Skidelsky's three-volume biography of Keynes has just been completed (to much acclaim, I think it's fair to say). One wonders, then, for whom he might have intended the short book I'm now reviewing.

An early chapter covers Keynes' life in as much detail as you could expect from a slim volume whose main emphasis is on its subject's work. (The series of which it is a part aims at providing "introductions to the thought of leading intellectual figures".) A valuable bridge between the "life" and the "work" is given by a chapter on Keynes' philosophy, showing that his early studies of probability drew on issues that were of fundamental concern to him throughout his career--and playing down, incidentally, the importance of any consistent political philosophy.

Two chapters follow on specific books: one on the earlier works, and one on the General Theory itself. It's here that I'd caution those who've had no previous exposure to macroeconomics, warning them that Skidelsky may be fair in his judgments and clear in his exposition, but that the issues are necessarily technical; to those who are not economists, these chapters will not be easy reading.

The concluding two chapters cover Keynes' activities as a "statesman" in the '30s and '40s and, finally, his "legacy". Skidelsky concludes that Keynesian thought has had its day, if only because the experiences of the '60s and '70s have destroyed confidence in the very possibility of "Keynesian" solutions. Yet his is no hatchet job on Keynesian thought. Not only does he point out that Keynes can't be blamed for his followers' mistakes--an obvious point that Skidelsky is wise not to press too far--but he also offers a fairly nuanced explanation, given his limited space, of the lack of popularity enjoyed by Keynesian thought over the past thirty years or so. (There was much more at work than just the oil crises of the '70s, to mention only the factor most commonly cited in introductory texts.)

I should at this point confess that I have a doctorate in economics, and that I teach undergraduates. I say "confess", because I find myself regrettably unable to evaluate Skidelsky's accuracy and judgment. As I said earlier, his interpretation certainly does not seem to be idiosyncratic, but I suppose there's always the possibility that he's presenting only one side of a well-known, if arcane, academic debate. If so, however, it's unfamiliar to me.

To sum up, I'd recommend this book to economists who need a little brushing up (and who could follow Skidelsky's advice about which chapters of the General Theory they really must read, and which they should skip), but also to political scientists, historians and the like who are roughly familiar with the period and who'd like to understand the views of a major economist. The good old "general reader" (if any such remain) might well enjoy this book too, but it is likely to require--and to reward--their close attention.

The author shows that liberalism has been co-opted by collectivists (socialists) who have perverted the original liberal ideal.

Skidelsy's analysis of historians, philosopers, sociologists, and priests is exquisite (p. 163), and his conclusion about the difference between capitalist democracies and communist countries is profound (p. 196).

Liberalism was originally an ideal that promised to liberate people from supersition, servitude, and ignorance. It has turned into a system that is having the opposite affect.

I infer from this reading that there is a natural tension between the halves and the half nots. However, economists and social planners are just a bunch of thirds.

This a book well worth reading.

Although the book goes into ample detail, it is a little dry, and possibly lacks a little life. One sometimes feels as if there are a few too many quotes, names and places. This somewhat detracts from the interest of the book.

However, overall anyone who is curious as to what made father of modern economics ought to read this book.

In the book's preface, Skidelsky claims he was the first biographer to attempt to go into detail about Keynes' hitherto undiscussed homosexual relationships. The most notable and emotionally involved of these affairs occured with painter and fellow Bloomsbury member Duncan Grant. Skidelsky confirms that Keynes also slept with Bloomsbury biographer Lytton Strachey. Several corresponding letters between Keynes and Strachey not only confirm this, but a subsequent sexual rivalry over the affections of Grant. G.E. Moore's 'Principia Ethica' unquestionably wrought out a strong influence on Keynes and Strachey's radical sexual attitudes after they had read it. Some unfastidious anti-Keynesians have tried to tie in Keynes' early predispositions to homosexuality (he later in life married a Russian Ballet dancer named Lydia Lopokova) with his rejection of the gold standard. This probably isn't a valid argument, given the level of abstraction Keynes' mind reached at an early age to develop and entertain such unorthadox methods.

Keynesian economics has been repudiated by many laissez-faire proponents over the past two decades. The most well reasoned of these critiques have come from Friedman and Robert Lucas; who have each received Nobel Prizes for their work. Notwithstanding, both pale in comparison with the impact Keynesianism has had on post-WW2 macroeconomics.

Whether or not you're an unyeilding Keynesian or a free market capitalist, you'll find it impossible not to marvel at this remarkable biography of a remarkable man. Keynes should be included at the top of anyone's list of the 20th century's most important intellectuals.

This book covers the last phase of Dickens' life: his separation/dissolution of marriage with Catherine Hogarth, his final trip to America (which made him a lot of money - more than 15,000 pounds), and work on novels like 'Great Expectations', 'Our Mutual Friend', and 'Edwin Drood'. What Rackham tries to explore through his narrative characters is what Dickens, the man, was really like. There were social and familial pressures that tied the author down. He made a lot of money throughout his career, but wasn't to able to enjoy the fruits of his labors; his sons were a disappointment to him, his celebrity was often a too heavy responsibility, and his marriage was dragged through tabloidal mud - surprisingly, via his own pen.

It isn't even known - just assumed - if his relationship with the young Ternan was consummated. They met on the stage... [Dickens took great interest in the stage - often working side by side with actors on productions. His dramatic readings of novel excerpts oftentimes garnered more pay than publications. It is said that his final emphatic reading from 'Oliver Twist' (the scene where Nancy is murdered) led to his death.] Rackham does a wondrous job filling in the tenderest gaps.

'Rag and Bone' is an eye-opener. Read it along with a good biography - try 'The Friendly Dickens' (an enjoyable read) or Angus Wilson's 'Life of Charles Dickens.'
And, of course, read Dickens. His body of work is a real treasure - don't just skim either. 'Great Expectations', 'Copperfield', and 'Christmas Carol' are fabulous, but you get the best sense of his comic genius and characterization in 'Pickwick', 'Nicholas Nickleby', 'Dombey & Son'...