Safire has written a Civil War novel that is as inaccurate as any I've ever read. He confuses generals with similar names, for example. He has Baldy Smith at Shiloh with Grant, when it was actually C.F. Smith who was there. He takes Nathaniel Lyon out of Missouri, and puts him in Maryland in place of Nathaniel Banks.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. His worst blunder was when he was describing the capture of two Confederate soldiers and said they knew they would be sent north to Libby Prison, as bad in the north as Andersonville was in the south. They couldn't possibly have thought that, since Andersonville didn't even exist yet at that point in the war. Besides, Libby was a Confederate prison camp in Richmond, Virginia.

The book is obviously not well-researched, in spite of his long, impressive-looking section of notes at the end of the book. There are some great Civil War novels out there, but this is certainly not one of them.

If you want to read a good one, try one of these:

1. The Killer Angels
2. Walk Like a Man
3. Ride With the Devil
4. A Soldier's Book
5. Nashville, 1864
6. The Red Badge of Courage

I give this book 5 stars for its subject matter and detail, but two stars for the quality of writing, averaging to 4 stars overall.

This book will literally overwhelm you with detail, and to that extent it is a staggering achievement. There is a huge amount of detail here about political, military, and social figures of the Civil War era--more than most readers frankly would ever want to know. Is it accurate? Beats me. Is it interesting? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For example, Safire creates an unforgettable characterization of Albert Sidney Johnston, the great Confederate general of the Western theater. On the other hand, there is far more detail here about Rose Greenhow, Kate Chase, and others too numerous to mention than I can imagine anyone wanting to know. And I speak as a Civil War buff of sorts.

This is in fact the story of the Civil War from the election of Abraham Lincoln to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. A pivotal time in America's history, and Safire is right to assume that this subject merits close attention. This is a book you can truly immerse yourself in.

Unfortunately, the novel is pretty heavy going as a consequence of the vast amount of detail, and the rapidly and constantly changing characters and points of view. Safire's prose is heavy almost as though he himself is staggering under the weight of the details he presents. Well, that's how it seemed to me anyway.

This is not a book for the casual reader. But there is a lot here, and if you put in the effort (and it can be a pleasent effort) you will be both entertained and educated.

Safire has written what can only be described as "history nouveau'.At times soap opera, comedy, and tragedy that was the American Civil War, Safire has his pulse on what was. From the opening pages, to the conclusion the richness of the writing is outstanding. I recommend this book not only for the " weekend historian", but for the High School- College student as a historical primer. Don't be overwhelmed by the size of this Novel, once started it is impossible to put down, as the characters become alive in front of you. These "historical figures" were ordinary people caught up on extraordinary times, the humor is in the fact that when Safire if most serious he is fictitional, when most humorous he is historically accurate. The fun is trying to figure out which is which...

If you want good historical fiction, read Patrick O'Brian. Safire does not even come close. Scandalmonger is as woodenly written as so many of the history books I had to read in high school. It also repeats facts over and over and over again. One other reviewer also caught Safire's biggest boo-boo, the Hamilton-couldn't-be-President problem. But all is not bad. I give the book three stars (and not less) because the story is so intrinsically fascinating. And the latter half or so picks up considerably, especially in light of the DNA evidence that has linked Jefferson to Sally Hemings. Callender was onto something, it seems! (For an interesting perspective on this problem, readers may want to have a look at Max Byrd's Jefferson.) Anyone interested in the Federal and Jeffersonian periods will be drawn along, albeit slowly, by the new look at possibly THE key moments in our country's history.

Safire writes an entertaining, educational piece of fiction. The lengths to which he goes to separate fact from fiction only highlights what I believe to be the true weakness of the book, that Safire is himself scandalmongering. By dragging us through the human frailaties of Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton and Burr, Safire's inuendo is that there is little difference between politics and personalities then and now. Also, there is little difference between partisan press then and now.

I don't buy his argument. The ideologues of the early 19th century were fighting to shape the character of an infant nation. History has lionized these men as the Founding Fathers. The truth that they were far from perfect humans and driven by common impulses of humanity does not detract from what these men on both sides accomplished.

Throughout the book there is an undercurrent that today's scandals actually pale by comparison to these early issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Today's scandals do not occur on a backdrop of a nation stuggling to define itself. Rather they showcase an individual possessed with more power than anyone else on earth abusing the charisma of his office for self gradification.

I'll give the book 5 stars for accuracy, subtract one for duplicity and one for his own scandalmongering.

This book dovetails nicely into the same period and subjects of two other works I have read recently, "Founding Brothers" and "American Aurora", both of which I enjoyed. This work details the Federalist period from 1790 onward, and the opening years of the Jefferson presidency, and covers the ground very well. It is a novel, of course, but so well written it seems as if Safire was a fly on the wall in the various locales of the tale, and took down verbatim the words of the characters, historical figures all. His language is excellent, as is to be expected from this writer, who is a grammar maven. Once or twice, however, I seemed to detect a hint that some of the historical events were talked about a tad before they acutually happened, and once or twice there was some duplication, which should have been caught by a more zealous editor. They didn't detract from my enjoyment of this work, and I recommend it to anyone interested in this period of American history, and in particular, interested in the human side of the historical drama.

I'm not sure how to feel about this book. While reading it, I really could not become absorbed by Conrad's dense prose, though, while occasionaly eloquent, is very thick, and, well, British. But now that I am finished with it, I can not get the images the novella invokes out of my head. The conquest of Africa by the Imperialist on the surface, and the corruption of man's very morality underneath. The story is deceptively simple, merely a man working for an Ivory trading company, ominously called "The Company", going up the Congo river to meet up with Kurtz, the archetype of Western Imperialism. During this trip, we are shown the inner workings of man and his heart of darkness. The novella is not perfect though. Conrad's condemnation of Imperialism is uneven. Yes, the only discernable cause of Kurtz's descent into evil and madness is the imperialist ethic of master-slave, and it is fairly clear that Marlowe (conrad) is condemning that ethic, but at the same time, he doesn't work very hard to elevate the view of the African natives any higher in the esteem of his western readers. Anyway, as the novella is only about 100 pages, it is something that can be read in a day. Invest an afternoon in it, and decide for yourself.

Heart of Darkness is a novella that really needs to be read more than just once to fully appreciate Conrad's style of writing. The story is an account of one man's simultaneous journey into the darkness of a river as well as into the shadows of a madman's mind. There is a very brilliant flow of foreshadowing that Conrad brings to his writing that provides the reader with accounts of the time period and the horrible events to come. Through Conrad's illuminating writing style we slowly see how the narrator begins to understand the madness or darkness that surrounds him.

I recommend this particular version of the novella because it contains a variety of essays, which discusses some of the main issues in the reading and historical information. Issues like racism and colonialism are discussed throughout many essays. It also contains essays on the movie inspired by the book Apocalypse Now, which is set against the background of the Vietnam War. I recommend reading Heart of Darkness and then viewing Apocalypse Now, especially in DVD format which contains an interesting directors commentary.

You can sit in your office on your lunch break and read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness while, perhaps, eating a chicken salad sandwich. And while sitting there with an air-conditioned breeze blowing from a vent, you can imagine you are vicariously experiencing a trip up the Congo River in nineteenth century Africa. You can suppose your imagination is powerful enough to project you mentally into the circumstances Conrad relates. It is true Conrad's power of description is such that the reader can almost feel the thick, hot gush of blood fill Marlow's shoes as his assistant dies at his feet -- on his feet. Reading this story in the dead of winter will bring sweat to your brow. The torrid heat of the African night drips from every sentence. But more than anything, this story fills one with a sense of mortality -- it beats bluntly like an indefatigable drummer between every line. Lives like waves crashing against the merciless rocks of time. No man able to escape the malignant truth of his inevitable demise. Not even Kurtz, who wielded the reaper with such dexterity that it seems impossible he would ever have it turned in his own direction.

Heart of Darkness -- heart of virulence. Conrad takes us to a land of death -- a hundred-page trip through a tropical tumor. "The horror -- the horror." Yes! The horror fills every page, every twitch of every character. All is corrupt and dirty, like slime on the edge of a desecrated grave. It is the genius of Conrad that he can so deftly deliver his reader from the most opulent ivory tower of modern comfort, to where the darkest places in nature meets the darkest places in the human soul.

In a newspaper column not long ago, William Safire mentioned the expression "POTUS" as an abbreviation for president of the United States, and said that what brought it to common use was the novel "Full Disclosure." Bill somehow neglected to mention that he himself had authored "Full Disclosure" -- which perhaps seemed to add to the credibility of his assertion about "POTUS" emerging from that book. As though anyone would really care. (Some column readers probably noticed, but probably none cared.)

In a bizarre assassination plot aimed at the two world leaders, the Russian premier is killed.

Sven Ericson, President of the United States, has survived...but the lusty, vital young leader is totally blind. In a world he can no longer see, the political fangs are bared. The jackals line up on either side to drive him from office - or clamor for power in the crisis.

Who can he trust now?

Which of his well-kept secrets will rise up now to strike him down? Can he trust his friends? His advisors? Can he even trust the woman who knows his deepest, most private hungers? While a frightend world waits, Ericson begins fighting back...in the dark.

First off, it's somewhat intimidating to review a book authored by such a master of the English language. While I am of the opinion that I am a somewhat talented writer, there are days when I covet the ability and skills demonstrated weekly by Safire in his language columns.

This leads me to the usual problem with books such as this one, which are compendiums of columns that have already appeared in the paper months or even years ago. In this case, most of these columns were written during the height of the impeachment case against President Clinton. In our current society where news is reported instantly via the internet, the news events mentioned in this book seem like they happened so long ago.

Still, due to the subject matter of focusing on language and its use, the information (or content as Safire points out) is still interesting, humours and educational. He also updates the columns with gotcha letters sent to him from fans around the world who love to catch him on his errors.

Also, for those of you who might bristle regarding his political views or history as a Nixon employee can put the bias aside and enjoy the book. I'm downgrading it from five to four stars because of the recency issue, but recommend it and also recommend his weekly column.

After reading "Devil Take the Hindmost," which deals very intelligently and thoroughly with investment bubbles of all kinds going back to the South Sea Bubble, I was very much looking forward to reading this book, particularly as it has been written by a very successful stock market investor. I was, however, sadly disappointed.

The author expends virtually all of his efforts discussing mob behavior, but rarely in the context of investments and market madness, i.e., most of the examples he uses relate to Ku Klux Klan activities, the French citizens' attack on the Bastille, the Watts riots and other such emotional mob activities. While these are often interesting and sometimes horrifying, they have only tangential bearing on market manias and investment fads. Furthermore, most of the text has been copied and pasted from reports on these activities that were written by others.

As an investment professional (and having invested in the market myself for over 35 years), I have long believed that, at least in the short term, market prices are dictated as much by psychology as by fundamentals such as profit growth, investment return expectations, balance sheets, business strategies, profit margins, competiting products and services, interest rates and such. And I thought the book would provide at least a few insights into investor psychology and how it moves markets; certainly a thorough discussion of the Dotcom and tech manias of recent years would have been a very apt topic for discussion.

Alas! There was no discussion at all about these issues of investment psychology; rather, the author was content to provide example after example of how, many times in the past, mobs are capable of taking on a life of their own and engaging in group-think, abandoning analysis and rational decision-making. Well, I guess we already know that. We are left on our own to try to figure out how "collective mob behavior" infects investors' psyches and affects the movement of stock prices.

Readers who would like a lot more insight into that process should buy "Devil Take the Hindmost," and not waste their time or money on this book.

Ralph

This is compilation of stories about crowd behavior, amusing at times, but with little or no insight, except that you should not panic. Everybody already knows that and besides it is not always true. In a stock market crash it is better to panic sooner rather than later. Also, I recall that a number of people in the WTC horror died because they decided to stay put in their offices rather than to rush down. But what I really don't like at all about this book is that it is marketed as a book for investors. This is nonsense. It is a book of stories about crowd behavior with no analysis except, as noted, the completely one-sided recommendation that you should not go along with the crowd.

Amazon offered Menschel's book at a combination price with Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. Mistakenly, I expected both to provide stock market guidance. Taleb's book had little and Menschel's has less.

The book should have been called sleep inducing. Blah Blah Blah, basically what we have here is a 350 page boring column about how we should always hate the Russians and maybe anybody else not American. I came away after reading half of the book, that he just pulled up the average character list for a spy book and put them in with no additional work, they were so light that you could see through them. This was a good story line, he just completely ruined it by trying to hide a Pat Buchanan book in the fiction section. Save your time and money.

For Chrissake, the author is a Russophobic hatemonger! Mr. Safire is as objective writing about Russians (spies or not) as a skinhead writing about the Holocaust.

Weaving an engaging and capitivating spy story may require an extraordinary effort for many -- especially if the story tries to take you on a "good ride," by offering believable characters with substance, and a compelling plot. Safire starts with a wonderful concept -- finding a deeply burried spy (a compelling concept.) He did get my attention.

Regretably after reading the first 150 pages, and even with a compelling concept, I was unable to complete the book. The main characters were predictable and lacking of any depth, and the dialogue cache if not contrived. Perhaps,if the predicatability of the dialogue and characters could have been overlooked, Safire may have told an wonderfully interesting story. Unfortunately, I wasnt able to come to this conclusion since I couldn't take it any more after the first 150 pages.

Safire begins his book with an essay on copulas. Copulas are linking verbs, and most often they are formed from the verb "be." " John is a boy" is a copula. One of the traditional rules of English grammar is that a noun or pronoun must be in the nominative case to complete the meaning of a copula. These days in all but the most formal speech and writing pronouns in the objective case are more likely to be used with copulas. But then Safire makes an error. He writes "The grammatically pristine form of "Woe is me" is "Woe is I" or "Woe am I" but go tell that to Ophelia and Isaiha." "Woe is me" is not a copula. It is a "noun + verb + dative object" construction. There is no controversy here. The great grammarians Matzner, Abbott, Franz, Jespersen, Visser and so on have all demonstrated that in Early Modern English dative objects were less likely to have prepositions before them then dative objects today. Safire quotes a professor who says as much but Safire will have none of it. He says that Shakespeare did "intend to equate 'woe' and 'me.'" He then goes on to write "Sometimes the truth lies flat and you only confuse yourself looking for "understood" hidden words." By ignoring the facts Safire got it wrong. There is nothing hidden here. "Me" is understood to be a dative. In Old English the dative pronoun for the first person singular was "me," the accusitive was "mec," and the nomanitve was "ic." In Old English there was no need to use a preposition to mark the dative pronoun. In fact to use a preposition with a dative pronoun was a pleonasm. With the decay of inflectional forms in Middle English period, the pronoun "mec" became obsolete and was replaced by the dative pronoun "me". Because of this there rose a need to distinguish the dative from the accusitive and this was done by using prepositions. But the unmarked dative, the dative without a preposition remaind a regular feature English throughout the Early Modern English period.

Safire's In Love with Norma Loquendi is a compendium of previously published articles coupled to responses from readers. The book is an eclectic collection of uses and misuses of words and phrases. For those with an interest in the fine definition and use of words, the book is a reasonable read. It is particularly good for those who like to read short segments, move on, and return to the book later. Each section is a page or so in length - just right for certain situations where a few minutes of reading is all you want. Some of these sections get a bit long-winded and tedious, but the next page generally has a change of subject.

We're in love with her too