Used price: $2.94
Buy one from zShops for: $3.25
Used price: $10.00
Collectible price: $10.05
Used price: $14.82
Collectible price: $18.52
Buy one from zShops for: $14.00
Used price: $0.14
Collectible price: $2.95
Buy one from zShops for: $3.95
Used price: $14.99
Buy one from zShops for: $17.05
Collectible price: $23.81
I hear it is being made into a movie. Great! I can't wait to see it.
Used price: $11.99
Buy one from zShops for: $19.95
Through the letters the reader gains insights into a young Dutch couple in love in the late 19th century. The book not only presents intriguing and very personal insights about Vincent van Gogh, but is also a compelling and touching chronicle of two young people as they prepare for marriage and a life together. A life tragically brief, as the title suggests.
Much has been written about Vincent van Gogh, of course, but it's fascinating to read insights about how his own family and contemporaries perceived him. For example Theo wrote: "He is one of the most advanced painters and it is difficult to understand him, even for me who knows him so intimately. His ideas cover so much ground, examining what is humane and how one should look at the world, that one must first free oneself from anything remotely linked to convention to understand what he was trying to say, but I am sure he will be understood later on. It is just hard to say when."
A satisfying and very worthwhile exploration of three lives--forever interwoven.
Used price: $18.00
It's a good book on a subject on which there aren't too many good books. Another one in its class is William Sweet's _Idealism and Rights_, which is also excellent but specifically devoted to Bosanquet.
The two of them more or less take turns -- Vincent writing on Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet, and Boucher writing on Ritchie, Collingwood, and Oakeshott, and the two working together on Jones (on whom they've cowritten an earlier book). Each is a respected scholar in this field; each is a reliable guide and expositor.
This focus on political theory strikes me as a good idea. For one thing, it gives the reader new to idealism a way to get a handle on these philosophers. For another, it makes clear that the British idealists really _did_ have social issues in mind and _weren't_ just philosophizing in a vacuum. For a third thing, the range of political opinions represented here makes clear that metaphysical idealism doesn't, in and of itself, commit anyone to any particular political theory or outlook (a lesson that needs to be learned by some present-day libertarians who think Hegelian metaphysics is a recipe for totalitarianism).
These two gentlemen write clearly and well. Oh, they misspell the last name of my favorite philosopher Brand Blanshard -- as "Blanchard" -- but that's not as unusual as it probably should be, and I forgive them. At any rate, the exposition is sound and thorough, and each of their subjects is placed in his proper historical and philosophical context; Bradley, for example, is discussed largely in relation to Henry Sidgwick. And they are not, let's say, subjected to any undue reverence; we meet them warts and all.
It's well done. I recommend it to any reader who wants to learn more about idealist philosophy in general and British idealism in particular.
List price: $25.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $13.00
Buy one from zShops for: $17.40
This book though fails on numerous accounts:
1. The author decides to forego the use of footnotes, defending the decision on the grounds that it would bog the work down and hinder its readability. A book as ambitious as this ought to gladly bog the reader down! How else to build a solid foundation on what turns out to be a very weak claim?
2. 90% of the text is context--Custer, Indian Wars, coal mining conditions in Pennsylvania in the town where Heath came from, Gilded Age politics. This is the case since there is so very little the author can actually tell us about Heath, which isn't the author's fault as Heath is scarely documented (other than in census and tax records) and left no written accounts behind at all. The details of his life are table rosa. Is it necessary to devote an entire chapter of a book about Billy Heath to Custer when the book is comprised of eight chapters? Readers interested in the details of Custer's life should turn to biographies by authors such as Utley, Wert, and Barnett.
3. The author states that he hasn't read any other sole survivor accounts and can't provide details on other claims. Here, he could have provided context by at least studying the Frank Finkel story that has been presented in one book and two booklets, one by the late esteemed Dr. Charles Kuhlman, well-known for the classic LEGEND INTO HISTORY that examines the Little Bighorn in great detail. Finkel's account has been the most highly regarded of sole survivor claims but it, too, falls victim to facts. There are other source he could have checked as well--Brian Dippie, various newspaper articles on such accounts, etc.
4. The author does document the existence of a William Heath in Pennsylvania, his 1875 enlistment in the army and assignment to Troop L, one of the five dooomed companies that perished with Custer's command. Heath's name appears on the mass grave monument that has stood since 1881 on Last Stand Hill. The author claims that Heath returned to his wife in the spring of 1877 (note that MEN WITH CUSTER that contains biographal sketches of everyone with Custer at the Little Bighorn states that Heath was unmarried). A William Heath continues to show up on tax records. His statement that he survived the final phase of this legendary battle was passed down through the family. He somehow left the field of carnage, and was picked up by a westward-bound family named Ennis that nursed him back to health. He died in 1891. So sparse are the details of the key question of HOW he survived that the author must speculate on this key point--he "may" have made a run for safety, may have made it to the river, may have hid until dark, etc. Three different survival scenarios are presented.
Conclusions? If the author has the liberty to speculate, the reader can do so as well. Perhaps Heath was one of the members of Troop L who remained with the packtrain in the rear and thus escaped the fate of most of his fellow troopers. The "survival" account was started after his death by family members at a loss as to how he could have survived the 7th's famous battle, unaware that many did through serving under Reno and Benteen, the commands that the packtrain ended up with. His listing as killed in battle was in error and never corrected as he could have deserted sometime after the battle. The picture is further clouded by the author's disclosure that Heath had an alias. Most likely though, Heath was the unnamed deserter that Doug Ellison's recent booklet MYSTERY OF THE ROSEBUD indicates may have departed the 7th Cavalry prior to the battle, on June 22, three days before the fateful encounter. How else to explain his "survival", the total lack of any credible details, and the guessing at scenarios 127 years later?