This is about as good a way to get to know Kelman's writings as any, since he's selected the 35 short stories in this volume from four or five of his previous collections. They range from a half-page to thirty pages or so, and tend to be rather unexciting interior monologues. There are a few nice stories, my favorite being "Remember Young Cecil," about a former pool champion. Nothing much to inspire one to seek out his other work, though.

A wide range of stories of life in the slow lane of post industrial Scotland. I picked up this book in a store, tried to read it and pretty much immediately put it down for six months. I was put off by the written Scots dialect (in some (not all) of the stories), the seeming inconsequentality of some of the storylines, and the surreal nature of some others.

I'm glad I picked it up again. I tried reading "Nice to be Nice" (written in Scots) oot loud to mysel' an' it made a lot more sense, and became an affecting story of a man working (in a small way) against bureaucracy. Reading other stories it became clear that they ARE about everyday life, but they add a poetic quality to it, and really get you inside the head of the characters.

I would recommend this book.

Flashes of genius but not always readable. Short stories that sometimes lapse into incoherent surrealistic stream of consciousness. The understandability is often further reduced by phonetic spelling of dialect. The phonetic spelling assumes that the reader normally speaks Southern British English (for example "game" spelled "gemm.") At times it is absolutely brilliant with dark humor describing the way the shiftless (often homeless and destitute) make ends meet by welfare and panhandling. Reminded me often of James Joyce, which is not altogether a compliment because I've never managed to finish Ulysses.

Everyone has heard about the potato famines that drove the many Irish immigrants to North America, but what about their celtic sisters and brothers in Scotland? Was it the clearances or was it the disasterous battle at Culloden in 1745? Hunter's book looks not only at the myriad of issues that emptied the highlands, but also at how the Scotts got to North American and what happened to them when they got there. Hunter explains not only the economic factors in Scotland, but also the brutal conditions that many Scots endured during their passage to Canada and the United States. He looks at the political issues in Scotland, England, Canada and the United State. He examines how they survived and why what they did often depended on when and where they landed. Early emmigrants tended to have money whereas those coming later had next to nothing. Hunter tells you about the businesses that they started, the communities that they built and the leadership that they provide even today to new continent. A Dance Called America opens your eyes to a group of people rarely considered when examining the settlement of North America. While anyone interested in history will enjoy this book, those of Scottish descent will find it particularly interesting

Some books like some movies stay with you. I learned so much about what happened in Scotland from Hunter's very interesting accounts. This book has made the kind of impression that compells me to reread it and loan it to others. It's a keeper in my bookcase now for reference. Now I am in the process of visiting those places both in Scotland and in America where these displaced peoples were sent.

James Hunter has written a great book on Scottish immigration to North America. He strikes a very good balance between Scottish events that determined why people emmigrated, and the different experiences of these gaelic pioneers.

Different periods of emmigration and settlements of Scottish immigrants are covered. The research is very detailed but thankfully doesn't result in statistics which will bore you. Rather Hunter concentrates on the actual experiences of notable settlers and explorers. It's a descriptive account that brings the period alive. I found the description of the quarantine station at Grosse Ile and Cholera Bay to be particularly moving.

This book is more than a chronicle of the hardships, challenges and frustrations that these early settlers had to endure. It reminds us of their achievements and significant contributions. You can appreciate them that much more knowing of their suffererings in a tough, new land.

I'd be giving this book five stars, but I would have liked some maps and I found the chapter on Craigellachie to wander a little bit. But this is still a wonderful book. If you're interested in Scotland or have any Scottish ancestors, add this book to your collection.

Simply facts found in every published article on Ewan McGregor over the last five years, this is another unauthorized bio that wastes trees and the reader's time and money. Skip it.

I thought it was a pretty good book, though I think it could've been better. It's got some nice pictures, and it gives a lot of good information. Overall, I would recomend it to Ewanatics, or anyone who's interested in his history,but it's kind of hard for me to compare it to other bios of Ewan, because it's the first one I've read.(But it won't be the last!!:)!)

This is a great book. It tells everything you want to know about him, without getting to personal. It also has a bibliography at the back.

When rating Shakespeare, I am comparing it to other Shakespeare. Otherwise, the consistent "5 Stars" wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to have this book rated as compared to the general selection of books in the world, it probably deserves five stars, certainly four. But as Shakespeare goes, in spite of being one of his best-known plays, it truly isn't one of the best.

Certainly, there are the bones of a fine plot here, but the play is very short and thus doesn't really give us the smooth development of plot and character that we usually see in Shakespeare. Nor, given how entirely unappealing the main character is, is it properly a tragedy when he dies; granted, one can consider it tragic that good King Duncan is killed, and Banquo as well, to say nothing of McDuff's family. But can a play in which the unequivocal "good guys" categorically win (and several of them even survive) be properly called a tragedy?

There are certain similarities between the plot (or at least, the theme) of this play and that of the novel "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoyevsky. If you liked that book, you may enjoy this play. If you like this play, you will probably enjoy that book (it is a much more in-depth character portrait). Granted, the issue of Kingship never comes into play in Dostoyevsky's work, but the concept of the effect a murder has on the murderer is there, and actually handled rather better.

Of course, being Shakespeare, there is much beautiful language to be found here, and as Shakepearean plays go, the language isn't too difficult for the modern reader; there are only a few places where the footnotes are absolutely essential to an understanding of what's been said. But truly, it is hard to really like this work, and while it can be interesting, it would have been better if it weren't so rushed.

a tragic story of death and betrail. A great play to watch, read, and perform. Read this play!

I find "Redgauntlet" one of the less satisfactory novels in the Waverley series. Certainly, it has the local flavor, the dialect, the imaginative description of evocative landscapes all his novels have, but it is not a blast as some of the others are. The plot involves a fictitious third Jacobite rebellion, and it is interesting to see how Scott (especially in the notes from the Magnum edition, included in this edition) argues this time not for the historicity but for the historical probability of the events described. While Scott is often hailed as the inventor of the historical novel, "Redgauntlet" also shows him to be a forerunner in the historically probable novel--a genre practiced to great effect by our present-day history buff, Umberto Eco.

But probability alone does not a great novel make. Darsie Latimer's character is even less probable than his semi-historical counterparts, such as Edmund Waverley and Henry Morton. And this is strange, since moving further into fictionality, one could argue, a writer might allow themselves more latitude to make a character interesting, even if certain circumstances remain historical. Is this a conscious effort on Scott's part to show, after the fictionality of history, the fictionality of fiction?

Scott disturbs narrative conventions even further when the conspiracy against the Hanoverian King George III completely fails to materialize--ironically, for what seems to be the silliest of reasons: the Pretender (or the Chevalier if you're a Jacobite), Charles Stuart, refuses to give up his mistress. Thus, the main plot of the novel sizzles out and really not much happens in these 400 pages. Mind you, I personally don't need much to happen, but the 19th century novel did. Scott as a postmodern writer? That is pushing it too far, but this novel awaits a postmodern critique enlightened by a reading of Eco and Bakhtin.

That said, there are some really interesting things going on. Apart from the "regular" set of characters of Scott's Scottish novels, this one features an orthodox Quaker who is the epitome of anti-militant mercantilism. The form is also quite new for Scott--the novel is an epistolary, a set of letters between Darsie Latimer and his friend Alan Fairford. Thus, the novel's first-person point of view is split, and this provides for interesting contrasts.

For me, Scott sort of shot himself in the foot with this novel. His earlier novels ("Redgauntlet" is the last of the Scottish novels, written eight years before his death) lead one to expect a major action to happen before the denouement, and this one avoids that a bit too artificially. It seems that Scott was at pains to stick to history, and his own political convictions, a bit too much: a fictitious Jacobite rebellion is OK as a narrative vehicle, but it shouldn't interfere with the peaceful Great Britain (in which Scotland was in many respects subsidiary to England) that Scott himself inhabited and advocated. And so narrative excitement has to give way to Scott's pacifist politics--an honest choice, which Scott consistently maintains in all the Waverley novels--and character development and politics take precedent.

A final note: Scott has always proven himself a masterful and honest critic of royalty and nobility, especially of those characters he seems to love. "Waverley"'s Mac-Ivor is chastised for his political obstinacy, in "The Fortunes of Nigel" King James I (a Scot) is rebuked for his fickleness and corruption, and in "Redgauntlet" the formerly charismatic Stuart proves effeminate and tragic (dying an impoverished alcoholic, in the footnotes). And often enough, these tragic characters are of more interest than the somewhat ineffectual and sometimes foolish main characters: something for readers of literature to sink their teeth into.

I have always been interested in English history especially around the Tudor era. I especially like Elizabeth I so I decided to read about one of her contemporaries. I have always been fascinated by the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth but this book seems to put it seriously one sided. As a great admirer of Elizabeth I am willing to admit that she had her flaws but also must admit that she was one of the most amazing women of all time. She held her country together when it seemed as though it were ready to fall apart. Her cousin Mary was in stark contrast. This book makes Mary to be the victim in every circumstance. Every time you turn around big bad Elizabeth is making life miserable for her. Must we forget that Mary was the cause of most of her own problems. She made numerous errors in her judgement with men. Her marrying exploits caused many of her own people to turn against her even murdering her own husband. Then she marries the man who seems most guilty of the deed. All of these decision led to her countrymen taking her crown and giving it to her young son. This is where the book finds the "horrible" Elizabeth imprisoning her outcast cousin. Lest we forget in these turbulent times called the sixteenth century that many of the nobility used the monarchy for their own profit. Mary posed a serious threat to the throne of England. All of Elizabeth's enemies would be poised and ready to take her away and put Mary in her place. Mary was given most luxuries that you and I don't see today. Clothes, servants, horse-back riding in the countryside. It was not as if she was kept locked in a tower the entire time of her imprisonment. Elizabeth had to protect the throne and her subjects. Under Elizabeth's watch she was safe from the people who were out for revenge for her horrible judgement. But Mary had plans of her own. She plotted treason against her cousin and had many people who were willing to help. In the end Mary lost out and was beheaded. It took Elizabeth over a 10 years and 5 plots by Mary to usurp the throne before she would sign the death warrant against Mary. Even after the deed was done Elizabeth threw herself into a rage and was angry that her servants had actually gone through with the course of action. This book represents Mary as a poor unknowing pawn in the game of royalty and the shuffling of crowns. But this is truly a forgiving portrait of Mary Queen of Scots. She was raised to be a queen and she knew from the time that she was learning lessons at her teachers knees the power of what a crown held. She was not beneath taking it from another when her own stupidity caused her to lose her own.

Most of us are familiar with the later story of Mary Queen of Scots and her tragic demise at the hands of Queen Elizabeth. This studiously written book fills in the early details of Mary's life and so forth. Reading like a text book this account is often ponderous but read in small increments it is palatable and worthwhile, especially for those history buffs or students who need minute details of the life of Mary. Often times the reader gets the feeling much of the old accounts are surmised and subject to interpretation. In this case all the facts are carefully documented with footnotes and references used to obtain them. There have been many more interesting accounts of Mary written but how accurate and truthful is a valid question. The precise documentation of this book leaves little doubt as to its validity in this interesting chapter of history.

Mary Stuart, only child of James V of Scotland and Mary of Guise, is a gift to biographers through the ages, not least because her life cleaves so easily into three stages: (1) her brilliant debut in the court of the Valois and her marriage to King Francis II; (2) her journey from Paris to Scotland, where she ruled through a series of misadventures; and (3) her flight to England, where she was captured by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth, and eventually executed as a traitor at Fotheringay. Lady Antonia Fraser made her (now enormous) name in 1969 with this work - and the liveliness of her prose is often credited with a wider revival in narrative biography. What is now lost sight of is that Fraser's biography was, in many respects, revisionist in nature: not least because Fraser, herself a Catholic, was uniquely qualified to present Mary's credentials as Roman martyr, while at the same time unflinching cataloging her many personal failures. Another departure from the heroic tradition is her condemnation of 16th century Scottish nobility for the murderous rabble it truly was - especially the loathsome Bothwell. Finally, as Fraser explains at length, the trumped-up conviction and cruelly botched execution of Mary was nothing short of judicial murder. By the way, the early 1970s film starring Vanessa Redgrave, while excellent as a work of romantic history, is unconnected, and bears little resemblance to the grim contemporary environment as depicted by Fraser.

In its time I'm sure that Boswell saw the commercial advantage (and likely popularity) of publishing a journal of his travels in Scotland with England's preeminent genius. Sort of like some little known writer taking Stephen Hawking to Tierra del Fuego. But with the passage of time, it is Boswell overshadowing Johnson that makes this book worth reading. The prose is crisp and mercifully unaffected by the stylistic impenetrability of Johnson's writings. One can see the journal as a travel book, but it is more akin to an 18th century version of William Least Heat Moon's "Blue Highways". There is an argument to be made that Boswell's prose has had greater impact on the english language than the entire Johnson canon. Worthwhile.

I've never been a fan of Samuel Johnson. The greater writer and more interesting character, to my mind, has always been Boswell. I don't doubt that Boswell had a sincere affection for the man, but I sometimes wonder if Boswell (perhaps subconsciously) duped Johnson into letting him write his biography as well as this account of their travels to show him up. Time and time again, Johnson shows himself to be, well, a curmudgeon, both in word and deed. From his comments on Hume, the great Scottish philosopher and historian, "I know not indeed whether he has first been a blockhead and that has made him a rogue, or first been a rogue and that has made him a blockhead." to his ordering Boswell back by his side when Boswell was just trying to ride ahead and prepare things for his arrival (all according to Boswell, of course), Boswell's Johnson does not come off very well. Though Boswell attests to his worship of the "Great Cham" again and again, one can't help wondering if there was a smirk on Boswell's face as he penned this journal of their travels...Surely, it had to have occurred to him that readers would come away with a snicker or two at his descriptions of what almost seems a straw man for Boswell's sharp pen. I, for one, am not convinced by his show of naive devotion to Johnson.-What then was Boswell trying to do? Make a name for himself, of course. And what better way than to associate himself indelibly with the man many considered the greatest literary figure of the time.-He was very successful in doing so, and his writings are now much more in demand by readers than anything written by Johnson, who, in turn, has turned out to be the "harmless drudge" he ironically defined himself as in the dictionary that made him famous. Finally, then, my verdict on the book is that it is passing weird.-Weird, in that the psychological interplay always just below the suface in Boswell's account of the journey leaves the reader in constant doubt throughout the book as to Boswell's true intent in writing his descriptions of Johnson.-Was Boswell smirking with a mercenary eye to the future of his own literary reputation, writing ludicrous descriptions of a man considered great at the time, all beneath a faux-naif bluster?-I, for one, am convinced that, at least subconsciously, he was.-But this is what, for me, makes the book so much more intriguing than your average day-in, day-out journal.-4 stars though because it's still a journal and makes for yawns at times.

The self-styled "H.R.H. Prince Michael" claims a descent from "Bonnie Prince Charlie Stewart", the young pretender. Fact is that Bonnie Prince Charlie married Louise of Stolberg. He did recognize an illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, who may or may not be an ancestress of Michael. However, Michael claims that he also descends from a "Prince" born to Marguere de Lussan, and he claims that she had married Bonnie Prince Charlie. This marriage never took place and Charles Stewart never recognized a child by this woman.
To make his claim to royal descent even more ridiculous, Michael has added the completely fake genealogy of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail book to his book, thus claiming descent through the Guises and the Merovingians from Jesus Christ himself! This claim is completely absurd.

However, if you do not mind about historic accuracy, the book is quite pleasantly written and it is clear that the author loves Scotland. Besides the silly genealogy stuff, it contains a series of biografies of Scottish Kings.

As a Scots from Scotland, born & bred on the right side of the borders, this book became within 3 weeks of publication a bestseller (number 2 in Scotland, 7 in UK) and has seen a public awareness of a new alternative to party politics in the up coming and new Scotland. For those die hard pro-Hanoverian (or Windsor as most people know them today), I am glad to say that 'your time is up'. People, in Scotland, are already campaigning for the return of their lawful Royal House in a big way. There are many things which have been said by two particular reviewers, namely all rather negative. However, HRH Prince Michael of Albany is the legal, recognised head of the Royal House of Stewart, a title which has been mentioned on his British Passports since 1986. His claim has never been denied by the authorities in Great Britain and was, in matter of fact, confirmed by the British Home Office on 24-04-91. There are contemporary archives (British State) proving that Charles Edward's progeny, Edward James Stuart of Stuarton and Albany, survived into the 19th & 20th centuries. The book is extremely well researched, drawing from european archives and explains in details what happened to the family while surviving in exile. While passionate, it is focused. The Prince's understanding of Scottish history, for one born in Belgium, is superb and his political analysis second to none. This man, when he becomes King of Scots (notice when, not if), will prove to be what Scotland has been needing all along. A representative of the people, for the people. For all who are truly interested, not merely in the past of Scotland but in her future, read this book and learn. And no matter what some rather poorly misguided individuals may tell you, think Scotland, sing Scotland and support the Royal House of Stewart.

If only this book had been available when I was a schoolboy (post war) and had been taught as our history. Scotland will gain strength from knowing that her true Prince is back to fight for her freedom. This is a Royal House believing in 'Service to the people'. A movement has now been organised around the Prince and Scottish politicians are finally taking note of what visions Prince Michael has for Scotland. I attended one of his lecture (the hall was full, people stood for lack of chairs) and it was the best evening I have had for a long time. The house of Stewart has NEVER died out. If you believe it has, you are a fool. It is alive, kicking, it is modern, relevant, politically aware and ready to make waves. It will also bring Scottish Independence quicker than we think. Scottish businesses are linking with him in an attempt to be more fully and more efficiently represented. It is a breath of fresh air which Scotland has craved for these past many years. It is the most exciting read the end of this century has had to offer. From Scotland to Scots the world over.

This was a book I really liked. I found it facinating to read about another two members of the Tudor family. Maybe the most interesting thing about the Tudor family is how they managed to rule, or simply survive, in a time when cruelty, power struggles and dominance over women were common.

In this book Maria Perry tells us about the sisters' childhood and family background, as well as about their adult lives. In both cases the sisters had to marry a king as part of their father's attempt to keep or make allies, and not for love.

The eldest sister Margaret soon ended up as my favourite. She came across as a strong and couragious woman. In a time when women had no power, she fought to take control over her own life. When she was widowed and still pregnant, her brother tried to arrange a wedding for her. But Margaret wanted to marry based on her own choice, something her brother Henry VIII disliked. Later on she had to fight in order to keep her children, since they as heirs to the throne could be used as tools to rule the country by scroupulous men.

--Because this book, for the most part, except when the author decides to basically abandon a person or issue in it, is loaded with details. If you are interested in the life and times of Henry VIII, his relatives, friends and enemies, then you will likely forgive the author's apologist attitudes toward him (and her seemingly hyper-critical eye, in my view, of his sisters). If you are relatively thick-skinned about writers who do that, weaving their own opinions through the story they are telling, while supposedly presenting historical fact, you will find this book very interesting and fairly absorbing. There are a lot of minute details about banquets, clothes and social behavior, which are a lot of fun to read and know about, again, if you're interested in the first place. Which I am, so I liked this book.

Perry writes about the lesser known subject of Henry VIII's two sisters, Margaret and Mary who became Queen of Scotland and Queen of France respectively. It's really a review of his whole family, which shows that his sisters, even as political pawns were much more involved in events than wife focused biographies and legends would generally show. There is some early discussion of their parents, Henry VII and his Queen, Elizabeth of York, which shows how they inherited the royal propensity for pagentry and how, Perry's descriptions are sumptuous, the emphasis on sartorial wealth and jewels was really the political rhetoric of the day. More than that, it seems also have been a business, and many conflicts and wars can be explained by the need for the Tudors to pay for all their nice clothes and jewels--even, or especially, they owed money--so that they can keep being royals. Perry is as assiduous about the financial details as she is avid about the fashion details, and even if you aren't quite sure what the numbers mean the story is always readable, imaginative and intriguing, leaving its share of Historical what-ifs. (What if Mary's long-term youthful betrothal to Charles V of Spain had been honored, for example?) As one might expect Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn get their fair share of mention, but the context of their tribulations seems at once more mundane and more majestic.

The research and quotes used throughout this work seem well documented, and the premise seems sound...that James the VI and I was maligned due to the antagonism of court intriguers who were ousted as favorites with his reign, and who had strong prejudices against the "uncivilized Scots" Anyone with any experience of the literature and sensibilities of the times would recognize that the sentimentality and expressions of love that were purported to be the evidence of James' homosexuality were absolutely normal and common speech of the times. However, I object to the homophobic tone that the writer pursues, as if such accusations were the most evil thing one could say of another, and I find the organization and arguments to be rambling and excessively repetitious. The author could have used a strong editor with a red pencil. The theme could have been fully discussed in an article of magazine length, rather than a $15 book.

While King James has often been accused by both secular and Christian history as a man of ill repute, little has been offered in his defense. However, Unjustly Accused? certainly has defended the honor of this king, central to both politics and religion, in a more than adequate manner. While admitting his flaws, the book also emphasizes his accomplishments as a king, as a father, and as a man.