I really enjoyed Walden, it's a very deep philosophical book. Thoreau is very insightful, and he is also very intelligent. I admire his capability to digress on different subjects and expand on the topics. His profound statments make an individual contemplate and search his inner soul for his true identity. This book, if read carefully and with much thought, can really impact one's life. It can help one search themselves and think differently about life in general. I would encourage people to read this book if they have a good grasp on their life because it could be confusing and somewhat depressing at times, depending on the maturity level of the individual. If one has an interest to read this, it can be very enjoyable, and challenging at the same time.

Mind you, this isn't idle worship - this book is a masterpiece of American Literature, and along with 'Civil Disobedience', represents one of the greatest literary minds America has ever known. Thoreau stands with Dickinson, Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman as one of the greats of his era. Indeed, in the 1850's when 'Walden' was originally published, it occasionally sat beside 'Moby-Dick' and 'Song of Myself' on book shop shelves. In reading Thoreau, one comes to understand the scholar and the naturalist that have so profoundly come together next to Walden Pond; their combination seems to express some of the most basic underpinnings of American life. More than that however, their intertwining through insight and spiritualism evokes a thoughtful reverence for life in its entirety. Thoreau's ruminations are striking, not merely for their deep beauty and sentiment, but for their delving examination of the human soul. The way in which he blends the substantive and the sublime, bringing the reader to Walden Pond in mind, body, and soul, deserves praise as one of the highest forms of art. One cannot help but wonder at the depth - of Thoreau, of the spirit, and of Walden Pond.

- in fact, I bought it on the strength of reading a couple paragraphs at random in a bookstore. But this book, in spite of being heavily footnoted, giving the impression of scholarly depth, is not especially good. After a couple of chapters, wading through unfinished sentences, poor grammar and spelling, you begin to realize that this is little more than a college term paper based on breathless enthusiasm over the works of other scholars. Truthfully, anyone seeking information about ancient astronauts, religious politics, Knights Templar and Atlantis would be better served by reading the originals from which this poorly organized pastiche came. Until this person does primary research on his own, please read Zechariah Sitchin, Helena Blavatsky, David Hatcher Childress, Bruce Rux and Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln instead.

The premise is fascinating, however. I really DO want information on the religious and occult background on World War II, and I'm even prepared to accept that WWII is a modern continuation of political and religious divisions set up many thousands of years ago. But this book is entirely too wild-eyed and ill-organized for even my credulous nature. Don't buy it.

Excellently researched and very well written. William Henry has done his homework on this subject. I was fascinated with some of the facts that he uncovered. He is a very interesting author who has begun to get some radio airplay. He is fascinating to listen to. I highly recommend this book to any open-minded reader.

William Henry has put together a wealth of information connecting ancient religions with current belief systems. As a student of Ancient cultures, beliefs, and writings, I feel that this will be a great research treasure. William Henry also has a writing style that is easy to read and understand.

This book is an excellent explanation of the case for Brushy Bill Roberts as Billy the Kid. The authors do a good job of seperating fact from fiction and using all available information to dig to the bottom of Brushy Bill's identity. Before I traveled to Hico, Texas and purchased this book, I didn't beleive the claim of Brushy Bill. Even though I am still not %100 convinced about Brushy Bill, I believe the evidence is heavily on his side. It seems to me that the authors and supporters of Brushy Bill as Billy The Kid have been tormented and shunned by the supporters of Pat Garrett and the New Mexico travel industry. Through all of this torment, the supporters of Brushy Bill have stood firm. You should decide who is on the right side of this battle for yourself. You dont even have to go to Hico, Texas to get it like I did.

BRUSHY BILL DID NOT SEEK ATTENTION TO HIS REAL IDENITY, HE TRIED TO HIDE IT ALL HIS LIFE, ONCE BILL MORRISON CONFRONTED HIM HE ACKNOWLEDGED WHO HE WAS...HE KNEW TO MUCH ABOUT LINCOLN COUNTY WAR TO HAVE NOT BEEN THERE. HIS GENEALOGY HAS ESTABLISHED ALL OF THE SURNAMES HE USED AND ANYBODY THAT HAS READ THIS BOOK AND THE 4 BOOKS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS THE KID. I HAVE READ ALL 5 BOOKS THAT I KNOW OF THAT DEAL WITH BRUSHY BILL AND AFTER READING THE FIRST 4, THAN READING THE RETURN OF THE OUTLAW BILLY THE KID I'M MORE CONVINCED THAN EVER OF WHO HE WAS. TRADITIONAL HISTORY SHOULD BE RE-WRITTEN. POLITICS & MONEY DEMAND THAT THE TRUTH NOT BE KNOWN. LINCOLN NEW MEXICO'S BIGGEST MONEY MAKER IS THE BILLY THE KID LEGEND AND, IF THE TRUTH WERE KNOWN THEY WOULD NO LONGER HAVE THE TOURIST FLOCKING TO LINCOLN. W.C. JAMESON & FREDERIC BEAN DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PICKING UP WHERE THR OTHER AUTHORS LEFT OFF.

At last, some solid science has been applied to the controversy regarding who was killed by Pat Garrett. William Henry "Bushy Bill" Roberts was Billy the Kid, as shown by the computer comparisons of faces conducted by the University of Texas, making them a statistical "match". This is a noteworthy continuation of the work by Harvard Ph.D. Charles L. Sonnichsen who wrote Alias Billy the Kid in 1955, showing Roberts could quite possibly be the Kid. Now computer science has answered the long-debated question. Garrett shot the wrong man. All these years people have relied on the doubtful word of Ash Upson and his fanciful tale of a Robin Hood-type figure, with no facts to support any of his claims regarding the Kid. This is a compelling book filled with facts and statistically valid comparisons of the two images. Only the die-hards now believe the Kid is buried at Fort Sumner. He lies in a pauper's grave in Hamilton County, Texas, having died peacefully of a heart attack in 1950. Garrett, and his ghost writer Upson, were both frauds, and modern science has given us undeniable proof. A great read for those with an open mind!!

I will start by saying Liddel Hart is my favorite military historian/author and I own half a dozen books by him, and regard them as gospel. However I felt that Liddel Hart was not as well versed in this area as he is in European History. He lets his ingrained contrariness run away with him. He wants to create a "great captain" where there is none. He also, I believe, wants to convince the reader of the genius of the "inderect approach" which he expounds in his excellent book "Strategy". However I think considering Sherman's campaign as indirect is like calling D-Day indirect because the allies invaded Normandy as opposed to Calais. ( I must admit that I am biased because I am a Lee fan) Like every other book by Liddel hart though, it is a very quick and pleasant read. I would recommend his book on Scipio as a great intro to his work.

Sherman was both the most original genius of the Civil War, and "the typical American". His career provides lessons to the modern world and to modern warfare. It was his conscious exploitation of the economic and psychological factors of war in his "March through Georgia" which helped to end the Civil War. The long and expensive battles in Northern Virginia were replayed on the battlefields of France in the Great War.

The Union attempted to take Richmond by the shortest and most direct route; but this way was blocked with natural obstacles. If the Confederates fell back they would be closer to their reserves, supplies, and reinforcements. These facts favored the entrenched defenders.

The western campaign ended in the capture of Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi from St. Louis to New Orleans. Liddell Hart contrasts the maneuvers here to the stalemate back east. But the conditions, or politics, did not allow a wide flanking invasion through West Virginia or North Carolina. The threat to Richmond kept Confederate troops there. Longstreet proposed an invasion of Kentucky, a far flanking attack, but was turned down by Lee.

It explains how Sherman out-maneuvered Johnston from Chattanooga to Atlanta. By threatening to outflank Johnston, the Confederates fell back. His replacement by Hood did not prevent the capture of Atlanta. This revived the hope of victory for the North, and helped to re-elect Lincoln.

Sherman then abandoned his supply and communication lines (vulnerable to attack) and marched on to Savannah and the ocean. His army lived off the land. This enabled his army to be resupplied by the Navy. He then marched north, seeming to attack other cities, but passed between and continued to destroy railroads and bridges.

The end came soon after this, as other armies invaded the South. Sherman designed an armistice and amnesty where the Confederates would be disbanded, and their arms turned over to the states. The latter would allow repression of bandits and guerillas. He was criticized for this.

Sherman was a man of modest habits. When admirers raised [money]to buy him a house, he refused to accept unless he received bonds that would pay the taxes! He lived within his means. The resisting power of a state depends more on the strength of popular will than on the strength of its armies, and this depends on economic and social security (p.429).

Liddell Hart gave preference to contemporaneous correspondence rather than Official Reports (which are written for history to justify a policy). Some of the ideas in this 72-year old book may not coincide with more recent history.

Dispite reading most of major accounts of the American Civil War, I had not fully understood the central role played by Sherman until reading Hart's book. Hart makes it clear that Sherman's appreciation of the futility of attacking entrenched positions and his consequently developed strategy and tactics turned the tide for the North, saved the 1864 election for Lincoln, and saved perhaps tens of thousands of Union and Rebel lives. He also points out that the same insight accounts for most of Lee's success, i.e., Lee won battles in which he entised the North to attack entrenched positions (e.g. Fredricksburg) and lost when he attacked entrenched positions himself (e.g. Gettysburg). Hart fully disposes of the long held prejudice that Sherman's approach to war was more inhumane than the alternative of massive blood letting being practiced by virtually every other Civil War general. It is rare to find a historical account containing so much insight.

As far as I can tell, Henry's thesis is that in order to achieve true egalitarianism, you must have a form of elitism. By elitism, he means the making of distinctions and then, sometimes, ranking the things you have distinguished. I expect this book is infuriating to just about everyone who reads it. Progrssives will cringe at some of his social policy suggestions. Conservatives will hate his laissez-faire attitude towards things like gay rights. And most readers will feel flayed by his discussion about how to label himself, since some portion of his views appear to be repugnant to everyone.

And yet, it is an enormously thought-provoking work. Henry was passionate about his ideas, and the prose is driven by this passion into readable, urgent passages. As fas as I can tell, Henry was a moderate, and an old-fashioned liberal. And yet he believed some things which are generally believed by modern-day conservatives. So what was he? His confusion about that seems to have been more due to how the word "Liberal" has evolved its meaning over the last 150 years than to anything else. This confusion lead him to sit down and write this book, where he tries to work out (in front of his readers) just what he believes and how that fits with his other beliefs and activities.

The question of how to make egalitarianism work is one of the great open questions of the 21st century -- it is not even clear that egalitarianism *can* be made to work. This book provides one man's answer to the question of what a working egalitarianism might look like.

I sure don't agree with all his conclusions. He has latched onto at least one serious insight, and articulated it clearly. Where the book loses focus is in his floundering around to justify some of his political positions. Nevertheless, this book is a smoothly written path into the heart of some of the critical dilemmas of the modern world. And I don't have to agree with all his answers to value Henry's framing of the questions.

William Henry was a two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize (once for reporting, once for criticism) and served as Time Magazine's culture critic. Apparently, he was a pretty standard issue left wing intellectual. But modern American life gnawed away at him until he wrote this brief, cogent attack on the mindless egalitarianism that he saw destroying the nation. In a nutshell: elitism assumes equality of opportunity and then places emphasis on excellence and success while egalitarianism, instead, emphasizes equality of results--success is no longer a good thing and excellence is suspect. The egalitarian assumes that differences in performance are the result of insidious discriminatory factors rather than an inevitable outcome dictated by natural talents and tries to both handicap those who perform well and coddle those who perform poorly.

Harris does a creditable job of surveying the popular culture to marshall facts for his argument. The sheer weight of the data he offers on topics like affirmative action, Afrocentrism, Women's studies, social promotion, etc., makes a pretty irrefutable case that America's cultural elites have ceased to be elitist and have abandoned themselves to a set of political standards based not on quality, but on a system of political entitlements. Now, this is hardly a new argument. Indeed it was one of Alexis de Tocqueville's chief concerns; that a nation that was so obsessed with equality would eventually abandon the idea of equality of opportunity in favor of the demand for equality of results. No, it's not the novelty of the argument that makes this book noteworthy. What makes the book fascinating is the hilarious psychodrama which unfolds as Mr. Henry adopts this conservative argument, while trying to justify himself to his liberal cohort.

Before he really gets going, Mr. Henry offers us his Left bona fides:

I am fully aware that much of what I deplore as retrograde tribalism or wrongheaded moralism is regarded by large sectors of the population as progress. I am also painfully conscious that taking the postures I do may condemn me to accommodating some pretty strange bedfellows--racists, male supremacists, patriotic zealots, reactionaries, religious exotics, and assorted other creeps. I confess to being a white Ivy-educated male who is married and lives in the suburbs (in kind of a nice house, actually.) Yet I am not a right-winger, and I hope I am not a nut. I am still a registered Democrat, a recipient of awards for civil rights writing from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Unity in Media contest based at historically black Lincoln University. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a donor to abundant left-of-center social causes. My boyhood heroes were Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King, Jr. At a party in Washington some months ago I hurriedly crossed the room to avoid even being introduced to Pat Buchanan, and my wife and I have donated copiously to the electoral opponents of Jesse Helms.

No, seriously. I didn't make this up. I know it reads like some kind of Stalinist Show Trial self-denunciation or cocktail banter from a Tom Wolfe character, but the guy actually wrote all that. And as the book goes along, we're treated to all kinds of tidbits about his black or gay friends and his deep sensitivities for the unfortunate, usually just before he sticks the shiv in some representative of a minority group. It's a hoot.

But the end result is that, contrary to the title, while he presents a devastating attack on egalitarianism, he lacks the courage of his convictions and does not honestly defend the elitist values that he espouses. He backs away from the logic of his own arguments and refuses to explore why the Elite Culture of which he is so fond is fundamentally a product of white Christian straight men. He ignores the fact that the rise of egalitarianism and the pace of the attack on elitism have quickened in the seven or eight decades when the franchise and political power have been rapidly expanded to the very people whose work product he suggests does not measure up to traditional elite standards of excellence. Watching the virtual self-hypnosis that he had to go through just to go out as far on a conservative limb as he did, it is no wonder that he could drag himself no further. No wonder, but it is too bad.

Mr. Henry died shortly after the publication of this book, so we'll never know whether he eventually would have been able to face the full import of his own argument. Instead, he leaves behind a very entertaining, though ultimately incomplete, polemic against the sorry state of American culture.

GRADE: B-

Henry pursuasively demythologizes the sacred creed of the American Left. By setting his sights on affirmative action, Afrocentrism, multiculturalism, and other ideological myths, and examining them from a liberal's perspective--he calls himself a "card-carrying" member of the ACLU, among other things--Henry faces correctness with power and wit. Short on scholarly citation, but long on anecdotal insights, it is a challenging, even encouraging, book to those of us who defy the mediocre uniformity of Liberal America's education, politics and art. It is a call to defy crudeness, ignorance, and the perpetuation of lies and mythologies that trap people in the culture of dependance. The greatness of America was the promise of rewarding the spirit of excellence. In many ways, this is what Henry demands from us. This book will become suggested reading for all my graduate education students.

Yes, it's a great novel. Yes the language is rich, the story is subtle, and the psychology is complex. And yet, I didn't like it.

Of course, who am I to review Henry James? Granted, I read more books and watch less television than most of my peers, but still I think I might be too "late Twentieth Century" for this book. Maybe despite my strict avoidance of video games I just can't help detesting the millipede pace of this book. I've never had much affinity for drawing room conversations to begin with, and unlike my father I don't believe that wit must be meted out in tortuous sentences.

But it isn't my background or personal prejudices that make me recoil from "Wings of the Dove". There is something about the deliberate quality of Henry James that bothers me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing with his fat succulent sentences. He won't feed you a meal of lean pork and vegetables. He'll serve you tons of tiny truffles and oil-oozing, crispy skinned duck.

To read "Wings of the Dove" is like encountering a cookbook that decided to include as much of the delicious fatty foods as possible. Of course its a rare meal and quite wonderful in its way. But some how, it made me a little nauseous at the end.

First things first, it is a very nice novel, but very hard to follow. Personally speaking, sometimes I couldn't get very exactly what Henry James was trying to say, but I could understand the situation as a whole and be able to move on.

As everybody knows, Hery James is not an easy writer. His appeal is very difficult and complex although it doesn't read very old-fashioned. The story is very interesting and timeless, because it deals with passion, money and betrayal. The books follows Kate Croy and her beloved Merton Densher when then both get involved - in different degrees and with different interests- with the beautiful rich and sick American heiress Milly Theale.

Most of the time, the book kept me wondering what would come next and its result and the grand finale. But, that doesn't mean I was fully understand its words. As I said, I was just feeling what was going on. As a result, i don't think I was able to get all the complexity of Henry James. Maybe, if I read this book again in the futures, it will be clearer.

There is a film version of this novel made in 1997, and starring Helena Bonham Carter, Allison Elliot and Linus Roach, directed by Iain Softley. Carter is amazing as always! Kate is a bit different from the book, she is not only a manipulative soul, but, actually, she is a woman trying to find happiness. One character says of Kate, "There's something going on behind those beautiful lashes", and that's true for most female leads created by James. Watching this movie helped me a lot, after finishing reading the novel.

I've carried on a love-hate affair with The Wings of the Dove for more than 20 years. In that period of time, I started the novel (the same beautiful little Signet paperback edition) at LEAST 15 times and could never get past page 30 or so. But it kept nagging at me to read it. Last summer, I plowed through its dense prose thicket, and I felt as though I were peering through a glass darkly. Several times I felt like tossing it aside. I've studied Enlish and literature all my life and yet I had one heckuva time with those daunting banks of prose. But I'm glad I read it. It's masterful. Worth all the effort. Those scintillating scenes in Venice. Nothing like them! I just read The Golden Bowl, another difficult but rewarding book. There are astonishing scenes in it, like when the husband of the busy-body watches her in a pensive mood as if she were in the middle of a lake, coming closer. It's just an extraordinary scene! I love early James too, like that perfect jewel of a book, Washington Square. Sometimes, great as the late books are, I really do think they lose something of the wonderful clarity James achieved earlier. There are still a few scenes in Wings and Bowl, for instance, in which I have NO IDEA what James was trying to express. Talk about super subtle! But do make the effort, folks, they're incredible books.

This book by Henry James is as different as can be from his longer works, but it has its own charm. The charactization is quite complex for a novella. It's just unfortunate that Catherine is so unredeemably staid. I realize that quite a few women chose to live a life alone in those days, but she seemed quite plodding to me. She does develop into a spinster that seems to enjoy that state. And Morris is quite the cad, but we the readers are never in any doubt as to that. The doctor father is another story, He's so right-minded that it's difficult to imagine anyone could be that stubborn. And the widowed aunt is a treasure - silly, manipulative and oh so romantic. This novella is written like a play since there are only four main characters, and most of the action takes place in the house on Washington Square. I really think this book looks deceptively simple, but it is not as simple as it appears. I enjoyed the story.

"Everyone likes Washington Square. Even the denigerators of Henry James." This short novel combines the deeply insightful character analysis almost exclusive to Henry James, without all of his often difficult and tiresome prose style. The plot seems simple enough: Catherine, our strikingly three-dimensional protagonist, is faced with a difficult decision. Should she follow the advice of her sentimental aunt and marry Morris, the poor, jobless, seemingly benevolent lover? Or should she listen to her cold, intellectual father, to whom she is completely devoted, and examine Morris' admittedly questionable motives for wanting to marry Catherine, an heiress? James' depth of analysis of his characters psychology is unparalleled throughout American literature, and this too-often forgotten classic should appeal to most of us. "Washington Square" is one of James' earlier works, but it does not lack the brilliant psychological observations and social critique of his later novels. However, for those who find his sometimes laborious and complex prose style a bit tiring, "Washington Square" is a breath of fresh air. I recomend this book to anyone who enjoys American literature.

Henry James's novel looks almost alarmingly simple: A young woman must choose between the love of a father and the love of a young man. Surely, the notion is too slender to sustain a whole book. How can he pull it off? Yet James manages a number of surprises. The simplicity is a ruse. Chief among the surprises is the character of Catherine Sloper, James's protagonist. James immediately tells us she is stupid. How dare he? Who wants to read about such a creature? Perhaps because readers naturally empathize with the defenseless, our sympathies sweep to her; no one should deserve the opprobrium of this narrator. And we are not wrong. Catherine is simple, but she is gifted with dignity, honesty, and the ability to endure. Her position is morally superior, even if her father is correct; her paramour is a bounty hunter, and nothing more. Yet that is among the other surprises in store, since James uses his omniscient narrator selectively, keeping Townsend's heart obscured for nearly 3/4ths of the book. The story still fascinates us, because it is essentially about money. Gaining wealth and status we have not earned is an American obsession. Perhaps it is the American dream. And while eschewing it will not make us happy--there is no happiness in Washington Square, only the kind of humor that would be cruel if it were not so funny--it will finally allow us to maintain our dignity "for life, as it were."

I am now speaking to you as an anatomist and as a professor of human gross anatomy -- Student Beware. This is not the book that you think it is.

Look carefully. Gray's Anatomy currently comes in two english editions. The British Version (now in its 39th edition) retails for about... The American Version (now in its 30th edition) retails for about ... If the edition you are looking at costs considerably less than those prices ASK YOURSELF WHY!. You are probably considering the "classic collectors edition" which is a reprint of the 1901 American Edition. There is nothing wrong with that edition, if you are interested in the history of science. However, much of the terminology has changed and in 100 years we have developed a much deeper understanding of human anatomy.

Know what you are buying. If you are a serious student of anatomy, you probably do not want this to be your first (or only) edition of Gray's Anatomy.

Gray's Anatomy is the most detailed anatomy encyclopedia you will ever find. It is updated and revised regularly and is integral for medical students. The reason why I can not give this great work of non-fiction five stars is: 1.) The pictures are very dry and hard to decipher. 2.) The archaic English found in the book can, at times, be tedious.

Gray's Anatomy is a "classic" book on Anatomy. Unusual for a classic, it is everything you have heard. The drawings are beautiful, accurate, and interesting. At the same time, this book was a standard text for Anatomy since 1901. As such, the drawing are only part of this book. The book's main effort is to explanation human anatomy. It does so wonderfully and clearly, with words. The drawings are only there to help with the text's explanations.

A quick warning. Since this book has been around since before 1901, there are many, many different versions. Make sure you check the printing date of the one you buy. The human body has not changed since this first editions, but our access to it has. As such, while some of the earlier books are beautiful to look at, the later editions are more valuable as a reference tool.

Pagan Kennedy writes an interesting story about William Henry Sheppard, black Presbyterian pioneer missionary to nineteenth-century Congo Africa. The book is laced with quotations from original sources that give something of the flavor of the man and his times, as well as comments from his colleagues. Often, one wishes for more of the quotations and less reading between and behind the lines by the author.
Clearly, this is a work of historical fiction, leaning more to the fiction side than the history side. Although Kennedy relies on historical sources, she is primarily a fiction writer. It becomes evident in the way she frequently imagines the thoughts and motives of Sheppard and the other players in his history. One soon recognizes that Kennedy has created William Henry Sheppard in her own image and likeness. The nagging question remains on every page: how does Kennedy know the thoughts and motives of Sheppard and his missionary colleagues unless they are recorded in their writings or conversations with others?
The picture of Sheppard that emerges is of a strong but flawed individual using African exploration to escape American racism and social ostracism. Traditional religious ideas of the missionary as one who sacrifices his or her life to deliver the Christian message to those who have never heard is largely absent from this book. One wonders why Kennedy didn't just write a novel about a black southerner who goes to Africa as a missionary explorer. Then, she would not have to use so many "probably he was thinking" or "imagine that he" or "it must have seemed to him" and the like.
In the end, a disappointing book. The "real" story of Sheppard and his mission remains to be written.

Pagan Kennedy told the story of a African American missonary who wanted to convert the uncharted parts of the Congo to christianity. William Sheppard, the missionary, was very determined to complete his goal of converting the Congo even if it took his whole life. I Could not put the book down. The book was basically a detailed sum up of what really went on in the Congo. At some points in the book it almost seemed fictional because it was so hard to believe what was happening to him amd the people who were with him. The book was a very good read, but at some points hard to understand but that added to the suspense of the book. Overall the book was a very fun an interesting book to read. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn about the Congo or who wants to find a good book to read.

In my younger years I read many a book about exploring Africa and hunting the animals as well as safaris' as written by various authors. Great reading!

This book is about a black man named William Henry Sheppard A/K/A
The Black Livingstone...for good reason. Others complain about using conjecture in writing this story, however, the author, Pagan Kennedy, admits there are huge holes missing in the life of William Sheppard and I believe she did a fine job in telling this story. To make it interesting she just had to use conjecture or there would have been no book. There are plenty of facts, however, to prove that a whole lot of life-threatening danger was involved and original exploration and pathfinding done by the Black Livingstone.

This is the story of a black man's life that started as a nobody, then through hard work and some chicanery became a sought after celebrity and then in the waning years again became a nobody.

The relationship between Sheppard and his wife is an interesting one. All of her life she dreamed of living a certain way and after MANY decades she finally realized her dreams as outlined in the epilogue.

This was a fine book for me as the author did well in assembling the information at hand. I had never heard of Sheppard and the others in this story and am glad I read it!

I bought this book with the hopes of finding out a little more about William and Harry, a pair of teenage boys whose actual lives have been completely overshadowed by their father and late mother. Unfortunately this book is mostly about just that: Charles and Diana. Better to have cut out most of the stuff on them and focused on the "Boys."

It begins as the news of Diana's death reaches the Windsor family, and the reactions of the people there. Then it shoots back in time to show the lives and backgrounds of Charles and Diana, the seemingly golden royal couple whose marriage deteriorated under adultery, lies, and the piercing eye of the press. William and Harry grew up in this bizarre enviroment, and the book includes some of what they have been doing since their mother's sudden death.

This might have been a good -- albeit slim -- book, if Anderson had kept his eyes focused on Diana's boys. But at least two-thirds is barely about the boys, but a rehash of all the stuff about Diana. We've seen it all before, and Anderson's presentation is not particularly interesting. Perhaps it's because Charles and Harry, royal hijinks included, just haven't done that much of note yet.

One of the biggest problems with the book is that the author tries to cover all the bases. In the matter of these two, it's really not possible to not take sides. So, Charles let his wife suffer, stayed with Camilla, and he went off to the opera when his son was beaned by a golf club. "Charles is scum," you will be saying -- Anderson is presenting him in that light. But after that, we are presented with a more ooey-gooey, sensitive, forgiving picture of Charles as an ex and a father. It's like Anderson wrote a postscript to his Diana love note, devoted to Charles. It doesn't work! Either you think Diana was right, or you think Charles was. You cannot say that they were both okay, kindly and fine -- if they had been, then presumably they would not have broken up.

The parts about Harry and William are actually the most interesting parts of the book; there are some cute photographs and anecdotes, like William playing with a tot, working as a rap deejay (cute "rock on" gesture here), and Harry giggling at his brother's inability to get his driver's license without press attention. But like many biographers, Anderson also descends to tabloid sniggering. We're presented with entire photographic pages of William's ex-girlfriends, including First Niece Lauren Bush. there's a weird anecdote about William creeping into girls' camping tents, which is never credited to anyone or even a publication.

This book has some endearing stuff about the "Boys," marred by a spattering of tabloid material (am I the only one who doesn't care who William is dating?). But most of it is the thousandth rehash of Charles and Di's messy marriage -- better to wait until their sons get a real biography written about them.

I just finished reading Diana's Boys. Christopher Andersen has painted a wonderful portrait of the Princes and their lives after their mother's death. I confess to both curiosity and fascination with the boys, and I was eager to learn about the way the two have grown since the tragic death of Princess Diana. Andersen has offered readers a glimpse at the way William and Harry dealt with a very personal tragedy in a very public way--a fact that is so often lost in the media frenzy that has surrounded them. Aside from that, he's presented an image of charismatic children who, despite growing up under the scrutiny of both the media and the royal family, have found a way to be charming and personable adolescents sure to become successful young men. This book, on top of The Day John Died and The Day Diana Died, leaves me only wondering what subject Christopher Andersen will tackle next.

I was puzzled by one of the reviews of this book apparently written by someone who admits to having just thumbed through it, concluded that it contains "nothing new" and deemed it a "sad, little book." Another reviewer writes positively about the book and its subjects but trashes the author.

I found the book well written, well reported by someone who is a seasoned journalist (Mr. Andersen's credentials are impeccable) and who seems to have great sympathy for William and Harry. I found nothing salacious in this book and no hint that Mr. Andersen was after "dirt" on two young men who haven't really had time in their short lives to provide royal watchers on either side of the Atlantic with the kind of dirt that makes headlines.

All of that said I truly enjoyed "Diana's Boys" as an update on the lives of the two princes we all felt such sympathy for when Princess Diana was killed four years ago. "Diana's Boys" is also a touching tribute to Princess Diana's role as a mother. Although Mr. Andersen covers much familiar territory, he does so from a fresh perspective. I was entranced. And I read every word.