The Titans begins at the very beginning of the American Civil War and continues until 1862. Louis Kent, son of Amanda Kent, has taken control of the family business and fortunes, but, despite being his mothers son, is turning out to be a heartless, profiteering opportunist.Jephta Kent is working on the familys newspaper when, through dramatic circumstances, he meets his son Gideon from whom he has been separated for many years. His former wife has remarried to an actor named Lamont, who is a fanatical supporter of Southern rights and who is secretly plotting to seize the fortune left to Jephtas sons, to further the Southern cause. As America is drawn into a war between the North and South, Gideon becomes a cavalry officer and takes part in many terrible battles. The book ends with the news that Gideon is missing in action--can't wait to start Book 6-The Warriors.

This book was one of the best I've ever read. Not only were the characters interesting, but the historical backround was extensive. I learned and understood many more facts about the Civil War that will help me in school. I finished it quickly and was disappointed to see it end. I have not read the other books in the series, but I will now. It would make a great movie. This is the perfect book for anyone intersted in history, scandals, or conspiracy.

the entire series was great....would be a terrific mini-series.

Matthew Kent, son of Jephtha Kent, is in Paris, happily pursuing the life of one of the new "bohemian" artists and befriending many of the new and promising artists of the time-Cezanne, Manet etc. and rather daringly having a live-in mistress.He becomes involved with a sadistic and violent agent of Bismarck (chancellor of Germany)and is forced to flee the country. Dolly, his mistress, becomes pregnant and insists that they marry to avoid the stigma of bastardy for their child.Their marriage doesn't survive so Dolly takes their son Thomas with her to India where she is employed as an English teacher.Matt returns to America briefly but decides that his future lies in Europe. Gideon makes an implacable enemy of millionaire businessman, Thomas Courtleigh who does all he can to destroy Gideon and his business by attacking his family, causing the death of his wife Margaret. On the same night, Gideon's daughter Eleanor is pack raped , causing irreparable damage to her self esteem. Eleanor leaves home at an early age, joining an acting troupe,and therebye relinquishing respectability as it was known in that era.After Margarets death Gideon is able to marry his longtime mistress, Julia Kent, widow of his cousin Louis and takes on the responsibility of her son Carter.

One of the more successful Kent books. The sons of Jephtha Kent -- who is conveniently (and oh too quickly) killed off -- reap what they have sown. The lawless Kent of the title is Jeremiah, the gunslinger-gambler. Jakes cleverly manipulates other members of his cast to come in contact with Jeremiah without knowing who he is; first Julia on her suffragist tour of the Wild West, and then brother Gideon, with tragic results. The travails of Matthew Kent allow Jakes to explore nineteenth-century Paris, but the author is more successful detailing the great Chicago Fire of 1871 and early union uprisings than the Parisian bohemian art world. Gideon Kent's story takes up the bulk of the book: his wife's madness (which I have trouble buying, even though her father was a drunk and alcoholism is supposed to be hereditary), his affair with Julia, his estrangement from his children, his pro-union sympathies, and his conflict with the railroad giant Courtleigh. Gideon's descent into conservatism is less abrupt than Philip Kent's in The Seekers, and therefore more realistic, but equally annoying. The abrupt about-face by Dolly when she decides to leave Matthew seems out of character: I feel like Jakes is setting up her son Thomas to take part in raj activities in India for a future book never written. Eleanor the budding actress is also a believable character, but her last-minute reconciliation with Gideon is even less convincing. The Lawless has less in the way of canvas and sprawl than The Warriors (for instance), and Jakes seems to be truly interested in character development over episode, perhaps for the first time in the series. Unfortunately, none of the characters is as compelling as Amanda Kent in The Furies --and Jakes chooses to relegate the women to a secondary position.

maybe my favoite of the 8, it is hard to decide, they are all great and together an awesome read....

This tale finds Sherlock Holmes ensconced in the Dead Rabbit's Society a brasher version of the British gentleman's club. 'Dead Rabbit,' in turn of the century New York patois, means 'best opponent.' I admit it is an odd name for what is supposed to be a fashionable establishment. Although, given the description of the food, the name may be apt for a different reason. Lest I forget, Holmes is only occasionally Holmes in this story. He is on that infinitely long hegira that lasted from Reichenbach Falls to his eventual reappearance in England, and has chosen Simon Hawkes as his nom de detection.

The story opens dramatically with a woman's suicidal plunge into the Hudson and then switches abruptly to the public rooms of the Dead Rabbit's Society. There we find Holmes/Hawkes discussing the recent death with George Hammond, a Rabbit of long standing. Their conversation is interrupted by a brief confrontation between Franklin and Charles Dunmore that enables our detective to once again reveal his scintillating analytical abilities, which barely stop short of estimating the brothers' respective bank balances. Hammond is appropriately awestruck. Little does Holmes realize that, in short order, Franklin Dunmore is about to become a client.

A week later, attempts on Franklin's life suddenly begin. He turns to Hammond for help, fearing that these efforts are from his brother's hand. Hammond, in turn, recommends that Franklin seek help from Holmes. Despite being busy saving the Police Commissioner from blackmail, Holmes has a flash of inspiration and generously offers to help. While Holmes discovers much, he is unprepared for the swiftness of events. Death comes early in this case and proceeds with nightmarish violence. Holmes finds himself at his wit's end.

Phillip Carraher is a promising writer, but I found the story a bit unsatisfactory. As indicated earlier, Holmes, disguised as Hawkes, and without Watson, never seems to settle completely into his role. He behaves atypically, both in the nature of his disguise and in an unusual tendency to reveal more than he should. If he is attempting concealment from the remains of Moriarty's gang, why he would then intentionally make a point of aiding the police. After all, his modus operandi is well known on both continents. If the gang was really intent on getting even with Holmes he would be singularly easy to come across.

Less tolerable, the plot devices chosen to move the action along are too tranparent, and diffuse most of the mystery. The plot is thin, and it is too easy for the reader to get ahead of Holmes. The ending so is unlike Holmes that Carraher actually has Watson remark on it to Holmes on its retelling. Characterization, however, is quite good, and the writer does a good if slightly over-dramatic imitation of Watson as narrator after the fact.

If you like fairly traditional Holmesian fare (a la Val Andrews), I think that you will find the Dead Rabbits Society a journeymanlike tale, short but satisfactory. If your tastes run to more ambitious additions to the canon I would suggest first looking to Larry Millett and Laurie R. King.

I liked this book very much. I don't normally write comments on the web, but reading Marc Ruby's review I just felt I had to remark on a couple of things he said.

1. He says (asks) why would Holmes help the police and solve crimes when in hiding (from Moriarty's gang? That, to me, is like asking why doesn't Holmes stop breathing while hiding? Holmes must be Holmes. It is second nature to him. I think any fan of the "canon" would agree. This thus strikes me as a frivolous criticism.

2. Marc says the ending (unique to say the least)is "unlike Holmes". Here I think he is totally off the mark. Any reader of the Doyle stories knows that Holmes is not afraid to act "outside" the law when he deems it necessary. Far from being "unlike Holmes" I thought the ending was something Holmes would very likely do. Although the morality of it is worth a discussion or two. It certainly makes Doctor Watson's eyebrows go up when Holmes tells him of it. Although in the end he (Watson) agrees it was the right thing to do.

3. He says it's a bit easy to "get ahead" of Carraher. I'm not certain what this means. Does it means it is possible to figure out (guess) who the killer is prior to the end? Perhaps. But this too is not a true criticism. I certainly did not "get ahead" of Carraher in terms of the twists and turns of the plot and the killing of at least two of the people came initially as a surprise. Anyway, Holmes stories are not really about "hiding" who the "bad person" is (Anyone read "The Speckled Band" and not know right off?) but rather about the logic and display of observation that Doyle (and now Carraher) offers the reader. Holmes mysteries are not about the cliche of having the killer be "the one you suspect the least". Rather they are about the manner in which Holmes solves crimes, the way he "sees" things that others (the police) don't see, and strings together inferences from the smallest detail. That is what (I think)defines a true Holmes story and this is what Carraher's book truly offers. I notice that Marc Ruby does say in his review that the book allows "our detective to once again reveal his scintillating analytical abilities, which barely stop short of estimating the brothers' respective bank balances." I agree with Marc on this point. In fact, that really is the joy of the book (besides the excellent writing) for Carraher does allow Holmes to "reveal his scintillating" abilities, not just once but throughout the book. Holmes is the detective "magician" with the "eyes in back of his head" and that is the Holmes that many other "Holmes" writers ultimately fail to give us but which Carraher offers us in abundance. This book is a must-read for any Holmes fan.

This book does not mark the return of Sherlock Holmes but rather the return of Arthur Conan Doyle. Phillip Carraher writes a novel that could easily be mistaken for a manuscript from the original author. He paints a vivid and plausible scene of 1890's New York that is historically and geographically accurate. The scene of the crime is tactfully shifted from London to New York where we witness a series of appalling and baffling murders and the strange events that lead up to them. But can the criminals hide the evidence from the powers of deductive reasoning of the "worlds only consulting detective?" I, for one, am anxiously awaiting the next installment in the adventures of Simon Hawkes (aka Sherlock Holmes).

The line of the Kent famiy is followed through with Amanda Kent as the main player. Amanda, daughter of Gilbert Kent was kidnapped and held as a wife by an Indian brave until his death when she was released.She then married a fur trapper who also died,leaving her to m ake her living as a bar keeper until she was caught up in the Battle of the Alamo and again taken prisoner as the woman of a Mexican Officer.She was treated well by him and gave birth to his son,Louis. By chance, she met,very briefly, with her cousin Jared who had been searching for her for years and inherited, on behalf of his son Jephtha,the control of his share of a gold mine. Determined to restore the printing firm of Kent and Sons in Boston to the family control, she and Louis set up house in Boston where she battles for ownership of the firm from the evil Hamilton Stovall,the man who swindled her family of their fortune and business.

Arguably the best of the Kent Family Chronicles, having as its heroine the strong-willed Amanda Kent, whose personality and strength of character reverberate off every page. How she makes it from the Alamo to the California gold rush to the throes of abolitionist New York strains belief, but ultimately the wild ride is worth the trip. Compelling characters help the journey: Bart McGill, Isaiah Hope, Jephtha Kent, Michael Boyle, Luiz Cordoba. And there is the usual liberal sprinkling of historical figures like Santa Ana. Not necessarily a page-turner, but a strong depiction of key events in American history, very indicative of the hardship and conflicts of the time. Better than "The Bastard."

just keep reading, they keep getting better....

After hearing all the raves about this book, I have been sorely disappointed in it, for two reasons. First, the production value of Cadogan/Everyman is completely shoddy. This book falls apart on repeated use. Second, and more importantly, the coverage is so slanted toward black that one senses an utter lack of objectivity on Watson's part. He would have you believe, by his annotations, that the most white can ever get is = in any line. There are entire sections of this book where, according to Watson, white cannot even equalize! Look at his Winawer sections; he does not cite a single game where white had an edge. This type of bias has no place in a work that is otherwise of decent scholarly quality. Readers generally rip books that are one-sided, the type of "winning with..." book that makes it seem that you cannot lose with an opening. Watson does that, big time, in this book. It seems that white has no prayer for more than equality. Such a conclusion is patently absurd. Does black win more with the French than the Sicilian? I think not. Why is the Sicilian played so much more often than the French? The French is fine, but Watson doesn't mention any downside to it in this book. It is all about black having advantages in the main lines. That conlcusion is bogus, as white will always have a slight advantage with correct play by both sides in the main lines of any opening.

Watson delivers a helpful, if not completely comprehensive, treatise on this stout defense. Don't buy the book expecting to learn all the possible lines. Watson's aim is to provide the reader with a solid system that contains playable counters to all of white's best replies.

This is a great book for anyone who struggles to win with black. At the very least, it will get you into the middlegame with a fairly even position. What you can accomplish from there is up to you.

It is very, very refreshing to see an openings book so specialized and thorough as this one. Watson shows what's going on in addition to providing variations for whatever you are likely to find playing the French:

1. Advance Variation
2. Exchange Variation
3. Tarrasch
4. Winnawer
5. King's Indian Attack

In that sense the book provides you with a repertoire in the French full of VARIATIONS and IDEAS.

Biased? Of course! Objective? You bet! Watson goes as far as telling me, the reader, what was inaccurate in the previous edition of his book! He also encourages me to review other treatises in French in those analyses that he deems incomplete! He warns the reader when he is presenting untested ideas! Can you ask for more?

Despite not having the title "Win with the French" or "Beat anybody with the French" I can say that the text is very, very geared towards showing paths where black can get, if not an advantage, at least a pleasant position from which it will be easy to play.

I am happy with this book and will never cease to come back to it for advice and study. Very independent treatise, very personal, very honest and very objective. Ah! This is nothing like a database dump... Is more than that and I can see that Watson did play through each and every line when writing the book.

"The Pilgrim's Progress" is widely known and widely imitated. Perhaps a bit too widely. While the book itself is stunning, having seen, heard, or read so many attempts to imitate it, I found that the original effect of the story was lessened for me.

By all means, this book should be read -- it is in itself a great work of literature, and it is a prime example of Puritan thought. Be aware, however, that much of it will seem trite and worn -- not because of anything inherently wrong with Bunyan's writing -- primarily because we have all heard so many poor imitations that it will be difficult to put them aside.

However, this book still warrants a reading for the simple fact that it is a great story! I shall be re-reading this in the not-too-distant future, hopefully better prepared to dismiss the memories of the imitations and to appreciate the genius of Bunyan's allegory.

Read it!

I read The Pilgrim's Progress as a child and recently reread it in order to do a comparative essay on allegorical journeys for my english class. The other book I read for the assignment was Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, and I found that Bunyan's novel equaled or exceeded Conrad's in every way. While Conrad used far more symbolism and allusions, I felt that Bunyan still did a better job of making the reader identify with his character's journey. The Pilgrim's Progress is a wonderfully written story that inspires hope and confidence in God to help his people though their own journeys.

My Grandmother proferred this book to me at a very early and immature age in my lifetime. I struggled and persevered with it, using a dictionary to decipher most words longer than 6 letters! Eventually I came to the end with with a strong determination to face up to my life with the same courage as Christian! Unfortunately, like Christian, I lost my way,more than once in my later years, lingering in unseemly places,falling into pools of Despondancy,and loosing Hope at one stage. I cant really remember the entire ending to Christian's journey,but as a man of some years now, and finding life a lot less turbulent and more meaningful,then I graciously look forward to the final part of my journey. Praise be to God. Like the book of JOB,John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is impossible to rate with a few stars! I would suggest that such books should be purchased 'mainly' unabridged but nevertheless, intelligible to the reader.

In many ways, this is the least effective Kent book. Gideon Kent dominates the other characters, and his determination to see that his family and the Kent name continue into the future is his dominant motivation. He dies in the book's final pages on the cusp of the twentieth century, his dreams fulfilled. Unfortunately, his unpleasantness as a character--building from the previous Kent book The Lawless--is a serious drawback. Why is it when the Kent men grow up (Philip, Louis), they become such unpleasantly conservative louts? The Americans reads to me like the work of a middle-aged man; only someone of middle-age could create without any sense of irony a character who does his best to dominate his family and stifle their plans and ideas to his own end, forgetting his own youth and energy in the process.

The fact that the book ends in 1900 also contributes to its comparative failure. Quite plainly, there is more story to tell, and Jakes' failure in his original plan to bring the Kent family up to 1976 is obvious. The three main surviving Kents--Eleanor, Will, and Carter--are each at crucial points in their lives when the story ends, and leaving them where they are with no sequel is not quite fair. Plainly, Jakes has things set up nicely for his characters to participate in the disaster of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 as well as the independence of India. Of the historical events and characters reproduced here, I found myself absolutely bored by Will's adventures in the Dakotas with Theodore Roosevelt. In contrast, the depiction of the Johnstown Flood of 1889 is probably the best of all the historical events recreated in the entire Kent series.

Book 8 in The Kent Family Chronicles neatly wraps up the family history in a most satisfying way.Carter Kent, son of Julia and Louis, shows some of the weakness of character of his father and becomes embroiled with shady, criminal types, forcing him to head for San Francisco where he becomes an off-sider to a powerful political boss. Will Kent follows his dream of becoming a doctor and after an initial inclination to concentrate on becoming rich and famous by marrying the promiscuous daughter of a society family, realises his true potential and joins a practice in the N.Y. slums. Eleanor Kent, married to Leo, a Jewish actor, experiences for herself the prejudice against Jews directed against her for daring to marry a Jew. They are caught in the terrible Johnstown flood and the pattern of their lives is altered forever.
I'm sorry that this wonderful series has ended but am grateful for the very real insight into American history.

My father gave me all 8 books for Christmas in 1980. In 2002 I finally got around to reading them! All in all I loved them, but I think some of the praise in these reviews is way over the top. One big complaint I have is that each chapter title gives away what is coming, like the snippets of coming scenes in a mini-series before the commercial. I found it rather insulting. But my biggest complaint is that John Jakes is so blatantly homophobic that it would be laughable if there weren't still people in the world who will take what he says at face value. Countless times in the series there are male characters that exhibit some form of creativity (Matt comes to mind with his painting), and instantly the parents are fearful that their child will grow up to be gay. I found these passages to be extremely offensive. But other than that, they are fun to read. Certainly not great literature, more like a soap opera.

Stockwell- October 12,1871 - Classics scholar John Selby Watson, 67, bludgeons to death wife of thirty years---

These are the bare bones of a factual crime that Ms. Bainbridge weaves her tale around. The story begins with Watson and Anne Armstrong's courtship in December 1844 and takes us through their outwardly quiet, but inwardly evolving marriage for the next 27 years. I am convinced this murder could only have taken place in the peculiarly repressive Victorian era. Ms. Bainbridge does a masterful job of placing us in that period; from the household to the clothes they wore to the transportation of the times.

Mr. and Mrs. Watson were a match made in hell, both to be pitied. John was an inward-looking, introspective, self-sufficient, gentle (yes, gentle!) person. Anne was intelligent, needy, histrionic, and highly intuitive. She literally and calculatedly drove him mad because of her disappointed expectations.

The last third of the book was devoted to actual trial excerpts. I could have used less of these, as many were repetitious. However, I found it interesting that the defense was clearly angling toward a temporary insanity plea. Edward Stanton, later Lincoln's Secretary of War, defending Congressman Dan Sickles, later Union General, in a scandalous trial, first successfully used this defense in the United States in 1859. Sickles shot and killed the son of Francis Scott Key on the steps of the White House for Keys' improper attentions to Sickles' wife. Sickles was acquitted. From the transcripts of Watson's trial, you can tell this was a new and extraordinary defense in England twelve years later.

Ms. Bainbridge is the type of writer you would like to corner and ask, "What made you think this, write in this particular way, and where in the world do your ideas come from?" She is, as always, fascinating.

Ms. Bainbridge has taken well-known bits of History and placed her mark on them. When she has done this the degree of familiarity you may have had with the event is forever altered. Previously I have enjoyed her version of events that were famous and or notorious, however this time her subject is one that was completely unknown. Further it was not even a remarkable story albeit a true one until Ms. Bainbridge decided to complete all that might have happened which was a larger piece of the known story. History recorded only the results and consequences never the cause.

This is not the Watson of literary fame that spent his time sleuthing with the great Sherlock Holmes. This man is as ordinary as the afore mentioned were extraordinary, and he only rose to average when at his best. The story is based on a true crime of the late 19th Century and one that is committed in this country on a daily basis. This part is important for the Author takes an event that is anything but momentous and makes it an excellent read. Further she ventures into social and moral commentary that is valid and argued to this day.

The Reverend Watson commits a hideous crime, not even he contests this fact. What no one can account for is why the act took place and his state of mind when committing it. The writer supplies a multiple decade history of what might have happened inclusive of the briefest of alleged dialogue.

The triumph here is a novel that utilizes a host of documents and court transcripts together with letters to a variety of newspapers. But they are only a part, almost addenda to what Ms. Bainbridge adds. It is as though she was given only an answer and wrote a thesis on the question.

This is another wonderful work by a writer who is consistently excellent.

This book is a real gem. The pleasure of reading it works in several ways. First, the Victorian period is evoked with stifling and dingy clarity; second, the character flaws and clashes between both Watson and his wife are drawn naturally and unsparingly; and finally, because the murder and its consequences are tightly and thrillingly narrated. It's such a page-turner that I can't understand why it hasn't been a hit on any continent (I found it at a used book seller's in London).

Book 2 0f The Kent Family Chronicles is The Rebels.Philip Kent is now a serving soldier in George Washingtons rebel army,enduring cold,starvation and all the privations of war. He recieves a letter from his wife,Anne whom he has left in Boston with their infant son,Abraham,who tells him of her worries about the unwanted attention of a sea captain who is connected to the shipping firm with whom they have invested their savings.A new character is introduced,Judson Fletcher, a dissolute drunkard and family black sheep who is a warped soul because of his love for another mans wife and the dislike of his father. The War of Independence is in its main stages in this book with the names of many well known soldiers and characters of historical importance being included--it's a wonderfully easy way to learn history within the context of a family saga.

John Jakes has become my favorite guilty pleasure. His books read fast and have plenty of action and melodrama (kind of like he wrote them with a miniseries in mind...hmm...). They're just trashy enough that you feel like you're having fun, and just historical enough that you feel like you're learning something. I loved the North and South miniseries, and I loved the Crown family books. I wasn't sure I would be as intrigued by the revolutionary period, but I'm falling in love with the characters - I had to run out to the bookstore and get "The Seekers" right after I finished "The Rebels!"

I love this entire series, and The Rebels is where the twists and turns of family fortune shift into high gear (drama?).

I was reluctant to read this one after the "Seven-Percent Solution," but Mr. Meyer disappointed me by writing a much better story.

This story appeared first in Play Boy, and the book is a longer revision of that one.

The story is about Murders that haunted the west end. Of course Sherlock Holmes cannot hold back when there are murders nearby.

The good thing about the book is that Mr. Meyer does not claim that any of the manuscripts provided by Doyle were forgeries. The bad thing is that he still uses real characters, like Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, and Bram Stoker, which I still say is dumb.

One other thing I hate about these pastiches is that they insist on saying that Watson was a real person, and that he used to publish his work under the pseudonym Conan Doyle, or else that Conan Doyle was the agent under whose name Watson used to publish works. I realize that this is one way to make things continue, but come on, we all know that we are only fooling ourselves.

Anyhow, I think the book might deserve 4 stars if not for the little drawbacks I mentioned above, and I am sure you are going to enjoy it, but try first to get it from the library, just in case you detested it.

Unfortunately, I must confess to being a little disappointed with Meyer's second Holmes pastiche. First of all, he went overboard with the famous people. It was as if he was trying to pay homage to all his favorite writers at once. And all the famous people just hurt the story for me. Sigmund Freud in "The Seven Percent Solution" was okay because I don't think that the book would have been the same had Meyer created a fictional person to treat Holmes' cocaine addiction. But in this one, all the famous people just seemed completely unnecessary and I felt that the book would have been much better if Meyer had created fictional characters instead of putting Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, etc. etc. into the novel. Secondly, there weren't enough deductions in the book. And third, I felt that the book was too much about the mystery and not enough about the characters. Doyle's Holmes stories were generally a little more about the characters than the majority of this book was. But then this goes back to all the famous people. There was no need for Meyer to tell us about the characters because we already knew them. The last few chapters are very good as far as being a little more about the characters but most of the book was just too much about the mystery. I'm still going to give the book 4 stars though because it was well written and, as in his first pastiche, Meyer did well with Holmes and Watson. The basic plot of the book was also good and inventive and seemed like something that Doyle would have written. There were also enough interesting scenes that made the book well worth reading in spite of the problems that I had with it. To give just one example, there's a scene involving Holmes' indoor target practice and it is discussed in a little more detail than in Doyle's stories. I won't mention anymore of the scenes that I liked so as not to spoil anything for those who haven't read it. Overall, I found "The West End Horror" to be a very decent Holmes pastiche and I would recommend reading it, but just don't expect it to be as good as "The Seven Percent Solution". Also, this book is not about Jack the Ripper. I've read summaries that say the book is about Jack the Ripper but it isn't.

I've read The West End Horror 3 times and absolutely love it. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Sherlock Holmes and I think Nicholas Meyer writes even better than Conan Doyle! I used part of the solution as an example in a project I did recently on the... well if I give you the topic, I'll also give you the solution to the mystery so I won't spoil it.