I enjoyed this book; the author has a way of creating interesting, memorable teen characters with more unique characteristics than the average teen novel. Steppie is open to new experiences, learning, & growth - good thing, since it's forced upon her early in the novel. It's fun to experience her embarrassment & mortification...as well as take pleasure in her honest maturity. Charming book!

In one surviving account, Joan of Arc was quoted as saying that her judges were merely putting her on trial because they were members of the pro-English faction and therefore her "capital enemies"; unfortunately, this play tries to claim otherwise. One of Shaw's primary themes is the notion that Pierre Cauchon and Joan's other judges were acting as "sincere" defenders of the Church in their prosecution of her, a view which is contradicted by document after document as well as the above quote from Joan herself. Cauchon and his cronies are well known to historians as having been long-term supporters of the English and Burgundian factions, and the eyewitnesses said repeatedly that they prosecuted Joan out of revenge for the defeats that their side had suffered at the hands of her army, rather than out of any genuine belief that she was guilty of heresy. Cauchon even allowed her to take final communion (which was never done in the case of heretics), indicating that even he didn't truly believe the charges against her. As Shaw was aware, these charges were soundly debunked when the case was appealed after the English were finally driven from Rouen in 1449; and the arguments put forward in this ruling have been confirmed as accurate by experts in medieval theology and canon law, whereas Cauchon's arguments can easily be refuted by consulting medieval theological works - his arguments are, at best, merely distortions of what the medieval Church actually taught. Here are some specific examples which factored prominently in Shaw's play:
- Shaw, like Cauchon, claimed that Joan was guilty of heresy for wearing male clothing allegedly as a personal preference, despite the fact that both of these men were aware of her own statements to the contrary. She was quoted as saying that she wore soldiers' clothing (of a type which had "laces and points" by which the pants and tunic could be securely tied together) primarily to protect herself, as her guards had tried to rape her on several occasions; this reason is also given in some of the 15th century chronicles, along with similar quotes from Joan herself on the need to protect her chastity while surrounded by the men in her army. The medieval Church allowed an exemption in such cases of necessity (read St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", or St. Hildegard's "Scivias", for example): the practice of so-called "cross-dressing" was only condemned if it was done as a preference. Shaw rejects all of the above based on the specious argument that the "other women" who accompanied armies in that era didn't wear such clothing, ignoring the fact that these "other women" were: 1) prostitutes, who wore provocative dresses because they were trying to encourage sexual encounters rather than the opposite; and 2) aristocratic women sometimes were given command of their family's armies in the absence of their husband or son, but these women did not bed down at night among the troops in the field, as Joan often did. Shaw chooses to ignore these circumstances.
- On a somewhat related subject, Shaw tries to portray her as a rebel against "gender norms", again ignoring her own statements and the circumstances of the era. She was quoted by one eyewitness as saying that, quote, "I would rather stay home with my poor mother and spin wool [rather than lead an army]", which hardly sounds like someone who is trying to reject traditional gender roles. When another woman, Catherine de la Rochelle, wanted to get involved, Joan told her to "go home to your husband and tend your household". At no point do we find her making any 'feminist' statements. She was given titular command of an army for the same reason other religious visionaries sometimes were given such a role in that era, not as part of a "feminist crusade".
- Shaw admits that Joan was a devout Catholic and yet claims her as "the first Protestant martyr" - in the same sentence. This seems to be a rather willful contradiction, and the claim of "Protestant tendencies" is merely based, once again, on the old business of accepting Cauchon's claims about her at face value while ignoring the circumstances. If you read the documents you will find that Joan never opposed the Church as a whole: she merely stated her objection to being tried by a panel of pro-English clergy, and repeatedly asked to be given a non-partisan group instead or to be brought before the Pope. It was a violation of Inquisitorial procedure to stack the panel of assessors with people who were pursuing a secular vendetta against the accused: what Cauchon and his cohorts were doing, as Inquisitor Brehal later pointed out during the appeal, was itself an act of heresy. The notion that the medieval Church viewed all Inquisitorial panels as "infallible" and therefore not open to question is just a stereotype, bluntly contradicted by actual medieval theological writings: St. Hildegard, in her 12th century book "Scivias", warns the clergy against judging someone in error or out of anger, as it would be the offending clergy who would be punished for it by God. Joan was perfectly within her rights, even under the rules of the medieval Church, to question her biased judges, and was declared a martyr for Catholicism by Inquisitor Brehal when her execution was declared invalid in 1456. Shaw ignores this. The claim that his play is somehow vindicated by the fact that it was "vetted" by one Catholic (out of the hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide) is a pointless argument: there are "Catholics" who claim that Joan was having adulterous sex, and all sorts of defamatory allegations. The bottom line is: this play does little more than repeat the slander leveled at Joan by the men who cruelly put her to death, despite the work of generations of scholars to bring a more accurate picture of the issue to light.

when i read this play for my junior AP english class, i truly enjoyed it and thought that while joan is rather naive and intolerant, she is a feminist icon--rebellious and unconventional. she is portrayed as being brave, unlike the romantic fluff-chick that various publications make her out to be. while i did enjoy the informative preface, there were sections in which shaw sounded like a typical elitist male and that disappointed me very much.
all in all, i'd like to think that it was a decent play, and definitely worth reading.

Shaw was a close friend of a Benedictine Abbess, Dame Laurentia, who "vetted" his plays for fairness to the faith. This play is fun, takes lots of bites out of politicians and clergy, and says something beautiful about the imagination. This Joan is no dolt and had to be burnt at the stake. That is a complement to her faith.

George Rutler is one of the shining stars of the Catholic right. He's had his own show on Mother Angelica's network, his videos are for sale in conservative Catholic bookstores, and he's written a few books that are highly touted among conservative Catholics. I haven't read all of them, only his book on St. John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests. Frankly, I wasn't impressed with it. This book is a bad imitation of Chesterton, written exclusively for an audience of like minded persons as the author. His smug self-rightousness didn't leave me wanting to run out and buy his "complete works." You can almost hear him patting himself on the back after what he regards as a particularly clever statement. It's not a bad book if you agree with absolutely everything the author says. In fact, his world would be a pretty nice one to live in. The real world, however, the one most people live in from day to day, doesn't bear much of a resemblance to this guy's depiction of it.

It's an inspiring story, and Rutler writes a wonderful look at his life. It's a good read, but is very intellectual and philosophical - not your typical book about all the great God does thru the Saint but rather those great things in the context of life in St. John Vianney's time. Not for a lazy reader - it's too full of deep ideas.

I had to read this book for school, and it was retarded. I do not know why anybody would write this book or why anybody has even bought this book. Do not ever ever ever ever read this book. I would rather watch Barney or Telatubies than read this book and I am 11 years old, yes it really is that bad. There is no point to this book. Do not waste your money on tis retarded book

Dr. Alexander G. Bell, noted for his work with deaf persons (Dr. Bell's mother and wife were both deaf) served as a mentor for young Helen Keller. Both deaf and blind, she stirred an interest in Dr. Bell to further his work with the deaf. Charmed by the bright, vivacious child, Dr. Bell began corresponding with her regularly when she was still a child at the Perkins Institute for the Blind. A long term friendship developed and it was a real heartwarming treat to see how friendship rang out across their different generations.

Dr. Bell and Helen Keller were two of the most notable people living during the late 1800's and early 1900's. The depth of their friendship, and their encouragement of one another's life work, is a testimony to what two people can accomplish together. The author supplies many details about Dr. Bell and his work among the deaf. A recommended addition to any public or private library.

I enjoyed this book, but did not think the story line was as strong as some of the earlier books in this series. I had a feeling the author was writing stories just to extend the series a few more volumes. But, since I am a Bolitho fan, I will probably end up buying all of them.

John Halperin takes Lytton Strachey as his model and provides four short lives of people he views as emblematic of the "second Georgian" era - King Geroge V himself, Elizabeth Bowen, St. John Philby and Nancy Astor. The results are interesting without being particularly memorable. Halperin tells his stories in a plain documentary fashion, without much analysis and with none of the mordant wit or strong opinions of Strachey's nasty little classic. Such a straightforward approach works best if bolsered by extensive research, but the slim bibliography indicates a newspaper profile rather than an original and insightful work. All this being said, Bowen, Philby and Astor are interesting enough as people to making reading "Eminent Georgians" worthwhile. As for the good King George, it will take a much more persuasive writer to bring that admirable but dull monarch to life on the page.

As a life-long Cardinal fan, I have experienced the joy and pain of the Cardinals-Cubs series. When I found this book, I snatched it right up.

The book is woven with the stories of the players and all involved with the rivalry. Stories of some of the greatest games between the teams, the players who have seen both sides of the match-ups, and individual heroics bring the baseball and human side to life.

If you are looking for heavy lore on the game, this book is not for you. But if you are looking for a book that brings some of the finer points of the rivalry out, and allows you to hear from some of the participants, this may be right. I found myself reading along with no concept of time or page numbers.

My main criticism of this book is there were some factual errors found and several misspellings or typos. They seemed to stand out as ones that should have been caught, but somehow, were not.

There were a lot of things i had to skip but i got a lot of info out for my midterm so it helped out a great deal

This is not a particularly well written book, more a task of love than a masterpiece. However, it is packed with detail and is a valued addition to the bookshelf of anyone interested in this Anglo Saxon saint.