Hun
- The fall of the Western Empire
- Justinian's reconquest of the Empire, and the exploits of the brilliant hero Belasarius.
- The tragic hero Heraclius, who fends off invasion on two fronts only to see all he worked for undone and to die sick in mind and body, a shadow of his former self.
- The unfortunate reign of the depraved Irene, the Empire's first reigning Empress.

Norwich isn't an expert historian, but this set was written with great grace and humor and was a pleasure to read. It calls attention to a part of history that has been notoriously neglected. Byzantium is a watershed in the history of Christianity, and we of course shouldn't forget that the Byzantines were responsible, in part, for the Westernization of Christianity and that the preservation of Western culture rested solely on her shoulders at least for a short, crucial period.

This first volume witnesses the fall of the Roman empire in the West and the struggle for the surviving East to come to its own identity. I tend to agree with Gibbon about the frustrating nature of the history, though: a lot of the it, and subsequently this book, deals with the petty little questions of Christianity (the nature of the Holy Trinity, the place of icons). Norwich does a good job of trying to make it appear not-so ridiculous, but it is a necessary interference in an otherwise good read.

A sumptuous historical bon-bon from an unreconstructed Orientalist, "A History of Byzantium" is armchair travel, history, and royal chicanery at its finest. A prevoius reader likens the book's breakneck pace to the Blitkrieg, but I'm not sure this--or the lack of an overview of "everyday life in Byzantine"--is a detriment to Norwich's smitten non-specialist's approach. Instead, we encounter a dizying number of palace intruigues, administrations, wars, battles, regicides and mutilations, all undertaken by deftly sketched charcters. Norwich has a veddy veddy British style--upper crust without being stuffy, grand yet humorous. Churchillian perhaps. He's great company, and a wonderful tourist guide. Reading Norwich is not unlike visiting with a long lost but friendly relative from the landed gentry. Based on the other books readers of this book have bought, he seems to be habit-forming.

Certainly Norwich is susceptible to criticism: he's not an expert and is more rewardingly read for his narrative and style than his insight, but these are reproaches about the book that this isn't rather than than the book it is--a richly entertaining, fast-paced, overview of the trials and tribulations of the Byzantine emporers told by a tremendously engaging, enthusiastic companion.

McCullough has done it again. This book really brings into sharp focus the man who was Rome - Julius Caesar. This novel, set in his formative years, is a veritable chest of passion, politics and power. McCullough has succeeded in giving fantastic colour to the people who made Rome the most powerful (and juiciest) city of its time. McCullough's Julius Caesar is a man whose traits are so abhorrent, yet so magnetic. Although we don't reach the pinnacle of Caesar's career in this novel, it leaves you begging for the next book, 'Caesar'. A real page turner.

(Tip: you need to read the first 3 novels in the Roman series to really appreciate this one. The effort is well worth the while.)

I read "Caesar's Women" without realizing it was part of a series. Subsequently I went to the beginning and read the entire series in order (including a re-read of CW), up to "Caesar" (aka "Let the Dice Fly!"). Can't wait for The October Horse!!! "Caesar's Women" brings the man to life, along with Ancient Rome. The entire series is a pleasure to read -- meticulous research, marvelous writing, wonderfully vivid characters, and exceptional attention to detail. It inspired me to read other works, including Suetonius (fabulous 1st century historian & author of "The Twelve Caesars"; translated by Robert Graves) and some non-fiction sources that didn't seem to impart anything new (I'd already learned a lot in the Masters of Rome series). The parallels to today's world (esp. in the U.S. government) are amazing. Ms. McCullough truly is one of the greatest writers of our time.

of this book. But I love reading about Julius Caesar from the point of view of Colleen McCollough always. In my opinion, I thought this was the best book of the series to date. My favorite women are Aurelia and Servilia. If I had lived back then, I would have probably been a Caesar groupie as well, based on Miss McCollough's portrayal of him. This book gives you insight into the women in Caesar's life, although that's not the whole book. There is still plenty of intrigue and politics and delightful portrayals of various characters, Cato, Cicero, Cassius, Clodius to name a few. If you want to learn about Caesar's rome, then this series is for you. Read on!

The Gallic War is a wonderful resource that I first read in junior high (I'm a history nut) and I found that it really instilled in me the idea that the more things change, the more things stay the same. Policitians were as ambitious and arrogant, War as brutal, and Armies as powerful 2,000 years ago as they are today.

While I have not read this edition, and the factual errors that Mark Snegg pointed out in his review are inexcusable, Mr. Snegg should check his facts before criticizing the error of others. A catapult is a fieldpiece that uses counterweight, pulleys and lever action to hurl a large rock of pot of greek fire at the enemy. A weapon which hurls a large bolt or arrow with pulley action is a ballista.

If there were anything Caesar was as skillful at other than the arts of war, it would have to be his ability as an author. Caesar's first-hand account of his campaigns is very sincere and to the point, yet strikingly authoritative and deep at the same time. Not a hint of arrogance or prejudice is found in his narrative as well. His prose is eloquent, and certainly rivals some of the greater Latin authors of his age. Of his ten commentaries extant, seven are contained here in his account of the Gallic Wars. An additional eighth book was written by Aulus Hirtius in order to bridge the gap between the pacification of Gaul, through the Civil Wars, until finally Caesar himself resumes his narrative with his last three commentaries on the Alexandian, African, and Spanish Wars. The work itself, of course, deals with Caesar's campaigns and relations with the Celtic and German tribes, the Celts in Gaul, and the German's east of the Rhine. Although war is not the only issue Caesar records. His interest in Celtic and Germanic culture is apparent since he provides much important evidence about the diverse tribes' way of life. This information is treasured since the Celts, though literate, were forbidden by the druids to write, and also the Germans provided no single indigenous historian until Jordanes in the middle of the sixth century. Overall, the commentaries of the Gallic Wars are a valuable source for the times and a definite work of profound literary merit.

I'm a history major and find Greek & Roman civilization fascinating. You may wonder why I only gave Caesar's book 4 stars. Well, for someone who specializes in this field, "The Gallic War" is probably about as good a source material as you're going to get. However, for the casual fan of ancient history, "The Gallic War" can get a little bland at times. Yes, Caesar is a brilliant writer, but there's almost no humor or self-depreciation in this book. The mood of the text is: Caesar knows everything, and don't forget that. It's a dry, straightforward account of Roman aggression on the people of Gaul, told from the Roman point of view, naturally.

When I was a little girl, in the sixties, I loved the story of Little Black Sambo, but thirty years later, when my son came across my copy in a box of old books, and asked me to read it to him, I found that it was a lot less charming than I thought it was. Sambo was a great, resourceful little boy and the story was terrific, but as an adult I couldnÕt overlook the obvious condescension that the British author had toward her Indian characters. I hid the book away, but reluctantly, because it really was a good story with a great central character.

A few years later, I was thrilled to find this book. Julius Lester has kept everything that I loved about the original and made it even better. The story, about a clever little boy who outwits some tigers who want to eat him, is pretty much the same as Helen BannermanÕs version. Lester has simply transported it from India to a fantastic, fairy tale America, where animals and people live and work together. But what is special here is the way Lester tells the story. His style is funny one minute and breathtakingly beautiful the next. The writing is so fine and musical, itÕs a pleasure to read aloud.

And the pictures are brilliant. Jerry Pinkney is one of the best childrenÕs book illustrators around, and this is the best thing IÕve ever seen by him. It has all the lovely qualities IÕve come to expect to find in PinkneyÕs art work Ð great composition, tasteful use of color (which makes the brighter colors of SamÕs clothes practically glow on the page), and exquisite detail. But this book has magic touches that go way beyond that. Every time I look at this book, I discover new details Ð the faces in the tree bark and foliage, the little bonnets and jackets on the insects, the facial expressions of tiny, hidden animals recoiling in fear of the tigers Ð that add to the magic world of this book.

My thanks to Julius Lester and Jerry Pinkney for making it possible for me to read this great story to my children again.

I am an elementary librarian at Hardin Northern Schools. Almost all of my students are too young to remember the controversy that surround Little Black Sambo, and have never heard the story.

I was a child that grew up with that story, and loved it dearly. I also was a child who's mother was afraid the story was sending negative messages to her impressionable children. So at a certain point in our lives Sambo was removed.

How delighted I was to see it reappear it this wonderful new light. Pinkney and Lester are masters of their domains, and have proven once again that a good story is a most powerful tool.

I introduced this book at the beginning of the year and have had temendous results. Parents and children report having conversations about the old story vs. the new one. It has opened up a new line of communication in many households in our area.

How else could you make butter from a yellow shirt, purple pants, green umbrella, red coat, silver shoes, tigers and a very clever hero? Only in a book. Thank you Mr. Lester and Mr. Pinkney!!

I am a teacher of first grade and kindergarten students. My little students are six years of age...not old enough to remember the difficulties of segregation and the story of Ruby Bridges. They have never heard the story of Little Black Sambo. This past week we've been studying the life and philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I read the wonderfully written and illustrated book of Sam and the Tigers to my kidlets. They loved the colorful illustrations and the idea that people and animals could live, speak, and work together. We all reveled in the beautiful language used by Julius Lester. This is a book the children want hear again and again.

The self-righteous comments of some previous reviewers aside, this is a good, but not a great book. Julius Evola was an Italian philosopher and esotericist who had a mild dalliance with the Fascist regime in Italy for some years. His support for Fascism was partial and conditional. It was Evola's conviction that the social order, as it exists in the modern West, was degenerate and dangerous because it militated against the values and practtices needed to transcend the mundane conditions of human life and live a more profound and exalted existence. That none of this is exclusively Fascist is obvious - it echoes current critiques of 'consumerism' that can be found from all parts of the political spectrum in the West. Evola ran for a while with the Duce because he felt that that regime was a relatively better servant of the kind of culture he felt was necessary - one geared to transcendent realities. If you actually buy this book, and read his words, or even the introductiry essay, which is a balanced examination of Evola in the light of our own times, you will see that he is much more akin to the arch-conservative opponents of the French revolution, like Joseph de Maistre, in his ideas about how a society should be ordered, than any totalitarian ideology, Right or Left. This should not be surprising, since Evola was claiming to be in accord with a Tradition that undergirded all premodern civilizations. He has much to say that might appeal to an orthodox Hindu, for example, or to a traditionalist Roman Catholic; he was not an intellectual pimp for Mussolini. If you want to see what an alternative to modernity and its discontents looks like, read this book. These things being said, the book is not without it's flaws, some of them really quite bad. He offers no concrete and coherent program for the regeneration of society, instead settling for an esoteric exegesis of things past. The society he seems to favor is probably unrealizable at present, which renders him something of a voice crying in the wilderness. What Evola advocates is really not viable except for a small minority of people, who have the time, money, and inclination to follow him. He himself is not all that bothered by this, but those who agree with his critique may not be content to sit in ascetic isolation, like some coven of Traditionalist Essenes, while civilization disintegrates around us find. A far worse problem is the fact that Evola makes use of blatantly racist stereotypes in his setting out of a typology of civilizations, in the book's second half. He himself seems to vacillate between taking the sort of mythical stories about a Hyperborean golden age, an Artic paradise of light, a race of heroes emigrating to Europe from an island in the West, the Aryans invading Europe thousands of years later, etc., seriously, or as symbols. The fact that he can interpret these ideas symbolically does not exculpate him from the fact that he is trafficking in bigoted myths that are in need of purification from the stained past they have experienced if they are to be used in serious discussion. A more 'Jungian' approach, in which these could be taken as archetypes of truths applicable to the whole of the human race, might be useful here, but I know of no one who has undertaken to do this. Therefore, while I can recommend "Revolt against the Modern World" as a powerful diagnosis of our society's woes, I cannot say that it offers anything like a viable cure.

REVOLT AGAINST THE MODERN WORLD by Sicilian noble Julius Evola formulates the doctrines and ideals of ancient tradition as embodied in the Indo-European ("Aryan") myths and ledgends of the Hindus, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Chinese, Japanese, Aztecs and Incas. Christian beliefs, especially those of Catholicism, and Islam's Koran also figure in this concept. Although Evola's ideas could be categorized as being occult and esoteric, they have absoloutely no relation to the "New Age" and humanist types of belief widely popular today. There is little in REVOLT about human brotherhood and "luhv," as these modern ideas come from inferior spiritualities that were opposed to Tradition. The concept of Tradition, as being self-existent from what is "above" and which is "transcendent" is very non material and abstract, so it is rather hard to put a finger on it. Furthermore, Evola's spirituality is not for everyone, which in fact, is the whole beauty of it.

Mankind, especially the denizens of the West, have lost touch with the divine, trancendent and superindividual elements in their lives and social structures. The current modern world is called the 'Kali Yuga' in Hinduism, the 'Iron Age' by Hesiod and the 'Age of the Wolf' in the Nordic Edda. The characteristics of the modern world are radical egalitarianism, confusion of gender and caste rolls and the non-functioning of divine regality. Evola is pro-caste system, showing that disorientation occurs when individuals within castes are unable to fulfill what their status in life.

There are many areas in this book which differ from most occult thought. Evola is strongly anti-feminist, and disdains female based spirituality as being opposed to the masculine principles in tradition. This is evidenced by the glorification of Heracles for having killed the warrior Amazonian tribeswomen, among other examples. Female sprituality tends to be regressive, which symbolically brings people back towards the darkness and unconsciousness of the womb rather than onward to greater action in the light, as embodied by masculine orientated spirituality, the Solar principle. The fact that the word "Aryan" appears about five times on nearly every page is also not in vouge. Evola voices contempt for the breakdown of the traditional family structure, the increased rate of divorce and sexual promiscuity.

In Evola's final analysis, he comes out against spectator sports as a mere plebian pastime, against dance concerts as the epitome of the mindless human mass under control, and demonizes modern day science as being the "science of dead matter." As far as religious outlook is concerned, Evola belives in some kind of myth that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans came from a distant land in the north (Hyperborea, likely a vegetated Greenland before the Ice Age), and rejects Darwin's theory of evoloution. There are a good number of anti-Christian statements, but his assessment of Catholicism is relativly positive. As to God's Law, traditional men believed that the Law was given by the Divine from above to guide man, in keeping with the Biblical teaching. Evola is against the concept of religion as being merely moral and humanistic speculation without any unifying rites of worship. The tone throughout is very pessimistic, and his quote from a Hindu text describing the Kali Yuga that describes America down to the last detail. However there is a note of optimism: Hesiod wrote that he was glad that he was not born in the Iron Age. Evola disagrees with him. Anyone who is standing among the ruins in today's modern world in the name of what comes from above will be a greater hero then the ones in the ages before. As it was written on the Kamikaze aircraft, "You are gods who are free from all human yearnings."

The Modern Age is falling and the West is in an era of decadence. The darkest of all the dark ages, what the Hindus called the Kali Yuga, is before us and Ragnarok (Twilight of the Gods) is at hand. Tradition has been trammeled upon by modern utilitarian, pragmatist, and collectivist thought and the once sacred has been made profane. Mass-man is so caught up in collectivist thought and meaningless activity that he cannot be saved. Only a select group of elite traditionalists preserving the traditional Weltanschauung can restore a transcendent order to the world after the fall of this era. An ascetic neoscholasticism is needed to preserve the tradition intact while this cycle comes to an end.

This is the message of Julius Evola in _Revolt Against the Modern World_. In this book, Evola fully dispels the modern myth of progress and reveals it as nothing more than a cover for a decadent society. Evola spends the first part of this book and much of the second part expostulating a traditional world order based on the idea of immanence-transcendence, before it's break-up at the end of the Middle Ages. He explains how an occult band of knights, members of the warrior caste, preserved tradition in the form of chivalry, during this period. However, with the advent of modern times, this tradition has largely been lost to us. Evola develops a myth of man's origins in a Golden Age, a Hyperborean race at the pole. A conflict developed between North and South, and between "solar" and "lunar" forms of religion. This conflict was at the heart of medieval Catholicism, and was reflected in the growing separation between priest and ruler. Originally, Evola argues, the Church sanctified the monarchy (the emperor) by a special rite. However, when this practice ended it made possible conflicting national loyalties to split up the medieval picture. With the Protestant Reformation which produced a strong emphasis on individualism more damage was done to the traditional world. As such, the world of tradition was lost and covered up by a world based more and more on utilitarian, hedonist, and ultimately collectivist principles, especially as witnessed in the French and Russian revolutions. This is the grim state of affairs we find ourselves in today. (Evola leaves off with a view of Europe "enclosed in the pincers" of America and the Soviet state, with America becoming more and more collectivist in nature and thinking.)

Man must return to the values which are transcendent if he ever is to create a meaningful life. And, this is precisely what is absent from today's empty, hollow society. The philosophies of radical individualism and collectivism, nationalism and communism, pervade every aspect of our existence. And, we have lost much. Only by a return to tradition can we hope to achieve a new existence with a newfound meaning.

Julius Evola was a fascinating character with much of interest to the dreamer and the mystic. Unfortunately, he allied himself with fascism briefly; however this is not the true basis for his thought.

I read this book to try to get an idea of who Caeser was, what his accomplishments were, and how the Roman Republic was transformed into an Empire. While this book did fulfill those goals, it was difficult to finish. To his credit, Meier drives home important points about his subject: the influence of Sulla, the importance of the achievement ethic, the paradox of the reactionary regime, so forth. But much of the book is not very understandable or interesting to a reader who is not avidly versed in Roman Republican history. In this sense, while I thought the book too long and drawn out, I would almost need to read it again to get most of the authors points! So, this is a good second book on Caesar, not the introduction I was hoping for. Finally, the end is quite abrupt, as only a few pages are dedicated to explaining the adoption of Augustus and Caesar's assasination, and Meier does not summarize well the lasting effect Caesar's legacy had on the Empire to be.

Meier considers his book a "scholarly biography," but it's intended for a general audience -- in omitting footnotes and even a bibliography, for example, he already sets his book apart from the usual scholarly studies. Meier has clearly done a great deal of research and thinking on the subject over a long period of time, and he readily presents the conflicting theories behind many events in and facets of Caesar's life. If you're looking for a detailed military analysis of "Caesar the General" and his campaigns specifically, this isn't it. The book is part biography, part character analysis; while the latter is always dangerous when dealing with a titanic historical figure like Caesar, Meier never stoops to the kind of superficial psychoanalysis that too often plagues biographies dealing with great figures from antiquity (such as Alexander the Great). He bases his ideas on the ancient sources and the work of prominent scholars throughout history. Meier's many questions and hypotheses are always considered and balanced, and often more than intriguing -- particularly interesting to me is the way in which he contrasts Caesar as a mover of events and as one being moved along by them at various times in this turbulent period. I often got the impression that I was reading the work of a scholar who was happy to free himself from the usual academic restraints and was simply letting all of his ideas and questions out of the bag, and that's refreshing. Meier does a fine job of synthesizing the life and career of a complicated, restless man and the development of a very complex era into a readable and fascinating book -- he covers all the various aspects of Caesar's life in a balanced way (the brilliant general, the ambitious politician, the shrewd diplomat, the writer, etc.). It's a bit plodding in spots, and it would help the reader to know the basic outline of the period before delving into the book, but overall it's a great read. This is one of the best biographies of Caesar available. My only gripes are the total absence of ANY references and the sloppy editing of this edition: the former was Meier's choice, the latter the oversight of the publisher of this edition.

Caesar, by Christian Meier is a no nonsense treatise on the life of Julius Caesar and the political maelstrom which surrounded it. Here, Meier strips the veneer away to show a man truly great, but also truly flawed.

From Caesars birth to the inevitable Ides of March, Meier educates, analyzes, and explains the person, the time, and the place with remarkable skill and detail. This isn't an edge-of-your-seat sort of reading experience. Instead, it is a comfortably patient, thought provoking book of tremendous scholarly value. Meier artfully avoids a teleological viewpoint striving successfully to explain what Caesar, Cicero, Cato, Pompey, et al, thought and saw then. We note clearly that their experience was much different than what we might see through 2000+ years of reflection.

Of particular interest is the juxtaposition between the Republic of Rome and Caesar. His thirst for recognition and the weakness of the Senate to shunt it presents paradox after paradox as Caesar struggles to control the political game. In the end, both Senate and Caesar submit to an undesired civil war. From there, the power struggle continues as does the edification of the reader.

Though the book may plod in places, these instances are brief and rare. It is well worth the time of any serious reader interested in early Rome and one of the most famous men in recorded history.

I was prepared to like this book, and really had no problems with the earlier chapters. However, the latter sections concerning the wars of the roses, and Richard III in particular, are nonsense from a historical perspective. Norwich must have flipped through a few scholarly works and decided that including footnotes and cititions would be adequate. The problem is that he tends to ignore the credibility of the sources he cites, perhaps feeling that anybody living within a couple of hundred years of the events in question would be a credible and objective source. In the case of Richard the 3rd, many other people have made the same mistakes (i.e. taking Thomas More and John Morton as reliable sources of information). However, most of these people don't embarrass themselves by writing a book that uses such sources and citiations.

Looks like Poor Richard is never going to get a break!

This book tells the story - long, confusing, but connected - of the English kings of the late Middle Ages, from the downfall and death of Edward II in 1327 and the accession of his son Edward III. His successor Richard II was deposed and killed by the Lancastrian Henry IV. Then followed his son Henry V and a great time for England against France in their ongoing Hundred-Years War. His son Henry VI was so ineffectual he set off the long bizarre dynastic scuffle called the Wars of the Roses, from which the Yorkist Edward IV finally emerged. He had his own middle brother, George, killed, but his youngest brother, the infamous Richard of Gloucester, slaughtered his way to the throne, holding it for a tenuous two years as Richard III, until the resurgent Lancastrians finally got rid of him and the whole bloody Middle Ages, and put Henry VII (the first Tudor) on the throne in 1485 - the first decent ruler poor England had seen in a century and a half.

This was the period that Shakespeare chose for his history plays. To the Elizabethans these events were still reasonably current (as our Civil War is to us), and yet enough removed - and of a different dynasty - to be safe in the playing. (Not quite: Elizabeth's (former) favorite Essex paid for a special performance of Richard II, which concerns the deposing of a legitimate monarch, and soon after he was proclaimed a traitor.) The politically savvy playwright wanted to walk the fine line between telling the ripping good yarn of these brutal yet colorful fellows, while somehow not tarnishing the gloss of the monarchy itself.

But Shakespeare was no historian. He has modified the story to suit political and dramatic exigencies, and often, it appears, by mistake. The dynastic interweavings are confusing, and his sources had gaps and contradictions, so sometimes he misplaces characters and events. More often, though, he has to tell a long story in a short time, and give it some push. Thus the compression and conflation of events, the exaggeration of character.

Ok, so maybe watching the plays is not the best way to learn English history. Certainly, Norwich brings this home. He gently but relentlessly documents Will's departures from the actual history, and they are legion. Every once in a while, in this book, he devotes a chapter to the particular play that "covers" the material he has discussed to that point. Basically, each of these chapters goes through the play at hand - I Henry IV, say - and shows how it deviates from or hews to the truth. After a few of these chapters, I just skipped them: the tale Norwich tells in his history sections is great fun, but the Shakespeare chapters simply drive home the point that the plays are at best approximations to the actual. Fair enough: I'm convinced. I still want to watch the plays: they contain cultural and emotional truth after all, besides being, many of them, great plays.

So, read this book for the history, rather than the Shakespeare criticism. And though the plays are not good history, reading a good popular history is not irrelevant to enjoying them: after all, they were written for a public that already had a better than nodding acquaintance with the events they portray. And so should you.

I was recently fortunate enough to attend the Stratford Festival of Canada where I saw, among other Shakespearean plays, the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. It was a wonderful experience but I began thinking about the events depicted in these plays; namely, how historically accurate was what I saw? This theme of historical accuracy in plays and movies has become rather popular lately, inspiring a number of books and documentaries. In an attempt to answer this question for Shakespeare's history plays, I read this book, Shakespeare's Kings, by John Julius Norwich and I'm glad I did.

This is a very well-written and informative book. In chapters alternating between history and the corresponding Shakespearean play, Norwich covers the period from Edward III through Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V to Richard III. The history chapters are clear and concise considering the large number of people that populate them, and how they are often executed, banished and losing and gaining lands and titles. Norwich is also quite good at offering different views on the period before settling on the view he feels is most substantiated. He then follows the history with an examination of the appropriate play, explaining how events are telescoped and rearranged, how characters are sometimes mistaken and invented and how even history must suffer if drama is to be maintained. I am particularly fond of the fact that Norwich doesn't let historical inaccuracies interfere with his appreciation of what a dramatist like Shakespeare needs to accomplish for a successful play. History and drama are not the same.

I was also interested to see a discussion of the play Edward III which, according to some scholars, is a recent addition to the Shakespearean canon. I had not heard of this play before nor its attribution of authorship to Shakespeare but it is listed as part new edition of the New Cambridge Shakespeare, for one. I was very glad to discover this so I could look into the matter. It is nice to see an author comment on the most current scholarship, however we might ultimately feel about the conclusions.

A final note worth mentioning to the interested reader: this book only deals with the history of the two major tetralogies. It does not cover the "fictional" histories (like King Lear, Macbeth, etc.) nor with the English histories out of sequence (King John, King Henry VIII). For what it does cover, however, it is an invaluable tool. Particularly for those who, like myself, enjoy these Shakespearean histories.

The book, Pharoahs Daughter, is a well written book about Moses childhood. The book starts off when the Pharoah, Ramses the Great, decided that every boy in the neighboring town two years or younger had to die. Without telling the whole story, somehow Moses and his older sister Almah become members of the Royal family. Throughout the whole book Moses is in a constant struggle to figure out what religion he wanted.

Some times the book was a little slow, but once I read a little further I could figure out why it was slow and it just made it all the more intersting. You couldnt miss a thing in the whole book and still understand it. It was just a well written book.

I think the most interesting thing about the whole book was when the author switched point of views in the middle of the book. He switched from Almah, the Pharoahs daughter, to Moses, The pharoahs son. Athough I caught myself getting confused by the switch, it just made the book more interesting.

I loved the historical details of the time when Ramses was Pharaoh of Egypt. Julius Lester does a wonderful job of giving both sides of the story of the baby Moses who was hidden in a basket, found by the Princess, and raised at court as her son. The struggle Moses has to resolve between Jewish beliefs and those of the court have to be solved by Moses, his real mother and sister, and the Princess.

The story is familiar to us all, but the way with which Mr. Lester builds his characters reveals more than just the political facts. The result is a well developed novel with realistic, complex characters.

The Glossary helped reacquaint me with the correct Hebrew and Egyptian names. Mr. Lester's Author Note should not be missed for the insightes on how he developes the story from idea to completion.

I got to read the book by reading its cover and I thought it was interesting so I bought the book and after I read it, I was amazed about the other part of Moses's family that no one else shared to the world.
The Pharaoh's Daughter was about Moses's sister, Almah, and she had always wished to be royal, without worrying about chores and babysitting her little brothers and sister. Then, the Egyptian soldiers planned on taking away all of the Hebrew baby boys and planned on feeding it to the alligators. Almah's family's only baby son, Yekutiel, wasn't planned on getting fed by alligators, so when the Egyptian soldiers started to evade the houses, Almah's family ran to hide Yekutiel in the safe bushes. Almah ran to look for a good hiding place and that was when her life changed. She had ran into an Egyptian princess and had dragged her into her Hebrew home and the princess's gratitude changed her Hebrew life. Princess Meryetamun decided to keep Yekutiel and named it after a god,Thutmosis, to protect Moses from the evil Queen Asetnefret. That was when, ALmah was addicted to royal and palace life. She met the king and was welcomed as a second daughter in the palace. Then, Almah actually became the daughter of King Ramesses and Princess Meryetamun became the daughter of Abba and Ima, Almah's parents.
I liked the book because it had another part of Moses's story that no one knew about and when I read it, I was so involved in the story that I read it more than 3 times! It was a brave and challenging story and that was what made me so inspired to read it more, I couldn't stop because I was too addicted pause at least one second!

As an aspiring author of young adult fiction, I decided to do some research and read what teens are reading right now.
"When Dad Killed Mom" by Julius Lester is a great story, and I liked the way the story was told in alternating each chapter between Jeremy and Jenna being the narrator. Their father has just killed their mother, and throughout the story, we come to find out the real truths that are hidden. and about the secrets that are kept. It's a good look into the relationships of parents and children, and also sibling relationships as well.

I was hooked from the first page, and read the second half in one sitting!! I didn't want to move until I finished it. I think Lester has a great vision for teens' emotions. While you could definitely tell it was an adult who wrote the book, I thought he did an outstanding job being the voice of both a teenage girl and boy in the same story. He knows how to get the reader hooked, and keep them interested. Considering the attention span of teenagers, this is a good quality for a book. and it's not too long. I am an adult, 32 years old, and I really thought this was a very interesting tale, and I thought he told it beautifully. he's a good writer. I hope I can be that good one day.

When Dad Killed Mom by Julius Lester is a good book for an assortment of reasons. Julius Lester is a very good author, capturing the reader's attention making the book hard to put down. The main characters,Jenna,Jeremy,Dad,Mom,and mom's best friend, Rachel, also make the book very suspenseful. The book is written in diary form from Jenna and Jeremy's point of view. This made it very easy to read and also fun. When Dad Killed Mom is about a family that gets ruined when Jenna and Jeremy's mother finds out that their dad is having an affair with a college student form the college he works at. However, soon after she confronts him and tells him that she is going to ruin his career if he doesn't leave; he panics and and viciously murders her by shooting her multiple times in the head while she is enjoying her morning coffee. I liked the book because not only did it have a lot of great details and suspense, it also had a good plot and you could tell that when Lester planned the book, he thought it through and made it very organized. If you are one who is into a book that inclides the agony and hardships that a family experiences, and love to read drama novels such as this, I guarantee that when you read When Dad Killed Mom you won't be able to put it down and you'll love it from the first page to the last.

The book When Dad Killed Mom is really a good book. Jenna thinks that her parents' marriage was in trouble. Her father a college psychologist her mother an artist. They didn't talk much and when they did, they had to work hard to be nice to each other. Jeremy was always his mother's favorite. Jenna was always her father's favorite.
Then one day the head line reads, COLLEGE SHRINK KILLS WIFE. The words that would tear their family apart without them knowing it. The world that Jenna and Jeremy had always thought would be here is destroyed. They didn't know where they would stay, or anything. Who is going to take care of them now that their mother is dead and their father is in jail? Can they find a way to be a family, especially when each has a secret that could change their lives forever?
My favorite part in the story so far, is when Jeremy was called to the office during school. When he came into the office Jenna was sitting their crying her eyes out. Jeremy didn't know what was going on. Until Jenna told him that dad had killed mom. I like it because when they were sitting and crying. They didn't know what to say, that is how I felt at my grandmother's funeral.
I found out about this book, from Mrs. Shea's web site. It was one of her recommended books. When I saw it at the library it sounded like a real scary book. When I read the summary, I knew I wanted to read it. That is why I chose the book, When Dad Killed Mom. Now, even though I am not done reading the book, it's one of my favorite books.