I think that most everyone has heard of Winston Spencer Churchill. If you were to stop someone on the street and ask them who he was, they would prob I think that most everyone has heard of Winston Spencer Churchill. If you were to stop someone on the street and ask them who he was, they would probably tell you that he was England’s Prime Minister during World War II. This of course is true; however, there is a lot more to his life than serving as Prime Minister.
William Manchester’s book The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory shows this man’s life from 1874 to 1932. It could be perceived as almost a prequel to his PM days. I was rather surprised by just how much Churchill had done in this time of his life, events ranging from escaping from a prisoner of war camp, to writing numerous articles and books, spending time in the trenches, and all his pre Prime Minister political involvement. There were things I liked and things I didn’t like about Manchester’s work. The beginning really drew me into the story; the author took a lot of time presenting the setting of the time. I liked learning about the habits and lifestyles of the era, though some might wish it had just gotten onto Churchill.
However, some of the content in this part of the book, and once it got into Churchill’s life as well, was not pleasant to read. Yes, his mother had many lovers, but I don’t need the details of it all and how they took care of such things. It was really inappropriate.
The author did add plenty of detail into his work. Sometimes, this was great. I really did stop reading with the impression that I got the whole story and a complete picture of Churchill. But sometimes it was too much. There were times where I was swamped in information, and while the book wasn’t dry, it was dull in some points.
I appreciated the fact that Manchester edited out some of the stronger language in the book. It was nice not to have to read that. Sometimes he would have quotes in a different language, and wouldn’t translate. That was annoying, but most of the time you could get the meaning of the phrase. You could tell that the author doesn’t care for Christianity, but as there isn’t much on Christianity in the book it’s not something that is oppressive.
You can see that it is all very give and take. For what I like about the book there is something to offset it. But I think the pros still outweigh the cons, especially when you add that the author’s writing was unbiased. He presented everything clearly, and though no doubt he had his opinions they didn’t overtake the story.
I think he respected Churchill for everything he has done during the wars. I think he thought of him as a genius in some areas, though as I said, the author didn’t shove his opinions forward and it is speculation on my part by trying to read between the lines. My thoughts are a little different. I think Churchill was too egocentric to help much in times of peace, using his energy to overstep lines and meddle where he wasn’t wanted, which is why many politicians hated him. Though I do think he was a great orator, and very courageous in battle.
Whatever Churchill was, I think this is a great biography to learn about him during his younger years. I would recommend William Manchester’s The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, though I would warn whomever I was suggesting it to to be wary of some of the content. ...more
I think most of us have gone through a period in our lives where we feel like there’s no one there for us, that the world is against us, that no one uI think most of us have gone through a period in our lives where we feel like there’s no one there for us, that the world is against us, that no one understands what we’re trying to say. All of these feelings are probably so much more acute when you’re in a realm like Politics, when what you’re trying to say is so important. Think of the frustration, the pain, the utter futility that you would feel. After reading The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone, by William Manchester, I imagine that this future prime minister must have felt some of that as well. The booked picks up where the last one left off in 1932, and continues on until 1940: the early years of World War II and just as Churchill came into the Prime Ministership. These were the times when he saw what Hitler was doing and was trying to warn the country while most of the leaders in Parliament, backed by the opinions of the British public, were trying to appease the dictator. I thought this book was a very good way to get a view of Churchill in those difficult years. Like the last book, I had the impression that I got a pretty complete picture of this man, that I saw some of his strengths and weaknesses, and that the author didn’t let his bias in the way. Though, it wasn’t as strong an impression as when I had put down the last book. Maybe this is because the last book spanned many more years than this one. While I thought it was important to get the whole picture of what was going on at the time, especially since I don’t know that much about World War II, I would have liked to see a little more focus on Churchill sometimes. Unlike the last book, there was no questionable content which made me cringe and wish it wasn’t there, which made me very happy. Not to say I liked everything about this book. There were still those phrases in foreign languages that the author didn’t translate and sometimes I wouldn’t be able to put together what it meant. It is a curious question: have my views on Winston Churchill changed any since reading this next book? I think, in a way, they have. On one had I still think he was rather an unlikeable person; too egocentric and not thinking much about others. However, I did gain a little respect for him reading this. He didn’t play the political game and tell everyone things he didn’t believe: That war could be avoided, that Hitler would listen to reason and make a deal with England, that Hitler wasn’t so bad as all that. He had to pay a price for his words though, eventually they helped to launch him into the Prime Ministership. It’s hard to stand up for something a huge majority does not believe in, especially for years. Once the final book in the trilogy comes out, I am sure I’ll be picking it up to find out the rest of Churchill’s life, the days when he’s finally P.M. and able to help his country in so many ways. If you have read the book before this, I would recommend you continue the story with William Manchester’s The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone. It has some good insight into a very important man’s life, in some of his hardest and most frustrating days. ...more
I'm very happy I'm done with this book. But that makes it sound like it was terrible. It wasn't. It was simply a very long and detailed work that I waI'm very happy I'm done with this book. But that makes it sound like it was terrible. It wasn't. It was simply a very long and detailed work that I was reading on a deadline, and am glad no longer to have to sit down and read piles of pages a day.
I think the book is great for someone really interested in Hamilton. If it's more of a passive interest however, you might find something that's not over 700 pages......more
I have a pretty good idea that with this review I'm going to step on peoples toes. So, be forewarned. You see, there really wasn't much I cared for. II have a pretty good idea that with this review I'm going to step on peoples toes. So, be forewarned. You see, there really wasn't much I cared for. I don't like the author's writing style, I don't like the way he brushed over some really scarring things, and I really don't care for Martin Luther King, Jr. himself. Therefore, I'll probably disagree with many who read this. Well, now that that is out of the way, let's get into the why and how of the book Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Life by Marshall Frady, and why I took the precautions of putting a disclaimer in my introduction. My main problem with the book was that I learned several things I really didn't need or want to know. For one, the author has a very expansive vocabulary that bogs readers down when he uses it. He also has nothing against quoting cuss words in his book. And while I like description, I really don't need to know extreme details about minor characters, information he seemed overeager to share. Even with all this detail, or perhaps because of all this wordy detail, there were times that the time line for me was blurred and I wasn't sure when things were happening, or just what was happening at all. I found that it was a little too easy to zone out, because very little drew you into it in the first place. Another thing that annoyed me was how quickly the author painted everyone against King in a terrible light. No doubt there was a lot of people who wished him and his movements gone, but I'm also sure that not every white person was so oppressive and mean. And that maybe perhaps, with King's last movement where he was trying to take our country from capitalism to socialism, it wasn't necessarily that there was no "will or capacity of electoral government for that struggle [of changing]" but perhaps they realized that socialism wasn't good! I thought he was greatly jumping to conclusions in that instance. The book clearly shows that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not perfect. No surprise there. However, I felt the author brushed over the gravity of some of the things which King did, and even possibly justified some of his actions occasionally. From what I can ascertain reading his work, Marshall Frady, while understanding that King wasn't perfect, thinks of him as a man who did a lot of good with his life and was a great man. I both agree and disagree. No doubt good things came of King's movement. However, I found it so muddled with not so good things that took him very low in my esteem, and would never be able to make it to "hero" status with me. I know that no one is perfect and every hero has flaws, but I also believe that we can rise above the sinful lusts of this world, and I don't think King even tried; being both a plagiarizer and an adulterer for his entire life. So all that is why I give Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Life a rather mediocre review. I do applaud Marshall Frady for pointing out some hard truths, even if I felt their importance was lessoned. He too took a risk at stepping on some toes, and though I didn't agree with him on quite a few of his subjects, I did learn a little about King. But, due to the harsh language, the vilification of everyone, and the brushing over of King's deep sins, I don't believe I would recommend it. ...more
I was shocked to find it only 80 pages or so long. But each of those pages was filled with really inspiring, uplifting, get-out-and-start-working wordI was shocked to find it only 80 pages or so long. But each of those pages was filled with really inspiring, uplifting, get-out-and-start-working words that kept me flipping through.
I think it's less of a biography as it is a background. Why Wilberforce did what he did, what drove him to do it for years and years with nothing happened but fails.
So, if you're interested in Wilberforce, I would highly, highly recomend this. I would also recomend, however, that you get a biography to go along with it, so that you could see more of what he did....more
~For book club 2010~ Ah politics. Many hate the sphere of government and distance themselves from it as much as possible. Most vote and end all their i~For book club 2010~ Ah politics. Many hate the sphere of government and distance themselves from it as much as possible. Most vote and end all their involvement there. Few chose to play the game, and even fewer do it for the right reasons. Occasionally, one of the latter gets so much done, fixing so many problems and making such an impact for the public's good, that they find themselves in the pages of history, marked as a wonderful politician and loved by their country. Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of England, was one of those people. I thought that John Blundell's biography of her: Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady, was a good read on her and her life. For one, I felt that most of the important moments and influences in her life were covered, and set the book down without any questions about who she was. Quite a good thing for a biography to do. However, I did wonder a little more about her home life - or whether she had much of one at all, with so much of her time spent in politics. I did have questions about other things as well, mainly British politics. Sometimes I was quite lost in all the different positions and cabinets. The author did try to explain a little, but the book presumes that the reader has a basic knowledge of the system. I didn't have this. It would have helped, but in the end was probably not necessary for overall comprehension. As it was, I picked up as much as I could while I read, and in doing so learned a bit about the British political system while also learning about Margaret Thatcher. The author obviously thinks that she was a wonderful politician, and reading his book about her I think I would have to agree. She was unwavering, and once she knew what had to be done she would do it. These are traits that are wonderful to have, especially in politics, because that way so much gets accomplished. Was she perfect? No one is, and unfortunately her family probably suffered from her lack of presence in her house, due to her constant being away. (or at least that's what I gather from reading this book, maybe I'm wrong) One thing I liked about this book was how it summarized everything in the last few chapters. There was a list of influential people in her life, major things she has accomplished in her political carrier and, perhaps my most favorite, a list of what John Blundell thought still needed to be done. I thought this was really interesting because it showed where we could take the lessons learned from Margaret Thatcher and apply them further. (Though of course it was things still needed to be done in England, I think American's could get information out of it as well) Overall, Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady was just that. A good picture of a strong woman who's hard work has earned her a spot in history. Well deserved, I might add. If you want to learn about her, I would recommend you pick up John Blundell's book and find out more about this remarkable person. ...more
A novel, a novel! This biography for a novel! At least, that's what I was thinking when I picked up my next read from my local library. Not yet having A novel, a novel! This biography for a novel! At least, that's what I was thinking when I picked up my next read from my local library. Not yet having acquired a taste for these non-fiction works - I admit it readily. Though they are no doubt far superior in the long run, I still can't seem to savor them. I'm working on it though! - I was averse to reading yet another when what I really wanted to do was curl up on the couch with some fiction. As it was, I sighed and opened to the first page of Harlow Giles Unger's The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness and� was shockingly and pleasantly surprised to find the first words engaging and that, over all, the book was actually knowledgeable without getting dry. Here was a book that I was actually interested in reading! For one, it was filled with little details that, while perhaps not having much significance over all, made it more interesting. I liked learning not just about James Monroe, but also about the people around him. For example, it showed his wife and what she had to go through in his political carrier, and what was happening with some of Monroe's close friends like Jefferson, Lafayette and Madison. It added depth to it all. However, while I think the book gave me a good picture of his life and those around him, I don't think it really penetrated him. I got the man, but not really what was behind him. What drove him to do the things he did? Why did he feel obligated to go into politics and serve his country? Did he enjoy it? I knew who he was, but not why he was who he was, if that makes sense. From what I gather reading, Harlow Giles Unger thinks quite a bit about Monroe - that he was perhaps one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers. I'm not so sure. I think that there were times he overstepped his constitutional boundaries. The author glosses over these instances, looking at the end results like the Louisiana purchase, but I think we all know that the end does not justify the means. Also, I believe that Monroe supported quite a bit of the French Revolution, being a large Francophile himself. I find it hard to have as one of my heroes someone who was so supportive of the bloodbath in France. On the plus side, the book is not only good for learning about the fifth president of our country, but it's also a great history about the United States when it was still trying to solidify itself in the world. At that time there were great struggles to show other countries that we were a great nation and that we could hold our own in the worlds of politics, trade, and military strength. It was a time when we were really emerging in the world, and part of our history that shouldn't be overlooked. If you want to learn more about Monroe, I would recommend the book The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness. He might not have been the perfect man, but he certainly helped shape the country as it is today, and it is very interesting to learn about everything that happened in his life. ...more
Occasionally there comes along a person who can captivate the hearts and minds of the people around him. Rarely does someone come along that can captiOccasionally there comes along a person who can captivate the hearts and minds of the people around him. Rarely does someone come along that can captivate an entire country. Rarer still a person who can capture the attention of the world. Mahatma Gandhi appears to be one of the latter. I was intrigued when I picked up Louis Fischer's Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World. I knew next to nothing about Mahatma Gandhi, and was interested in reading a biography with an unbiased view - no pre-conceived notions, no opinions, just the book and me. It was an enjoyable way to read a biography. If only the book itself was more interesting. The writing style was my main hurtle with the novel. It felt over simplistic. There was no variation, no depth: it didn't draw you in. At any given point I could have set the book aside and never picked it up again. The thought that came to my mind was that it felt somewhat like the reading comprehension tests that we've all come across in school. The ending was a flop. It was, like most biographies, his death. But there was no information on how people felt about his passing, what changes took places because of a national icon suddenly being gone, etcetera. Actually, there were one or two instances where I thought Lewis Fischer passed over important information, while at others he mentioned things that were completely trivial, or that had already been mentioned before. One thing that sets this book apart from other biographies is the fact that the author actually went and talked to Gandhi. Therefore, he didn't have to get his information second hand (Though three reference pages in the back do show that he did research his subject). The author obviously thought that Gandhi was a great man. But truthfully, Gandhi confuses me. He was a visionary, and someone who was able to captivate the hearts and minds of many. But for all that, he was often near sighted at times. Having his views, he expected everyone else to embrace them. He was also contradictory at times, especially in his theology. He called himself a Hindu, a Moslem, a Jew, and a Christian - all at the same time. That is physically impossible, as I'm sure you can imagine. But that's who he was. He took what he wanted from everything - religions, books, you name it - and that was that for him. He'd read a book and pull out meanings that the author didn't really have in there, and ignore the rest of the message. That's where Gandhi failed. He didn't realize the impossibility of some of these religions, and therefore the whole world, living in peace. No matter how much he had everyone's attention, and sometimes even affection, he couldn't break down their religious principles and ideas. Most religions just don't work that way. I realize, looking back now, that I got a rather good view of Gandhi from reading this book. Maybe not so much of his personal life, but definitely his beliefs and mindset. And so, Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World does get it's main purpose done though the fact that it doesn't do so in an engaging manner is regrettable. If you're trying to research Gandhi, this book might be a good one for you to pick up. ...more
I felt that quite a bit of it was the authors interpretations and impressions. (He says something of the sort himself in his notes section: "All seconI felt that quite a bit of it was the authors interpretations and impressions. (He says something of the sort himself in his notes section: "All secondary sources that directly influcenced my thinking or shaped my interpretation have also been identified"). If I want a biography, I want the facts, not someones interpretations of the person! On top of that, I felt he got so many things wrong. He stated that Washington was not an overly Christian man, when there is quite a bit of evendence out there that he is! Also, it showed him as a prideful man, always worrying about what posterity would think of him.
The only reason the book got two stars is because there were one or two intersting things that I leanred from it. Mainly, some of Washingtons back history (And how the cherry tree story was all a myth. Much of Washingtons childhood is not known to us due to lack of records.)
Loading...
