I'd really like to give this 3 1/2 stars (not quite 4 stars). This book is not for the average history reader...you will be confused and sometimes mis-led as you slog through these transcripts. The saving grace for this book is the authors' interjections at the beginning and end of each chapter to kind of summarize what just transpired (...a complete sentence is a rarity here...just what you'd expect from real time transcripts). Also, the Introduction and Conclusion sections are classic history telling and made me wish that the authors would write their own story of the "Crisis". Overall, worthwile for the Cuban Missile Crisis buff, but be prepared for slow reading.

To be honest, I bought this book used after seeing the movie "13 Days." In fact, I ordered this book the very night I came home from the movie, wondering if it would be worth the money spent.. Now, having read through it, I must admit that this was a very fascinating and intriguing book.

The book is an actual copy (i.e. transcript) of taped conversations that occurred in the Whitehouse during the Cuban Missile crisis. The book was so fascinating for the sole fact that it presents (true to life) all the details which were actually being spoken of, on, about, etc. The reader can actually sense the emotion, tension, anguish, and despair that comes out in some of these conversations. In fact, the intensity in this book puts the movie to shame (which is usually the case with most good books).

This book consists of conversation's of the National Security Council, President Kennedy,Robert Kennedy, and the President's advisors. The book is very revealing and honest (since it is true to life) and it paints a very vulnerable picture of just how easy things could fall apart in this 'invincible' place we call home. Fortunately, we as readers today actually know the outcome is positive. However, the terror comes through the pages when, as I read, the realization that these men have no idea what is going to happen as this whole situation unfolds. That was one of the riveting things about this book.

Overall, this is a great book for those who are interested in American history, or Presidential history, etc. I recommend it, especially since it is so fascinating and also because it is an actual account word for word accurate. That makes for great objective history.

I think that this is a very interesting book. When I found out that it was being published, I bought it right away. I've read a lot of books about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this is the first book that I've read about this subject that has the truth about events that occurred in the White House during the crisis. The book had a lot of action and suspense that kept me interested and excited throughout the entire book. It also accurately includes Kennedy's attempts to end the crisis and to avoid the pressures by the Joint Chiefs to make President Kennedy either attack the missile sites or invade Cuba. I thought that this was a really good book and I really enjoyed reading it. I also think that this book is worth reading.

"On A Street Called Easy, in a Cottage called Joye" is an easy and entertaining read, with short chapters perfect for the ride on the subway, or a break between tasks. A close parallel to "A Year In Provence", which is referenced by the authors, the story is essentially a humorous take on the gentry's lament "you can't get good help these days", but the biggest difference is that while "A Year..." is heavily slanted towards food, "A Street..." is almost entirely about the travails of renovating a wreck. It is after all, set in the deep (if it ain't fried, it ain't cooked)south, this is NOT Provence.
The "true" story follows its two, pullitzer prize winning authors as they leave their dark, viewless, Manhattan condo and set out for Aiken, S.C., where they've bought(for quite a bit less than the original million+ asking price) a sixty room mansion built in 1897 by WC Whitney, as the gilded age began to flicker to a close. Through neglect, the house is an absolute mess. The crew hired to bring it back to its glory is pretty much a mess as well. From the holdover-joint-toking hippie that makes off with the only, working-order copper piping to sell for scrap, to the tile man who wants to be paid for time he'd requested to hang out (doing nothing)while the tile arrived, to the maid who spends all day dusting 3 rooms, only to be discovered sleeping whenever the bosses are away. You can't leave this crew a for a second, as they discover towards the end, in a scene that will leave wine lovers heart broken. The problem is, as with "A year in Provence", the owners seem to have a bottomless pocketbook, and always seem to have a check to write to cover whatever goes wrong. And EVERYTHING goes wrong. This eventually takes away from the believability, especially when combined with the patience of Job that the two men seem to display, endlessly, towards what are essentially ne'er do wells and lowlifes posing as contractors. Ah, well. You do learn a bit about the Whitneys, the house in its better days, Aiken in its better days, and the more recent days. All in all a worthwhile read.

Can you begin to imagine two authors of brutal true crime stories, undertaking a project such as remodeling an old 60 room mansion? And can you believe their moving from their home in Manhatten to Aiken, SC? They write of their trials and tribulations, in such a manner, you wipe tears of joy and tears of frustration and sorrow for them. And all the time the reconstruction and renovations are taking place, they are constantly meeting friends and neighbors; while they are trying to hire someone for this project or that project. You celebrate with them over each accomplishment. By the time they finish the renovations, you can 'hear' the music filtering through the wing of the home where all of the parties will be held. Such excitement in the air. I am fortunate enough to live close to this location and took a trip over and found Joye Cottage! Absolutely breathtaking.... wish I could tour the inside.

I was given the BOOK version of this several years ago by a dear friend and honestly, I have read and re-read this book several times. The first time that I got it, I actually read it out loud to my husband while we were working on our own version of "Joy Cottage." We both roared with laughter!

Having moved to the South from the West Coast, I understood totally what Mr. White-Smith encountered! From Irish Travelers to the local restaurant that produces vegetables that have had every last trace of nutritional content boiled out of them, collard greens, fat back and fat light (it is vital that you know the difference: one is used to light fires and one is put in with your collards!),pepper sauce, sweet tea (cavities be damned!) to Moon Pies, Krispy Kremes, speech from people that you swear aren't speaking English, painters that can't paint, roofers that drink way too much, Nandina, Magnolias and Smilack at Christmas (I hope that I spelling the last one correctly!) and on and on and on. If you live in the South (especially if you are a transplant) and most especially if you live in or have redone an old house, this is the book for you!

As I said, I have re-read this book several times and I still find myself laughing hysterically. It is a great book that I am terribly sorry is out of print. Until it comes back into its second printing, the audio version will suffice. I wish they would do a "Part II" version...

A MUST read!

President Lyndon Johnson's tapes are exactly why modern presidents might want to leave the recorders off. We can read all kinds of conversations here- from his domestic problems with civil rights, to his election, to the war in Vietnam. We also can see how tender he was towards his wife, while still having affairs with other women. Michael Beschloss does us all a favor by providing transcripts of the tapes' key moments in the first two years of LBJ's presidency, with background material to explain all of their significance. Vietnam War researchers and U.S. history buffs will need to make this book a guaranteed spot on their shelves. Please note, too, that the auditapes are also available- but not all of the material in the book is found on the tapes.

Johnson's recorded conversations provide some important insight into this turbulent period in history. LBJ's selection of the Warren Commission to apparently chose individuals who would support the lone gunman theory so that the issue could be closed quickly and the crisis resolved. And he admits that he himself did not agree with some of the conclusions of the Commission's findings, like the idea that the same, single bullett that wounded Connally also killed Kennedy.

I am looking forward to more volumes on the LBJ tapes. This book covers less than one year of the president's time in office. The escalation of the war in Vietnam and what LBJ has to say about it on tape will be interesting to find out.

Author Michael Beschloss does a great job using footnotes to clarify exactly what is being talked about. This is a good read for those who like the "cut and dried" uncensored style of reading. You can't argue with actual spoken words!

Found this audio tape absolutely mesmerizing. To hear actual conversations related to hisorical events immediately following President Kennedy's assassnation was both fascinating and enlightening. Gave me an entirely new perspective of LBJ, his character and accomplishments. Also an excellent insight into what really goes on behind the scenes in our nation's capital. A strong reminder that what we read and hear via the news media is often 'less than accurate'. For me, this tape debunked many concepts I held related to LBJ and other political figures, especially Robert Kennedy. I was particularly surprised to hear the amount of respect and warm feelings that LBJ and Jackie Kennedy apparently held for each other. I reccomend this book and/or audio tape to anyone interested in better understanding the nature of our political system. A real eye opener for me. I will never accept the images that our news medial creates about our political leaders again.

When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

Obvious agenda here by a shallow author looking to capitalize on a recently re-elevated subject. The entire book fails to make any positive remarks about the most popular and elected politician in the history of the state of South Carolina. Most of the research by this "author" is conveniently taken from anti-Tillman press while bypassing all of the many contributions to the state and to the U.S. Senate. Tillman was honored and revelled by many fellow U.S. Senators from opposing parties (and from Northern States). He established Clemson University, Winthrop College and the Charleston Naval Shipyard. There were two U.S. Navy Ships named after him. None of these accomplishments and honors are worthy of mention by this spin artist. He conveniently chose to omit, and obviously failed to research, Tillman's admirable private and personal life as it would destroy the credibility of the subject and agenda.

Kantrowitz fails miserably in the area of accurate and balanced historical journalism. The slant is conspicuous and offensive and breaks the golden rule of interpreting sources and historic events in the context of the times they were written.

Don't waste your time or money.

Professor Kantrowitz, a professional historian, has written a book that is revealing of the man and the times but too long and detailed for the nonprofessional reader of history. He has mined old newspapers from South Carolina and other documents energetically--and it would appear that every one of his index cards, so to speak, has been carried over into the text. Consequently, there is more detail than this reader needed or could possibly absorb. This failing is compounded by the author's inadequate treatment of Tillman's life. Milestone personal and family events are mentioned in a sentence, with no indication that the author is interested in Tillman the person--although, to his credit, he does on several occasions remind us that Tillman was devoted to his wife and wrote her loving, and playful, letters. But Tillman's relations with his children are not covered adequately. Nor do we learn much about his nonpolitical relationships with friends, relatives and neighbors. In other words, Professor Kantrowitz has scanted the biographical aspects of his book in favor of doctrinal analsyis. He has given his readers too many excerpts from Tillman's speeches, letters and interviews--primarily on how he felt about the place of Negroes in a white-dominated society. Kantrowitz shows that Tillman took a hostile view towards Negroes, as African Americans were called (and worse) in the 19th Century, and yet he and other farmers needed them as low-wage laborers. His racism and support of violence, part of his calculated appeal to white "producers," are well established early on. But the point is made over and over. Tip to readers: Kantrowitz, a disciplined writer in some respects, introduces paragraphs with topic sentences. Very often the supporting detail that follows can be skimmed or skipped because the general point already has been made.

The reader from Washington says the book is too long, but he wants more personal detail! How would that happen? Fact is, for a major figure in American political history, Tillman has found biographer whose economy of language is commendable; Kantrowitz only uses 309 pages to do a magnificent job of storytelling and analysis. And it is a great read, especially given the deep and subtle insights that Kantrowitz squeezes from this Dixie demogogue's pernicious but important career. And he does so without turning Tillman into a demon, but rather by revealing that the Senator was not so much a tribute but a trickster of the people, and far from being a populist, served the richest and most powerful of his constituents as he poured salt into the worst of the nation's wounds--the scar of white supremacy. This book is eloquent and profound, and could scarely have been better crafted.

As a med student, i found this book extremely useful in that it achieved the impossible: make molecular genetics easy to understand (no only memorize info). The explanations about the processes within such a small nucleus... $60 weel spent!

Tudor Vianu,one of the best Romanian art critic said that a good literary work must pass the obstacle of Time,must be understood and appreciated in all the cultures of the world,must speak to all the social categories,must let the human soul speak in all its profoundness.Well,Shakespeare managed to do thatand I think that this book succeeds in emphasizing the actuality of this Elizabethan writer.

This book was a disappointment. I think that with the recent comprehensive late 20th Century biographies, such as the recent ones about Rockefeller and Lindbergh and Nigel Hamilton's Reckless Youth, we have come to expect the biographer to do a thorough investigation and analysis of the circumstances that impacted the subject. While I do not expect a Freudian approach in every case (and would probably object to it if done expressly), I welcome gentle suggestions that link early events in the subject's life with the later, more well known, events. This analysis was missing from Whizzer (with the exception of the origins of his hatred for the press). The book reads as if it is a collection of on-line newspapers searches, ones that I could have done myself if NEXIS had newspapers dating back to the 30s. Didn't anybody keep a diary? Didn't anybody write letters? Didn't anybody have any introspective thoughts? To those who say that this type of analysis is not necessary for a judicial biography, I direct them to John Jeffrey's book about Powell, which I thought was very well done, and a good model for what a judicial biography can be.

Byron White began his long judicial career in dissent, resisting the rising tide of criminal procedure liberalism of the Warren Court, and ended it as the balance wheel of Rehnquist Court. In his 31 years on the Supreme Court, from 1962 to 1993, he was in the majority in 807 five-to-four decisions, more than any other justice in history, except for the wily William Brennan who served on the court for 34 years. White also has the signal distinction of being the only Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court since the end of World War II who profoundly disappointed his erstwhile partisan allies. Beyond the fact that White refused to "grow" his jurisprudence from its New Deal origins to accommodate the latest cultural avant-garde enthusiasms of the juridical left, little is known about White and his jurisprudence is widely misunderstood.

The litany of White's accomplishments and his early rise to the court serve to obscure the lines of his jurisprudence, which he never made an attempt to clarify. Hutchinson's principal accomplishment is to discern from the mass of White's opinions a sound jurisprudential framework obscured by bulk of White's output (1,275 opinions in 31 years), and in doing so refute the assertion that White was unpredictable.

Although White was popularly described as a conservative jurist, this confounds the term as it is used to describe a specific interpretive philosophy with the judicial tradition which White came to exemplify. Today judicial conservatism is virtually synonymous with "original meaning," the method of constitutional interpretation that holds that the Constitution means only what it was understood to mean by those whose assent made it law. This has certain implications, among them that the Congress's powers are limited to those enumerated, that the three branches of federal government and their powers are strictly separated, and that the states retain inviolable spheres of sovereignty. In this sense, White was not a conservative at all. Where, say, Justice Antonin Scalia would subscribe to these general notions, White would not. For instance, while Scalia believes that the law permitting the appointment of Independent Counsels violates the separation of powers doctrine (Morrison v. Olson), White sees it as a permissible experimentation with the form of government. And though Scalia believes that the powers of Congress are, however tangentially, limited (Lopez v. United States) and that the states retain areas of discretion where the Congress may not intrude (Printz v. United States), White views the powers of the Congress as essentially unlimited (Katzenbach v. McClung) and the states as retaining no sovereignty that the Congress is obliged to respect (Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority). Although Hutchinson views "New Deal liberal" and "pragmatist" as imperfect labels, his carefully wrought and insightful analysis of White's jurisprudence nonetheless establishes that they are fair and roughly approximate descriptions of Justice White.

In it's judicial aspect the New Deal generally sought to eliminate restrictions on the exercise of federal power. These breaks on government power were exemplified early in this century by an activist libertarian Supreme Court's invocation of natural rights and non-textual notions of substantive due process to strike economic regulation. Lochner v. New York, where the court struck down regulations on the working hours of bakers as a violation of their liberty to contract their labor, is perhaps the most famous bugbear of New Dealers. But restrictions also came in the form of the enumerated powers doctrine and in the form of early criminal procedure cases which, as Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale has noted, invoked natural law and private property rights, and thus restricted the government's policing powers. All of these, in one way or another, restricted federal action. Judges of New Deal era, then, had a distinctly negative ambition: To remove the restrictions on the exercise of federal power so that the Congress, acting with the Executive, could enact social reform.

The ambition of liberal judges changed, of course, with the rise of "the real Warren Court," which historian David P. Currie of the University of Chicago dates to the replacement of Justice Frankfurter by Arthur Goldberg late in 1962. "Willful judges," as Justice Scalia describes them, were no longer content with deferring to the overtly political branches, but were now eager to enact social reform themselves. The criminal procedure cases of the Warren Court were animated by the ideas that policing by the states was institutionally racist and that crime was a manifestation of disease, not evil, and should be addressed as a public health concern. Steeped in the New Deal idea of the judicial function, however, White largely dissented from Warren Court's innovations. He dissented from Miranda v Arizona, which mandated the now famous warnings to criminal suspects; prefiguring contemporary arguments, he wrote "there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity" because under Miranda some criminals will be returned to the street to repeat their crimes.. White would also labor to limit the scope of rule excluding from trial illegally obtained evidence, and would dissent from Robinson v. California, where the court struck down a California statute criminalizing narcotics addiction. The court said that the state could not punish a person's "status" as an addict, only his conduct; White, sensibly enough, pointed out that addiction accrues through continuous willful behavior.

White was a pragmatist. He didn't believe that the provisions of the Bill of Rights had a "single meaning" or that constitutional provisions could be measured like the provisions of a deed, in "metes and bounds," but he was insistent that constitutional innovations be small and slow, and linked in a rational process. His father taught him that "You can't just stand on your rights all the time in a small town," and White had a lifetime aversion to "the angels of fashionable opinion," as Hutchinson memorably calls ideologues of various stripe. But White's contempt for philosophy could lead him astray. In Reitman v. Mulkey, White wrote the opinion of the court holding that California could not repeal a fair housing law because the repeal was motivated by animus toward minorities. In time, the case was precedent for the current Supreme Court's invalidation, in Romer v. Evans, of Colorado's attempt to deny homosexuals privileged legal status, and for a lower federal court to stay the implementation of California's Proposition 209, barring racial and sexual discrimination in state services. Pragmatism unguided by a philosophy lead White to judgments the long-term ill consequences of which he was not equipped to foresee.

However, White's small-step pragmatism and disdain for ideological enthusiasms kept him from joining most of the Warren and Burger Court's radical social agenda. Although he was willing to recognize, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a non-textual right to privacy permitting married couples access to contraception and even was willing to extend the right to non-married couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird, White famously and vigorously dissented from Roe v. Wade, privately telling people that he thought it was the only illegitimate decision the court made during his tenure. Perhaps just as upsetting to the votaries of judicial activism was White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that Georgia could constitutionally prohibit homosexual sodomy. White briskly dismissed the argument that homosexual activity was constitutionally protected: "[T]o claim that a right to engage in such conduct is 'deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

In an sense, White was precisely the type of conservative -- one who slows progress, but does not reverse it; one who ratifies the past, whatever its content -- that liberals claim they want. Except for Roe, White would later vote to reaffirm precedent, on the basis of stare decisis, with which he had earlier disagreed. And yet, few modern justices -- except, perhaps, Justice Clarence Thomas -- have been the object of so much vitriol as White. When White retired in 1993, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic called White "a perfect cipher" and a "mediocrity," Bruce Ackerman of Yale said he was "out of his depth," and the New York Times' Tom Wicker called him the "bitterest legacy of the Kennedy Administration." The best Calvin Trillin, writing in The Nation, could say of White was "We count his loyalty to team a boon/The other side might well select a loon" -- this in backhanded praise that White retired during a Democratic administration. These facile slurs betray the mercurial enthusiasms of the age more than they carefully trace the lineaments of Justice White's jurisprudence and are therefore more reflective of their authors than White's jurisprudence.

In many ways White is entirely alien to today's culture, popular and lega

Hutchinson has written a fascinating contemporary biography of Justice White who is almost unique in his continued insistence on his privacy and personal dignity. Although the author eschews speculation as to White's family or personal life, one still gets a good sense of the man--his intelligence, tenacity, and just plain decency. At least as interesting are the times he lived in, and few lawyers or judges have shared the action and passion of their times more fully than Justice White--first on the gridiron, then in the classroom, in the world of affairs, and on the court. White had his shortcomings as a communicator and legal theorist, as Hutchinson aptly illustrates with the oral and written record. But would that our society had more such self-effacing, dedicated and excellent lawyers and public servants!

A reader said that the book was a continuation of the 1970s policy-deny,deny, deny.

First of all, it was not a story or an analysis. Read Haldeman's prior book, THE ENDS OF POWER for that sort of thing.

Second, the DIARIES were more like a 5 1/2 year daily memo pad, talking about the day to day operations, from the mundane to the high charging.

Put that in your blowhole and smoke it!

As Chief-of-Staff, Bob Haldeman is to be commended for keeping such a detailed review of his White House years even during his "fall from grace" in 1973...That being said, the reader should be ready to be taken on an exhaustive and sometimes hard to follow review of the Nixon Administration. A previous knowledge of the Nixon Presidency and particularly Watergate is essential to get the most from this book. I found myself skipping pages as discussion after discussion about Grand Jury testimony and policy meetings on Watergate flooded the chapters towards the end of this book. I gave it 4 stars because the beginning of the book dealing with the initiation of the Nixon Presidency and the day-to-day observations (pre-Watergate) of an intelligent and observant White House executive far outweigh the "burned-out" and frustrated entries that close the book. The most surprising conclusion that I came away with was that Haldeman seemed to be a warm/accomodating "real" person, not the "Nixon Nazi" that he's been made out to be in other works on Watergate. Good reading

H.R. Haldeman was the crew-cutted former J. Walter Advertising Executive who joined on the Nixon campaign as an Advance Man, a job that if it is done right, no one notices - but if it is done wrong can destroy a candidacy. Haldeman always made sure every detail was attended to and post-election went on to be one of the most in control and feared Chief of Staff's in Presidential history. Haldeman cashed in shortly after Watergate with his own memoir which he later said didn't turn out the way he wanted thanks to publishers, editors and so forth and hardly got the attention of other Watergate memoirs such as 'Blind Ambition' and 'Will'. We didn't hear much from Bob Haldeman after his release from the Federal Lockup in California. After his death however, according to his wishes, his wife released his diaries the fact that they even existed was a bombshell and they were as complete and detailed as one might expect from this meticulous organization man. These memoirs make you the fly on the wall of the Nixon White House and we witness it go from full of hope, thrill and promise to descending deep into the pit of Watergate until the "cancer" that John Dean described as growing on the Presidency consumes Haldeman himself and the diaries come to a close. A true historical artifact not to be missed.

Stephen Hawking's life and his research in cosmology are fascinating and based on that alone I enjoyed this book. However, the book is poorly written and lacks depth. It lacks any detailed description of Stephen Hawking's work and doesn't provide any true insight into his life or character. For example, the authors repeatedly inform us of what an overpowering presence Stephen Hawking has but they never provide any evidence of this. Good writers show you what they mean - they don't just repeatedly tell you.

This book seems to based on no actual contact with Stephen or Jane Hawking or any of his colleagues. It seems that the authors read "A Brief History of Time," read a couple of articles, and then decided to write a biography. It definitely comes up short.

I am an enormous fan of Stephen Hawking, his achievements in physics are incredible and his ability to overcome his illness demonstrates how sturdy the human mind can be. He is touted in the book as the greatest mind since Einstein, which is a claim I also recently read concerning Richard Feynman. I have no opinion on this, as I hold them both in very high regard. To me such debates are silly, as ranking such people is so subjective that it is meaningless and wasteful.
That aside, I generally enjoyed the book, finding the explanations of the physics a little too simplistic for my tastes, but certainly within the realm of the general reader. My only real criticism is that there was too much ink spent on some of the minutiae of his life. Even Hawking probably objects to some of the details about his life that appear. However, I was pleased to read that he can be temperamental and shows his anger by running over a person's foot with his wheelchair. It just makes him sound that much more human.
This is a good biography of a great man, who lets nothing get in his way. An inspiration who probably does not want the role in any capacity other than as a physicist, he has revolutionized cosmology and it will be a minimum of decades before all the consequences of his work will be known.

Well, this book is about the biography of one of the genius of our time. But unfortunately, is not the biography that one waited. It was possibly written with the purpose of making money: because I think that what is written on Stephen, is sold at once. The book dedicates a chapter to explain the scientific developments, and the following one dedicates it to speak of Stephen, and so forth until the end. Finished the book, one doesn't know if it was bought a divulgation book or a biography. As divulgation book it is too limited, and how biography, it leaves to a side the spiritual content of a man born for the science. In total, an incomplete book. If you feel passion for the science, as me, you won't like this book.

But not everything is bad. If you are not informed of anything of the development of the science of this century, at least until some years ago, this is a good book for you, because on it you will find a small biography of one of the biggest scientific personalities in the XX century, and at the same time you will be able to find out topics so dark as those of the general relativity, singularities, black holes and something of quantum mechanics, in a simple, and easy language. You are the only one that, in definitive, knows as being located in front of the book.