First, I liked Vol I very much. I like Vol II, although it's a lot wordier than it needs to be: sort of like floating down the Rhine on a barge with periodic stops near objects of great interest, at which time something happens to break the progress (think of all the Germans on the barge starting to sing when they approach the Loreli Rock). Still and all, a good read with much detail about the period.

The annoying part has to do with constant references to incorrect detail, speciifcally, the British Peerage and other hereditary and non-hereditary titles. Cline is all over the place, and it's confusing and distracting to an otherwise interesting plot. Cline is obsessed with earls, barons and baronets, and that and other titles are strewn about with abandon, sometimes landing upon one character, sometimes upon another, always at random. There is Hugh's uncle, the Earl of Danvers, Hugh's father, the Baron of Danvers, the evil Marquess of Bilbury (or more precisely, his son, who is frequently referred to as the Marquess as well). Then there is Hugh himself, who is alternatively referred to as Hugh or Mr. Kenrick, a baronet, and a banneret.

Here's how it works:

1) earls outrank barons. Despite what Cline asserts, they always have, and there are fewer of them. Earls were the great magnates from the time of William I; they were the greater barons, if you will. Think of Willian (the) Marshal in Henry III's reign; think of the Percys (Earls of Northumberland); think of Talbot, Earl of Shrewsburg; think of Warwick the "King Maker." Read Shakespeare.

2) Cline makes a big deal about earls being created by Letters Patent, which he implies makes them less than barons. All peers came about in one of three ways: a) in the early feudal period by grants of land which were deemed to constitute an earldom or a barony, b) after the rise of Parliament, by Writs of Summons to Parliament in the particular style of baron or earl, c) Letters Patent - which didn't become much used until the late 14th century, and have pretty much been the only method used since Henry VIII's time.

3) While not impossible, it would be highly unlikely that the brothers Kenrick (Hugh's uncle and his father) could be respectively, an earl and a baron. If they were, Hugh's father would have to have been created such by the king, and he, himself, would have been a peer and a member of the House of Lords, just as his brother is. Otherwise, as the younger son of an earl, Hugh's father's title is 'The Honourable' and nothing more. Also, if the king did give him a title, it wouldn't be Baron of Danvers when there is already an Earl of Danvers. It would be 'Baron Kenrick of X in the County of Y', as only earls and above get to be Earl 'of Danvers' or Marquess (in the 18th century spelled Marquis) 'of Danvers' or Duke 'of Danvers.' He'd also be referreed to as Lord X, not Baron X, unless he were a Baron of the Exchecquer, which is not a peerage title, but an office.

4) Hugh is not anything more than Hugh Kenrick, Esquire, as the son of a baron. He is not "my lord," not a baron himself, not a baronet and not a banneret (which is a kind of superior knight, who for great martial prowess and because he was able to attract a large number of knights to fight with him, had the privilege to having the points of his pennon cut off to form a banner - thus the name. This was not an hereditary title, and , as I recall, not conferred at all after about the late 15th century).

5) The estate of a baron is called a barony, not a baronetcy, which is the estate of a baronet. Moreover, one is not a baronet of a particular place, which is reserved to peers. Baronets came into existence in ca. 1621, when James I needed money to colonize Nova Scotia. He sold them to the gentry, originally without the prefix 'Sir', but later with. When they got their 'Sir' their wives got to be 'Lady' and they sold like hotcakes.

The trouble with period pieces is that have to be accurate, or we nit-picking purists get cranky. If Cline had either not gotten carried away with all of this erroneous information, or done the research better in this one area, people like me wouldn't have become so worked up about it and we could have lost ourselves in an otherwise good story with an engaging writing style.

WPB

Where to begin? First, it's easier to be a critic than a writer (for one thing, you don't have to write as much). Second, I enjoyed the first volume in the series, and this one is pretty well written, too. I like the concept, and the period is likewise interesting.

What is naggingly annoying about a book dealing with (in this case) an upper-class protagonist are the misstatements in the first part of the book regarding the English upper classes and how they got to be that way by the mid-18th century.

First, Cline has this thing about barons, and he consigns earls to a kind of lesser status after the Norman Conquest "because they were created by Letters Patent." Not true. William's principal vassals were earls (a title taken from the Saxons in lieu of count, which was a continental term). To be sure, there were greater and lesser barons (as a generic term), but the earls were always in the former category, and it had nothing to do with Letters Patent: it had to do with land and men. The great magnates were earls. Think of William (the) Marshal during the reign of Henry III in the 12th century, the Percys (Earls of Northumberland), Talbot (Earl of Shrewsbury), and Warwick the "King Maker" during the 15th centure. Indeed, creations by Letters Patent were not used to any degree until the late 14th century under Richard II, and didn't really come into vogue until the Tudors. Most men were called to Parliament under Writs of Summons.

Second, Cline makes a point the the Earl of Danvers' title (by Letters Patent) had a limitation to heirs male as if this were something special. Virtually all such grants were in fee tail male (male primogeniture), although most of the barons by Writ were were in fee tail general (women could inherit if there were no males). Why mention it if you're not going to get it right? Also, he keeps referring to "baronetcys" when he means to say "baronys." Baronets are not barons, they are one step below, being the first level of hereditary title. They are not peers, and didn't exist until the reign of James I (ca. 1620), who needed the money (he sold the titles to the untitled gentry) to colonize Nova Scotia. Originally, they weren't even called "Sir," just baronet. James didn't sell enough of them, so he had to give them a handle to add to their names. Sales surged, especially as their wives got to be called "Lady."

Lastly, while it was not completely uncommon in the higher levels of the peerage for a younger son to get a title of his own, it didn't happen as a matter of course, so Hugh's father would not be a baron (a peer himself) simply because his father (or his brother) was a earl. He'd be an "Honourable," which is the courtesy style accorded to an earl's younger son. As a younger son, and especially if he were a baron (as we are told) he could not engage in "trade" as directly as Cline suggests without losing social status. He could certainly manage the estates (or anything to do with land and like property) and even have private arrangements with smugglers, but dealing with "Cits" (as the London merchant class was known) would have to be far more circumspect.

It wouldn't have taken much more time to consult somebody about these nagging innacuracies,. If you're going to write historical fiction, you'd better get it correct, otherwise people like me will gripe instead of immersing ourselves in the story.

...brillantly plotted with heroic characters and beautifully written.

Jack Frake (book one in the series) and Hugh Kenrick (this book)are true heroes comparable to any in the works of Ayn Rand and Victor Hugo. Hollywood should start producing movies of these books now.

All good writing is timeless and one of the many virtues of this book is that it shows there is very little difference between the power-seekers who controlled the UK then and those in power now-the detail may have changed the principles remain the same. Cline has also shown us the British Aristocracy in its essence for the period rather than in what would have been long uninteresting, unnecessary detail-this being a work of fiction and not a historic treatise.

I have already read both parts twice and am immensely looking forward to book three (due November 2003) and the rest of the series.

Last week my mother-in-law let me borrow her beloved tattered copy, saying she and her sister read it as teenagers and loved its romantic themes of loves found and lost. It's a thumping good read, but I DON'T understand Amazon's statement that it's intended for ages 9-12. I know it's tame stuff by today's standards, but the book does contain a suicide, adultery (real and implied), and racism consistent with the mores of the day. I enjoyed it for its unvarnished peek into middle-class America of 80-100 years ago, but think a 9-year old girl would be better served by the "American Girl" series for glimpses of that lost world.

The review below is wonderful enough to give you a good idea for the plot of this charming novel. What happens to Jane makes you consider the way you live life - do you just keep things in order and calm, or do you toss in a radical upheaval here and there? Barnes has written with beautiful description and the story flows quickly. Definitely worthy of its Pulitzer...

This story is probably one of the greatest novels I ever read. I first discovered it as a child, and read with fascination about Jane, who grew up in a different time, yet had hopes and dreams so similar to my own. How she fell in love and carried the image of her teenage crush Andre through all her life, how she married a good, oridnary man and had the expected children are all told in wonderful detail as we never lose little Jane, the girl in the beginning of the novel. Then as Jane grows older, and her children grow up, and do and do not fulfil her expectations, she and her husband travel to Paris, and she has a chance to see Andre again. I have been able to read and re-read Years of Grace at many different stages of my own life and to identify with Jane at the different stages of her life. This book contains no explicit sex, no violence, no horror, no supernatural elements, no serial killers and no autopsies done in graphic detail! Yet it is like other great novels, a book one can get lost in and believe in and open up at any point to live in the lives of the characters.I would have loved to have seen a movie of this book, but I doubt if it would have been a blockbuster, as the book was not a bestseller. But it sure is good and it's about my speed. Ordinary people, extraordinary only in their loves and lives and humanity.

Cleaves' book is an excellent read for the person who wishes to learn more about one of the best (North or South) and overlooked generals of the Civil War. While many books focus on Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman, Cleaves succeeds in bringing to light the very important accomplishments by General Thomas.

Included in the book are Thomas' many military victories: the complete defeat of a Confederate army at the battles of Mill Springs and Nashville, repulse of Hood's attacks at Atlanta, and of course, perhaps his most stunning achievement - holding the Confederate Army at bay on Snodgrass Hill while the rest of the Union Army retreated from Chickamauga.

Throughout the book Cleaves describes Thomas as a man who willingly subordinated his desires for the best of the nation, something lacking in most "leaders" today. Several times Cleaves describes Thomas as a calm, confident, and not easily shaken man in whom soldiers took great comfort in knowing he was in charge.

I only wish there would have been more maps used when describing the many battles Thomas participated in. Doing so would have made it easier for me to follow the troop movements, whether in an individual battle or a campaign.

All in all, an excellent read of an excellent general and gentleman. Thomas was a refreshing change from the self-promoting methods other "leaders" in the 1860's practiced - he would still be a rare gem if he were alive in today's world!!!

Written over 52 years ago, this book is a ground breaking contribution to the Civil War's saga. It really is a must read for understanding the intricacies of the Union high command.

Union loyalists of Southern birth like Thomas, Buford, etc. were just as alone and alienated in their army as Southern loyalists of Northern birth like Pemberton. They suffered an ostracism, a fundamental distrust that really reached its peak in this country when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps in California in World War II while concurrently having their sons fight and die in Europe. Thomas' story is really no different and every bit as unfair.

This type of unfortunate, 'protective tuck' is a natural reaction during a national emergency. Fortunately, leading edge historians like Freeman Cleaves have left us a record of one man's sacrifice for the country of his birth.

George Thomas was not treated properly by anyone, North or South. Lincoln treats him as a political liability and pawn, Stanton fundamentally distrusts everyone of Southern heritage, and the Union troika of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan have much to be ashamed of: Grant for his smallness, Sheridan for the desertion of someone who must have been his mentor and Sherman for betraying a long standing friendship. The South simply refused to acknowledge his existence. When Thomas was down, everyone kicked. Being Southern born, he was an easy competitive target for both sides both during and after the war. He simply had no mentor anywhere.

Yet this courageous fighter survives much political intrigue to not only save a complete Union army from annihilation, an army by the way that he did not personally command but could have, but also completely destroys the South's Army of Tennessee and possibly, just possibly pulls Sherman and Grant's chestnuts out of the fire. Playing a key and fundamentally pivotal role in Grant and Shaman's grand strategy, after his success he is simply thrown aside like an old shoe and not just forgotten but treated miserably, like his very existence and success was an embarrassment to the victors.

Read this book! It is about an American patriot who sacrifices everything, his reputation, home, family and pre and post war friendships for the ability of the United States to develop into the world example it is today. It is the kind of story all Americans appreciate: doing the right thing while succeeding against all odds, foreign and domestic.

When I first started studying the civil war nearly 30 years ago, one of my first thoughts was: "Why haven't I heard of George Thomas?'' There are those who argue, including Cleaves in several sections, that he was the most important Union general _ one list, in fact, makes him one of the five men (and the only military figure) most important in the North's victory. In the prewar Army, he served with Lee, another Virginian who wavered, and was close to being considered Lee's equal.

The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

nothing wrong with this comic book , nothing at all , it serve as good example of the qualities that made the avengers what they are & more, and that's all I have to say .

When current Avengers scribe, Kurt Busiek, was reading comics these are the issues that he formed his Avengers ideas. The team that appears here is the team Busiek uses today. This was definitely George Perez's best work. Much better than today's work, which is at the top of industry. The tales were definately enjoyable and I recomend this book to any fan of the Avengers.

The greatest superhero comic in the world right now is George Perez and Kurt Busiek's Avengers, Volume 3. These two masters are providing more storytelling excellence and excitement in 22 pages a month than 100 issues of any other comic for sale right now.

This book shows the development of the legendary skills of George Perez, on the title that made him famous to not one but two generations of comic readers. It reprints Volume One issues 161, 162, 194, 195, 196, a short Jarvis story from 201, and Annuals 6 and 8. The inking is inconsistent, with the best being Pablos Marcos's inking on 161 & 162 and Joe Rubenstein's inking on 194. The rest can be pretty rough, but you still get to see the development of one of the greatest comics storytellers of all time.

Great drama. I'm not a huge "classics" fan and yet I enjoyed this. If you're into Greek mythology and like flowery language and prose (and lots of melodrama) you will enjoy this. HINT: don't read these plays line-by-line like a poem - I find that it's more difficult to follow them that way. Read this like you would a novel.

The murder of Clytemnestra by her son Orestes is unique in Greek mythology in that it is the one story for which we have extant versions by all three of the great tragic poets. Consequently, it is insightful to notice how each tragedy privileges different parts of the story. In "Choephoroe" ("The Libation Bearers") by Aeschylus, the middle part of his "Orestia" trilogy, Orestes is obedient to the gods in avenging the death of his father and the pivotal scene is the confrontation between mother and son when Clytemnestra begs for her life. In "Electra" by Euripides the title character has to persuade Orestes to go through with the deed and the dramatic confrontation is now between mother and daughter. In the Sophocles version of "Electra" the emphasis is on the psychological dimensions of the situation; after all, it is from this play that Freud developed his concept of the Electra complex.

Towards that end Sophocles creates a character, Chrysothemis, another sister to both Orestes and Electra. The situation is that Orestes is assumed to be dead and the issues is whether the obligation to avenge the death of Agamemnon now falls to his daughters. There is an attendant irony here in that Clytemnestra justified the murder of her husband in part because of his sacrifice of their oldest daughter Iphigenia before sailing off to the Trojan War (the curse on the House of Atreus, which involves Aegisthus on his own accord and not simply as Clytemnestra's lover, is important but clearly secondary). The creation of Chrysothemis allows for Sophocles to write a dialogue that covers both sides of the dispute. Electra argues that the daughters must assume the burden and avenge their father while Chrysothemis takes the counter position.

Sophocles does come up with several significant twists on the Aeschylus version. For one thing, Sophocles reverses the order of the two murders and has Clytemnestra slain first, which sets up an interesting scene when Aegisthus gets to revel over what he believes to be the corpse of Orestes and makes the death of the usurper the final scene of the play. This becomes part of the most significant difference between the Sophocles version and the others. Whereas Orestes emerges from the skene distraught after the murder of his mother in "Cheophoroe" and is repentant in the Euripides version of "Electra," Sophocles has Orestes calmly declaring that all in the house is well.

Electra is not as central a character to the drama as she is in the Euripides version, mainly because she does not have a functional purpose in this tragedy. Her main purpose is to lament over the death of the father and the supposed death of her brother. She does not provide Orestes with a sense of resolve because in this version he does not consult the oracles to learn whether or not he should kill his mother but rather how he can do the deed. Still, the part of Electra has enormous potential for performance. Ironically, this "Electra" is the least interesting of the three, despite the fact Freud made it infamous: by his standards the Euripides play speaks more to the desire of a daughter to see her mother dead, but since Sophocles wrote "Oedipus the King" it probably seemed fair to point to his version of this tale as well.

this play,i.e., Electra is literally an electtifying tradgedy about revenge. One can almsot say that it is in a way a precursor to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Race separates the message of the poetry, and I don't like that. I have seen that often with Ms. Giovanni's work. I don't like to read something and feel like I am being pulled into a debate of slavery and hostility. I think that Ms Giovnanni is a very talented poet, and very accomplishes scholar, but I find it annoying to see race such a mainstay in her poetry.

The more we try to remain together, teh further apart we drift....

My mother gave this book to me when I was 11 and it had a profound impact on my life. I have recited the EGO-Tripping poems more than I can remember. My greatest joy came when I heard Nikki Giovanni recite it in person. I would reccomend this book to any young African American boy or girl as an introduction to poetry, it is truly a work of art!!!!!!!!!!!!

This book is about a little girl named Lawanda. She starts out trying to sell magazines and earn money for college. It's by selling these magazines that she meets Garland. Garland is an older man who lives in a bus, he is generally known as the town's hermit. He chases all strangers away until Lawanda comes along. As Garland and Lawanda get to know each other better, they each encounter conflicts that will forever change their existence. I found this book to be quality reading, but I really couldn't get into the characters. They had such fictional personalities, that it was hard to identify with some of their feelings. The descriptions are exceptional, and I think that's why the book is a Young Adult Book Award Nominee. Somehow I just don't think that Mr. Lyon did his best though. Perhaps another book would help him to create realistic characters.

With a Hammer for my Heart was one of the greatest novels I've ever read.It was passionate,poetic & just a really lovely book.I gave it five stars because it was so greatly & beautifully written. George Ella Lyon is a literary genius. I thoroughly enjoyed this novel & hated to see it end.I would absolutely recommend this novel to anyone looking for a really great read.The plot is fantastic & I just loved the story.

If you like a good story told straight from the characters' mouths, then you will enjoy this book. As a Kentuckian, I enjoy stories with a decisively Appalachian flavor, and in With A Hammer For My Heart, Ms. George Ella Lyon (yes, the author is a SHE) weaves a deceivingly simple, yet powerful, story about family, friendship, and forgiveness. Told through the voices of its many characters, the story centers around the friendship between a young girl, LaWanda, and a war-ravaged veteran, Amos Garland. Determined to make her way to college, LaWanda charges into Garland's life selling magazines. Although he does not welcome company, Garland finds that he has become (somewhat unwillingly) a friend to LaWanda. However, through a series of tragic events, LaWanda's loyalty to her family and Garland are tested. Yet, in the end, LaWanda's strength and courage brings about powerful changes in the people around her. Ms. Lyon's first attempt at adult fiction is a success and I look forward to reading more of her adult work. She is truly one of Kentucky's treasures!

Young creates two essays; one that recalls George Robert Twelves Hewes participation in nearly every important event of the Am. Revolution, a sort of Forrest Gump of his time, and one that delves into the existance of historical memory- the true service of this book.

Young relates the events of Hewes life through contemporary biographers who had on hand the last of the revolutionary warriors. Contemporaries, intent on justifying and embellishing the memory of the revolutionary fathers, left a clear track of what the people of 19th century America wanted to know and to believe about their forebearers. It matters little that it would have been extremely unlikely that Hewes was present at every event he recalled.

That is Young's point. Sometimes, the story tells us as much about the historian and the market for his writing as it does about the event being recorded. Historical interpretation is recollection of events and placing them in context. Even immediately after an event, the eyewitness accounts vary. Today's historian may fall prey to superimposing current attitudes and values on prior events as those these are determinants.

Young's Shoemaker is a valuable caution to interpreters of history.

Alfred Young's book is a well-written example of how ordinary people shaped the Revolution. History tends to limit itself to the "Great Men" of the time, but sometimes an ordinary person like George Robert Twelves Hewes finds himself recorded into history. In this case, Hewes just happened to outlive many of the others who fought in the Revolution, and his experiences managed to live on in two biographies written about him while he was still alive. But Hewes is only part of the story. The rest of the book details how certain events of the Revolution have been forgotten (or at least not celebrated) such as the tar-and-feathering of John Malcolm. Young's book is striking and poignant, and it is written in a curt manner. I would suggest this book to anybody who has an interest in the American Revolution.

How did the idea of a revolution take hold among those who cared little about a tax on tea? The story of an apprentice shoemaker, (the lowest of the trades, we learn) who, one year humbles himself at the house of a successful Bostonian businessman, and, the next year refuses to doff his hat to a British ship's captain on the street. What changed him? Divided into two parts, the first half of this book is excellent, the second half less so. More academic than a pop history, but still a good read, I'm glad I bought it. The kind of book that leaves you feeling you learned something and read a good book at the same time.

A most enjoyable, fictional, historical account of life in the South during and after the Civil War. Enough truth to make it very believable and the author's descriptive terminology places you in with the characters so that you become very involved with the story personally. A lot of history is learned about Civil War military blunders that certainly effected the outcome of the war. I can understand why they made a movie of this book. It would be a good one to bring back as TV miniseries.

"So Red the Rose" is a very engaging tale that affords the reader an insight into the culture and attitudes of the antebellum South that became the Confederacy. However, my fellow McGehee descendants (the author was a cousin of actual McGehees in Mississippi) need to bear in mind as they read that this is a NOVEL, not a genealogical register or an entirely true family history.

So Red the Rose is a classic fictional account of the Civil War years from the Southern point of view by one of the leading writers of the so-called Southern Renaissance of the first half of the 20th Century. Stark Young grew up among the kind of people with whom he populates his novel, and his novel focuses on what he called "the life of the affections."

So Red the Rose was a best-seller in he 1930's and was made into a movie. Its popularity was eclipsed a few years after its publication by Gone With the Wind. Some critics consider So Red the Rose a better book.

The novel describes a Mississippi family and how they were affected by the war. I found the book deeply moving and engrossing; although I live in a different century, live in a different part of the country than the characters, and hold a different set of values in regard to race, I found myself understanding them, relating to them, and liking them.

This book is not for the serious history buff nor for those who are seeking a macro view of historical events. But what this book does provide is the insite into an individual solder's life during our darkest hour. Other books on the Revolutionary War delve deep into the problems faced by Washington when the initial 6-month enlistments were to expire. Those Continental Troops who did not re-up are now viewed with scorn. However, Joseph was one of those troops who left after his enlistment was up and returned home without regret. The viewpoint from this individual solder provides balance from those Officers who were sustained in relative comfort. However, one has to begin to question some of the stories such as seeing Molly Pitcher in battle and his personal meeting with General Washinton near Yorktown. Regardless of the accuracy of his saga, Yankee Doodle Boy is easy reading and adds a sense of what it was really like to battle fatigue as much as the redcoats.

After reading this book, I know that the best way to learn about something is to get the viewpoint from someone who experienced it. Joseph Plumb Martin was a great writer, and told me what it was like to be an average soldier in Washington's army. He writes in a style that's easy to understand, even for a 7th grader like me, and he has a very good sense of humor. By the time I finished "Yankee Doodle Boy," I could have sworn I was there with Joseph. You can't say that you've read about the American Revolution until you read this book!

History doesn't get much better than hearing it first-hand from someone who lived it. Joseph Plumb Martin has paid us an invaluable service by recounting his seven years of enlistment in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. This is a great book which should be read by all Americans. Highly recommended.