If asked to name a World War I novel most Americans would almost certainly say "All Quiet on the Western Front". Thanks to our rather uniform public education system, Remarque's novel has earned a place in American culture as the quintessential novel of The Great War. It deserves its reputation as a landmark of 20th century literature, but unfortunately its success contributed to the disapearance from memory of Thomas Boyd's "Through the Wheat". Without moralizing about the cost of war, Boyd brilliantly depicts its horrors and their effects on the psyche of a young American Marine. If you want to understand the Combat experience -- the noise, dirt, distraction, sweat, blood, stench of war -- this is a novel you must read. It is a tragedy that it is no longer in print.

Thomas Boyd's "Through the Wheat" was written by a former newpaperman and the book is fairly easy to read. The writing style was such that you though that it was a true story being told to a friend. He was better known when he was alive for his historical novels. But I think this novel was his best.

Thomas Boyd was an interesting man who died from a brain tumor thought to have been caused by his being gassed during the WWI. He came back the war disillusioned and ran for public office in New Hampshire or Vermont as a communist. Mr. Boyd died suddenly in his early thirties and left behind a wife and a daughter. One of his collections of short stories Points of Honor(light) was made in a successful silent movie.

Flexner vividly recounts Hamiltons life and career through age 26. This reads like Dickens writing history - from Hamilton's miserable, impoverished home life until age 10, his teenage life in his adopted country, (America), his career in the Continental Army, his love for Elizabeth Schuyler.

Flexner Brings the young Hamilton to life through his letters and actions in the revolution. This book has a vividness that is remarkable. The famous and not so famous participants in the story come to life also - George Washington, The Marquis de Lafayette, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, etc.

This book has been criticized for being overly "psycological". This aspect is not over done. Simply put, this is a great story - well told, well researched. Highly recommended.

In the bibliography of this book Mr. Flexner wrote that he felt that the real Hamilton had become obscured through the years through the writings of people who were either too fawning or too critical, depending on their political biases. Mr. Flexner therefore tried to get back to original sources as much as possible. Reading quotations from Hamilton's correspondence is one of the great pleasures of this book. But there are many things that make this book special. The author has a smooth, easy-to-read style. I have read elsewhere, in connection with one of Mr. Flexner's volumes on George Washington, someone complaining that the style is stilted or "old-fashioned." I heartily disagree with that criticism. Mr. Flexner was born in 1908 and this book was first published when the author was 70, but there is nothing "old-fashioned" about the prose. The style is actually quite modern. Another thing I enjoyed about the book was that the author went into the psychiatric reasons for Hamilton's sometimes aggressive and impulsive behavior, but he did so in a reasonable manner. You didn't feel as though you were being bludgeoned with analytical arguments but Mr. Flexner "gently" gave some commonsense and logical reasons for why Hamilton behaved the way he did e.g.-the stigma of his illegitimate birth, his mother's irresponsible behavior, being brought up in the West Indies and being left to basically fend for himself at an early age, etc.

I also enjoyed the way Mr. Flexner concentrated on Hamilton's service as aide-de-camp to George Washington during the Revolutionary War. There is a lot of interesting military history here, dealing with the battles fought on Long Island and in Trenton and Princeton and Monmouth, as well as Yorktown. There are wonderful gems of information, such as Washington's propensity to lose his temper amongst his close aides, when he wasn't on "public view" and felt that he could "let his hair down" a bit. Other interesting scenes include: at the Battle of Princeton where a patriot cannonball went through the window of Princeton college and slammed into a portrait of George II that was hanging on the wall, "decapitating" the king. (The patriots took the portrait down and "repaired" it by having an artist paint a scene with George Washington in it!); The Battle of Trenton, where the patriot army celebrated by drinking up the liquor the Hessians had left behind. Washington wanted to pursue the Hessians but was forced to give up on the idea as his men were in no shape to do anymore fighting!; Finally, in the section dealing with the Battle of Yorktown, Mr. Flexner mentions that shortly before the battle word had spread that a British force, led by Benedict Arnold no less, had been so upset by the strong resistance they had encountered in trying to take a fortress in New London, Connecticut, that the British had executed the men who had wanted to surrender to them when the fighting was over. The patriot army at Yorktown wanted to get revenge on the British and Washington had to give a speech before the battle that he basically didn't want his men to "lower themselves" to that level. If British troops wanted to surrender the surrender should be accepted and they should be taken prisoner. The troops did obey Washington's directive...

On a final note, I felt Mr. Flexner was very fair in this book. The author looked at Hamilton from all angles and praised the good things about him- his intelligence and hard work and sincere interest in doing what he felt was good for the future of the country- but also criticized his sometimes rash and impulsive behavior, and the author didn't gloss over Hamilton's general disdain for humanity!

This was a really excellent book and well-worth your time.

The circumstances and situations that lead to the duel and subsequent death of Alexander Hamilton, at the hands of Aaron Burr, are grounds for great historical debate. Prior to reading Thomas Fleming's "Duel" I was taught to believe that Hamilton accused Burr of incest and that Burr hesitated before fatally shooting Hamilton in the groin. After reading "Duel" I have a better and more importantly, concrete, understanding of the events that brought about and transpired on the day Alexander Hamilton was shot.

Thomas Fleming takes time to explain the political motives and major players of the early 1800s. Fleming explains family life, work life, political life and general media approval or disapproval of Hamilton and Burr by way of newspaper printings. This method of explanation leaves no gaps for conspiracy theories and gives the reader concrete information to make their own assumptions. Fleming remains very objective throughout the book, never taking either mans' side in the situation or showing too little or too much sympathy for the characters involved. The inevitable outcome of the book was not up for debate but the exact actions and repercussions have been and Fleming does a terrific job to explain, while not dictating, his understanding of this American story. I highly recommend "Duel" to anyone interested in history, politics, the person on the ten-dollar bill, and/or Aaron Burr.

This is a great book because it really makes the historical figures discussed come alive. If you're the type of person who can't deal with seeing your personal historical heroes dissected, then this is not the book for you. Stick with haigiography. If, on the other hand, you have mature tastes and are ready for a "warts and all" approach, then dive into Duel. You'll learn that the true story behind the famous "interview at Weehawken" was much more complex than what you may have learned in school. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were all brilliant but flawed men. Hamilton was a notorious womanizer. Jefferson had trouble living up to his lofty rhetoric. Burr was too ambitious for his own good. The world of the early U.S. republic was too small for three such massive egos. This book, while it does not rehabilitate Burr completely, does help the reader understand why he killed Hamilton. In the end, these men are portrayed as they probably really were--human beings with foibles and flaws, not giants who loomed over the landscape like demigods. Far from being "fiction," this book is an example of how a skillful writer/historian can make an esoteric subject a fascinating case study but putting it in its proper context. If you have any interest at all in Hamilton, Burr, Jefferson or post-Revolutionary War history, do not miss Duel.

I recommend this book for people who enjoy historical narrative writing. Fleming has done a very good job in portraying the various characters and historical context of which this famous duel between Hamilton and Burr had taken place.

It is also to Fleming's credit that the people are portrayed as complex characters and not straw men. I enjoyed learning more about the familial relationships and politics of the various founders. Fleming's prose is simple and he maintains good tension in a story that everyone is basically familiar with.

I agree that with another reviewer that the potrayal of politics of the time period could be disturbing especially for those who hold more cherished and idealized views.

There is not much in the way of historical analysis or "what if" but the work gives a personal texture to what some consider a dry topic, American political history.

All in all a good narrative history that brings early America with its complexity alive.

I'm afraid this was rather tedious reading. While I can appreciate that a scholarly biographer may choose to merely stick to the facts as they are known regarding the life of their subject, still it is my personal feeling that someone's life is far more important than the facts: what did that life MEAN to others? The biographer is, in my opinion, on safe ground when they interpret the life of their subject and write the story that has meaning for the author, not just a compilation of detailed facts. That is essentially all that Alexander has done with his treatment of the life of Wilford Woodruff.

The tragedy is that the story that occurred in the Mormon "kingdom" during the life span of the 4th President of the Church was anything but dry! While I disagree with the author's assertion that "Woodruff was probably the 3rd most important Mormon after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young," (I don't know how you could possibly quantify the value of a man, and then rank them in some sort of Letterman's Top Ten List...especially when you consider the incredible contributions of other Mormons, including Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, the Pratt Brothers, as well as some of the more notorious, such as John Bennett,) still, so very much changed in Utah during his presidency that radically shaped the future of the West, that the feel and meaning of the story should be TOLD, not merely documented. It was during the leadership era of Wilford Woodruff that the Mormons finally joined the United States, which was in reality an incredible shift in the paradigm of the Mormon hierarchy. Plural Marriage, one of two keystones to Mormon segregation, (the other being the notion of theocratic inheritence of whatever land they happened to occupy), was eliminated...more or less...during his leadership. And the millenialism of the Saints became considerably tempered. Instead, Alexander chose to focus on the breakup of the People's Party and the importance of the tension then between Mormon Democrats and Mormon Republicans. To read this book, you would think that was the biggest story in Woodruff's life. I don't disagree that it was important in shaping policy, but it wasn't the real story. Furthermore, you practically know nothing about his families as a result of reading this book, only that he had four, plus a few divorced wives, which you would think in the family orientation of this church that these people would be a more significant subject of this book.

The fact of the matter is, Alexander has chosen to focus on the History of Utah and the Church during the life of Wilford Woodruff, while mentioning Woodruff's involvment, rather than focus on his life, while mentioning what was going on in the church. We know the history already, but tell us about the Man!

Read the book, but don't expect to be kept on the edge of your seat, shed any tears, or experience vicariously the joy and satisfaction of a full life, well lived in the service of his fellow men, his country, and his God.

Things In Heaven And Earth: The Life And Times Of Wilford Woodruff, A Mormon Prophet is a fascinating, detailed, meticulously researched and comprehensive biography of a remarkable man, his life, work, thought, philosophy, and contributions. Biographer Thomas G. Alexander (Lemuel Redd Professor of Western History, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) has made an important and seminal contribution to the study of Wilford Woodruff's personal life and contributions to the development and expansion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Things In Heaven And Earth is important reading for student of Mormon history in general, and the lives of the influential men who lead and shaped its activities, theology, expansion, and organization. Also very highly recommended is Thomas Alexander's Mormonism In Transition: A History Of The Latter-Day Saints, 1890-1930.

After taking yet another one of Prof. Figueira's courses on the ancient world, I was pleased to read something that was less overpowering to my mind. I think that Profs. Figueira and Brennan were able to capyture the similarities between our modern world and that of the ancient. They were able to apply concepts that we readily know now, to a world that we won't understand immediately. In particular the emphasis on ancient coinage was employed well.

Caution: Some of the translations here are pretty raw in describing sexual matters. If such things offend you, this book may not be the ideal way for you to learn about better business practices.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were very concerned with political, military, and financial effectiveness. Since human nature changes slowly, if at all, we should not be surprised to learn that many ancient leaders and authors had quite a lot to say that is of relevance today. The book's subjects relate to many of the tricky areas of human interaction and psychology. There are sections on leadership, building and losing constituencies, consulting and decision making, strategy, competition, collegiality and teamwork, risk taking, recognizing opportunity, communications, management-employee relations, motivation, hiring and firing, delegation, and handling success and coping with mistakes.

I found the ancient materials very interesting, learning about classical figures I had not heard of before. I would have enjoyed the book even if it had not been presented as a business management book. Since the work is done by classicists, the ancient references are numerous, well chosen and spicy.

As a management guide, the book is not nearly as big a success. However, I did not find it any less good than any of the books I read which regurgitate what other writers have had to say before.

There were no big "ah-ha's" for me. Maybe I've been reading too many management books.

On the other hand, I didn't read anything here that was a bad idea for a business person to think about.

There's some very fine humor in several sections. For example, the "consultants" are usually seers, interpreters of oracles, and advisors. The explanations given for bad advice by the "consultants" are often pretty funny.

Many people report knowing better when they make a mistake in these areas . . . but taking the wrong path anyway. Now I wonder what the ancients would have had to say about that?

Think carefully, especially when you feel caught up in an emotional reaction!

This book would normally get a "10" for providing us with the shorter poems of Edmund Spenser, but it is marred by overediting. The collective ego of Yale comes through on almost every page. I can see one footnote that begins, "There is irony here." I ask, is there any poem without irony? Why point it out? A footnote should be providing the student with factual information, references to allusions, etc., and not providing interpretation. So, buy the book; Spenser is so great a poet that philosophy textbooks sometimes devote pages to him; but ignore the editing.

If you are in any way responsible academically for Spenser's shorter works, this is the book. Editing, of course, refers to how the text of the poems is managed with regard to conflicts in early editions, etc. Here, decisions on text are made consistently and all changes vs. early texts are listed in the Appendices. Also useful, even though it's now more than 12 years out of date, is the annotated bibliography, which provides a good starting point for additional literary research.

a great design book i have ever seen in a design bookstore ofmy city!... the book introduces the details of making some famouschairs.for a design student,it is very useful.you can understand how the classic chairs was made step by step and what they are made of.much beautiful pictures! END

Alexander H. Stephens was a prototypical, antebellum Southern Whig: scholarly, principled, and moral. Yet in many ways his life was compromised as he, along with other Southern politicians, was "compelled to defend the indefensible."

Stephens despite the disadvantages of humble beginnings and a sickly, frail constitution was able, through some fortuitous and generous assistance on the part of others, to climb into the lower ranks of Southern society, first as a lawyer and then as a U. S. Congressman. There, Stephens found himself in entangled in such antebellum controversies as the Mexican Cession, the Wilmot Proviso, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the Lecompton controversy.

Stephens as a Whig was a staunch defender of the Constitution, the Union, and the rule of law. He opposed the Texas annexation and the Mexican War as infringing on those cherished beliefs. However, Stephens was constantly walking a tightrope between his Whiggish principles and the political realities of the South over the issue of slavery. He supported Kansas-Nebraska, but by that time he had been forced to jump ship to the Democracy. Later he committed the apostasy of siding with the northern Democrat Douglas in the Lecompton controversy and then supported him for president in 1860. For this reader the author's coverage of these controversies gets a little confused by his focusing on the various tortured rationalizations of the various parties, including Stephens'.

The author devotes much time to the state of Stephens health in this period (often sick), his mood swings (often in despair), and his need for recognition which is seen in his oratory, his obsessiveness in defending his personal honor (even resorting to challenges for duels), and his somewhat exaggerated views of his own importance. Stephens was a prolific writer of letters, especially to his younger brother Linton, throughout his life, and these are used well by the author to capture Stephens' thinking.

Stephens was one of the leading Southern politicians who opposed the Southern secession. During the War, from his position as Vice-President of the Confederacy, he was a constant thorn in the side of Jefferson Davis, the President. Of course, Stephens construed his opposition as principled. But his opposition to such policies as conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus in the context of Southern survival seems wrong-headed. After the War, Stephens was returned to the House of Representatives and then served as governor of Georgia for four months before his death in 1883 at the age of seventy-one.

At times this book becomes tedious in its detailing of the endless rationalizations and defensiveness of Stephens in his various political dealings through the years. His self-assignment of being more moral, pure, and principled than others wears thin. In addition, for such a lengthy book, it seems that only a glimpse of the broader world shows through and then through Stephens' views and machinations. The reader can become only moderately informed of the events of the day and of Southern society. The book definitely focuses on Stephens, the insatiable and recognition-starved politician, which probably narrows its appeal.

An excellent source of specific data, good graphics. Good for a high school level or older...

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the most positive side, it is the only, and therefore the best, treatment of the issues of citizenship that I could identify, and that is why I bought it. The range of authoritative essays that have been brought together is very worthy, and anyone contemplating this topic must take this work into account.

On the other hand, as I went through chapter after chapter, what I tended to see was an awful lot of academic whining about how the world is getting too complex and too multi-cultural to be able to pin someone down to just one citizenship, let them have many. Reality check needed here. Governments exist to preserve and protect very specific moral, ideological, and cultural values, and governments are the means by which a Republic finances what are called external diseconomies--those things that are needed for the common good but not profitable for the private sector to do.

There are glimmers here and there of how one might better integrate new immigrants and otherwise promote good citizenship, but overall what this book is missing is a major commitment to thinking about how one draws the line between nationalized citizens truly loyal to their newly chosen nation-state, and those who choose to retain another primary citizenship and simply enjoy the bounty of the land they have chosen to VISIT....

Of all the contributions, the one that stood out for me was by Adrian Favell, on "Integration Policy and Integration Research in Europe: A Review and Critique." Despite the title, the heart of this chapter concerns the information "sources and methods" that underlie conclusions about citizenship and the policies on citizenship. There is a great deal of meat in this chapter, and it could useful guide the next book in what I hope will become a series.

I like this book. It forced me to think and it certainly opened my eyes to how we are letting a whole bunch of people debate the nature of citizenship without ever really being committed to the idea that an oath of loyalty is fundamental--as universal service should be fundamental, not to flesh out the military, but rather to provide a common foundation for knowing one another intimately, for respecting one another from that common ground. How one defines citizenship is fundamental to the future of every nation--this book both enlightens and frightens.