Overall, this book was pretty good. It started off to be very interesting, but slowed down in the middle. When the plot focused on The Horridus, I.R. Shroud, and CAY it was engrossing. However, all the extraneous stuff about the main character's personal relationships with women was just tedious reading. The story again speeds up at the end and I found myself reading through the last few chapters very quickly. It was well written and a pretty good read, but I don't understand those who say they couldn't put it down. Maybe they were referring to the last few chapters. If you are from Orange County in California, you will enjoy reading all the references to real life locations. It helped bring the story to life for me.

It's been well over ten years since I read T. Jefferson Parker's LAGUNA HEAT. I remember that it was a good book. For whatever reason, I didn't follow up on Mr. Parker's other works as he continued to write. That was my mistake! Thankfully, I've rediscovered him. I just finished WHERE SERPENTS LIE and though the novel was written over two years ago, I have to place it on my list of best books that I've read so far in the new millennium. The story deals with Sergeant Terry Naughton, head of the Crimes Against Youth Division of the Orange County Sheriff Department in Southern California, and his hunt for the Horridus, a man who preys on young children. Two years before, Terry suffered the lost of his five-year-old son, Matt, in a swimming accident. He still feels the immense pain of the tragedy, not to mention the sense of failure and regret he experienced when he and his wife could no longer live together after what happened. Terry now pours all of his energy into trying to save as many children as possible from the human monsters out there, who secretly hunt, sexually abuse, and kill these innocents as a means to fulfilling their sick desires. There is one man who calls himself the Horridus, and he's the worst of the monsters. His pleasure comes in the form of kidnapping the children right out of their homes, then using them to complete his dark fantasies before feeding them to his thirty-foot long python. Now, in my opinion, this is definitely a guy you want to do a "Dirty Harry" on. Terry feels the same way. His one goal is to put this predator down the hard way, hopefully before he kills again. As Terry gets deeper into the hunt, he's suddenly sidetracked when mysterious pictures of him having sex with a minor are discovered by members of his department while checking out a crime scene. Terry knows that he is innocent, but few others seem to believe him. The question is who's setting him up for the big fall? Who has the most to gain? Is it the Horridus, or is it possibly one of the members of his department? Terry quickly finds himself on suspension while an investigation is started into the incriminating pictures. He refuses, however, to just sit back and wait, especially while the Horridus is still kidnapping children. With or without the help of his department, he's determined to nail this guy. He simply has to do it before he finds himself in jail on false charges. WHERE SERPENTS LIE will surprise you again and again. Just when you think you know where it's going, there will be a twist that takes you in a completely different direction. You may at times feel sick as Mr. Parker delves into the hideous side of human nature, but at no point will you stop rooting for our hero to put down this evil specimen of humanity. The writing is taunt and the suspense is relentless. Mr. Parker has created a hero with a tormented soul in the character of Terry Naughton, and your heart will go out to him at the ending when he's forced to look at himself and the people around him, realizing that monsters can come in many different disguises. This is certainly the kind of book you will try to read in one day. Don't rush it. Savor the anticipation and excitement of each page, and take your time. Allow yourself at least two days of delightful enjoyment. I'm now getting ready to start Mr. Parker's next novel, THE BLUE HOUR. From the blurb on the back cover, it appears to be every bit as good as this one was.

Orange County has some terrific mystery authors who have produced some extraordinary mystery books. John Shannon's Orange Curtain, Kent Braithwaite's Wonderland Murders, and Carol Lachnit's Janie's Law immediately come to mind. T. Jefferson Parker is the top of the class, and his Where Serpents Lie is one of his darkest and most haunting books. I loved Mr. Parker's mastery of his detailed setting and his capturing the Orange County lifestyle. The reptile store featured in this novel really exists! His plot was fresh. I enjoy the way Parker creates new characters for almost every book. Where Serpents Lie is a dark book. It is well-written. I'm glad I read it.

This book is written for a broad audience and aimed at exploring one of the oldest and most persistent problems in American history; the proper role of the Federal Government. Simon frames this book as a conflict between Jefferson, representing those who supported a weaker central government and emphasized the importance of individual states, and John Marshall, the great Chief Justice who led the Supreme Court to establish its critical role as arbiter of constitutional questions. The Marshall court's work strengthened the importance not only of the Supreme Court but of the Federal Government in general. This is not a new story, indeed, most of what Simon describes is the standard understanding of this period of our history. Simon is a good writer who describes the politics and legal issues quite well. His description and analysis of the behavior of the Marshall court is shrewd, emphasizing Marshall's careful attention to both politics and crucial legal issues. For example, it is clear that Marshall worked very hard to maintain unanimity among the justices, even for difficult decisions. Similarly, many of his important decisions were crafted to simultaneously achieve the goal of establishing his brand of moderate Federalism while avoiding inflammatory political consequences. Readers will finish this book with an increased appreciation for Marshall's considerable intellect and remarkable political skills. Beyond this, the book is disappointing in terms of explaining the wellsprings of these conflicts and important aspects of the debate. I think the emphasis on the rivalry between Jefferson and Marshall, which Simon probably chose as a framing device, actually tends to limit understanding of the nature of this conflict. While I respect Simon's desire to produce a relatively concise and accessible book, some aspects deserve enlargement. For example, Jefferson found the Court's tendency to rely on Common Law traditions irksome, believing the Court should have been more deferential to the wished of state legislatures. Does this represent a conflict between individuals like Jefferson whose primary intellectual influences came from the British Enlightenment versus a legal culture that grew up in the shadow of the great British Common Law theorists? To what extent did individual experience of the Revolution influence subsequent political positions? Jefferson spent the war as governor of Virginia or abroad. Marshall, in contrast, was an officer in the Continental Army and experienced in very concrete ways the inadequacies of the confederation government that preceded the establishment of our present constitution. This book is a good point of departure for individuals unfamiliar with this period of our history but further reading will be needed for anyone who really wishes to understand our early history. I recommend the The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick, a superb treatment of the Federalist period, as a starting point.

The world needs a book about John Marshall's contribution to America. In my opinion, "What Kind Of Nation" by James F. Simon is it. Though the nature of the subject almost guarantees that the reading will be somewhat dry, scholarly, and lawyerlike, the author did a nice job with it. As a scholar myself, I recommend it. If you're looking for an easy read on Thomas Jefferson, I also recommend Norman Thomas Remick's excellent book "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From Thomas Jefferson's Readings And Writings", in which West Point is posited as a metaphor for Jefferson's worldview of the way America ought to be.

On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson...

Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating.

James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.

Gordon-Reed shows how many prominent historians have discounted evidence of a TJ-Sally liaison simply because it comes from, or is attributed to, African-American sources, while they eagerly rely on equally slim, or even slimmer, evidence from Euro-American sources. She also highlights the expressed reluctance of some "brand-name" Jefferson scholars to ascribe reprehensible conduct to Mr. Jefferson, regardless of evidence that it may have occurred. I read the first (1997) edition of this book, which appeared before the DNA study was released. The new information from the DNA results supports Ms. Gordon-Reed's cautionary proposition that we should not ignore or discard any evidence simply because of its source. I was glad to hear that the DNA results confirmed the long-standing oral tradition that Eston Hemings and his descendants are related to Thomas Jefferson. This new century needs people possessed of the Hemings' steadfast truthfulness.

Annette Gordon-Reed's book should be required reading in graduate history programs across the country. Not because of its topic, but because it is one of the finest, most careful and critical reading of documentary evidence I've ever encountered. By providing an outstanding example of how professional historians should operate, it also exposes one of the tragic weaknesses of the discipline of History--it has for too long been among the least intellectually rigorous of all the disciplines. The recent publication by the "scholar's commission," sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society is a classic example of the problem. In finding Jefferson "innocent" of the charges, the commission ignores the most powerful arguments put forward in Gordon-Reed's book, and builds its authority mainly on the commission member's own pedigree (mostly aging white scholars from prestigious institutions). While the commission points out the real limitations of the DNA evidence, by ignoring Gordon-Reed's work, it fails to understand what an intelligent, open-minded reader of Gordon-Reed's work will quickly grasp: credible evidence pointing to Thomas Jefferson as the likely father of Sally Heming's children has been around for more than a century, but was until recently blithely dismissed by generations of historians who were prisoners of their own racist, and guild-protecting assumptions. Gordon-Reed raises the bar for serious historical inquiry in this book, and I beleive its importance will outlast the controversy it explores.

The Jeffersons'/Randolphs'/Coolidges' response to stories about their patriarch's relationship with Miss Hemings long had been to say that the Carr brothers actually had fathered the Hemings children. Sally Hemings, the typical account said, had (to borrow an image Gordon-Reed shows a famous historian using) lied about her children's parentage in much the manner that a nag's owner might lie about its being the offspring of a famous thoroughbred. Comes now the DNA evidence to back Gordon-Reed's strong proof that the Carrs were innocent of any such adultery, and the Jefferson family seems to want to blame yet another of its male forebears, Thomas Jefferson's brother. Why do they have such an emotional investment in Thomas's not having had black children? This is one of many interesting questions Gordon-Reed's book prompts one to consider. (For the history of historians' defense of Jefferson against this charge, see the essay by Ayers and French in _Jeffersonian Legacies_, edited by Peter S. Onuf.) Virginius Dabney, who was related to Jefferson on both sides of his family, is the outstanding example of a Jefferson flack in this regard, but there have been others. Kudos to Gordon-Reed for not losing her cool in wading through the insulting, demeaning, degrading things that historians have said about Sally Hemings -- whose personality remains obscure. Even those who detest Gordon-Reed must admit that the appendices to this book, which present the main primary sources regarding this question, are worth the book's price. If you care about Jefferson, race, public "education"/propaganda, or America, buy this book.

There is much to be learned when you keep your mouth shut. Working as a body guard for his adoptive father horribly scarred silent Joe took everything in. He learned not to talk, but to listen. Joe became an invisible man. This unfortunately served him well, when it came time for him to track the murderers of one crime he did not want to contemplate.

T. Jefferson Parker presents a world of wheeling and dealing politicians ensconced in southern California. They are all ready to sell their souls and then some. It is a creepy surreal world through which silent Joe creeps.

Silent Joe is a wonderful creature, who I hope to see in future books. Joe is a man who should be repulsive, but has that unknown thing which draws women. He is an intricate man, who the reader would gladly follow on endless adventure.

The plot touches on themes of love, redemption, forgiveness and revenge. which of these contradicting emotions might win over? Read Silent Joe and find out.

This is a recommended book for lovers of hard-boiled mystery.

SILENT JOE by Jefferson Parker

This is a writer who was a new discovery for me. Jefferson Parker's good, actually for this book he was better than good.

This is the story of an orphan, Joe Trona who grew into a very capable, polite and to the people who knew him a very agreeable, if disfigured figure. His natural father threw acid into his face when he was an infant and his mother left him at the same time. The traumatic experience shaped Joe's life from that point on. He was known as the 'acid baby' for a long time. Will and Mary Ann Trona adopted him when he was five in spite of his dreadfully scared face. Joe started out worshiping his adopted parents.

Later, after schooling, when he was 20 Will got Joe a job as a deputy for the county Police Force. He worked a five-year probation as a guard in the jail before they would let him become what he considered a real police patrolman. Meanwhile he eared a black belt in self-defense along with several medals in handgun use. As soon as he earned his drivers license he became Will's driver, confidant and bodyguard. He was a 24 year old, large in size and in good condition, and looked dangerous. People were careful when said around him.

Will, his adopted father was murdered while Joe was with him. Joe loved his father and felt responsible in spite of killing two of the murders out of the five who were there when Will was killed. He devoted the remainder of his time to finding the people who had contracted for the murder of his father and preformed that murder.

Joe used a lot of the police lore like finding fingerprints that Will had taught him. He was a very fast driver and was curious as to how the killers knew where he was taking Will. He found a small transmitter affixed to the underside of the car that he used to drive Will to some of his assignments. From this small beginning and his photographic memory he slowly put the case together to find his father's murders and the multitude of people that were implicated. Joe is very quiet and concentrated as an investigator. His quest for justice makes an excellent book. I hope you enjoy this book as much as I did.

...

I just read T. Jefferson Parker's new book "Silent Joe". What a great book! I've read his other books and enjoyed them, but this one is even better. While it's called a mystery it's really much more.

It's the story of a young man who was horribly scarred as an infant by an abusive father, abandoned by his mother and raised in an institution for the early years of his life. As a young sheriff's deputy he witnesses the murder of the man who adopted him and becomes determined to find the killer. Along the way he finds his past and his future.

The book is remarkable for it's ability to take you into Joe's mind. You feel his thought process, you feel his pain and see how even bad experiences can result in a good man.

I found myself trying to read slowly to savor the words. Days later I can't stop thinking about it. I still think the only bad part was that it had to end.

How many of us have read the Bible in its entirety? I dare say, not many of us. Imagine how serious a thinker Jefferson must have been for him to make the effort to do that. On the other hand, imagine how objective a thinker he must have been to fashion, straight from the Bible, the world's first ever bible of morals, ethics, and character. That is one of his little known, most important contributions to humanity. No less than that, my dear fellow Americans, is the true enormity of his Biblical analysis and editing. The only other book I have ever found that recognizes Jefferson as the first to "write" a book on morals, ethics, and character, and in that sense a pioneer itself, is "West Point" by Norman Thomas Remick. To gain more insight into the religious/philosophical side of Jefferson, I recommend you go on to reading that book after reading the "Jefferson Bible".

Thomas Jefferson didn't necessarily believe in miracles. But he certainly believed in morals, ethics, and character. His detractors on the Sally Hemmings farce, like author Joseph Ellis, have since been proven to be all wet. Like the other book of the same name, I enjoyed "Jefferson Bible" very much. But, it's only half the story, unfortunately. The other half involves Jefferson's values from the secular point of view. The best, perhaps only, book to read for that is (and don't be misled by the title) "West Point", by Norman Thomas Remick. It perfectly compliments "Jefferson Bible". In any event, This book by Forrest Church is well presented and certainly well worth reading. It's a great read on TJ's religious beliefs, and a five-star effort.

If you want to see Jesus in his own words. You must read this. Jefferson applied reason and science to break the Gospels down to just that which is directly attributed to Jesus Christ, You'll be surprised at how much more you can learn from this book than from the Bible.

It is quite refreshing to see that honest liberals still exist. Christopher Hitchens, no friend of Hillary's imaginary "vast right wing conspiracy," takes great exception to the Clinton Era. And no, it's not just about sex. It's about rampant dishonesty and corruption - the selling of Commerce Department travel seats for campaign donations, renting of the Lincoln bedroom for re-election cash, selling of nuclear technology secrets in exchange for Beijing assistance in the 1996 re-election campaign, bombing of a poor country's aspirin factory to divert attention from personal problems, illegally releasing private information on citizens in order to discredit them, intimidating and threatening witnesses, obstructing justice, etc. etc. Hitchens confirms what the Right had been saying since 1993 - this is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history. It is refreshing to finally hear from someone on the left who isn't in the business of excusing and apologizing for this rampant corruption - to call a spade a spade. This book is for those who are interested in more than just economic prosperity - who are concerned about the long-term precedents set by this administration, which will undermine American democracy for many years to come. Those who insist on acknowledge no fault in this president, don't bother wasting time reading this book - it won't give you the warm and fuzzy needed to maintain your illusion that this is the "most ethical administration ever."

If you're looking for a nonpartisan analysis of the Clinton presidency, this isn't it. It is, however, something almost as rare: an attack on the President from the left. Far from the usual liberal Clinton apologist who defends anything the President does simply because he's a Democrat, Hitchens sees him as a shrewd political opportunist whose pathological need for approval from the American people is exceeded only by his contempt for them. In this, he's absolutely correct.

The problem for readers who don't share Hitchens' left-wing ideals will be that he seems to have contempt for Clinton's "triangulations" only to the extent that they interfere with his own liberal agenda. Such readers will also find his liberal indignation a bit tiresome. Conservatives and libertarians will bristle at reading (yet again) how FDR saved us from capitalism. And I doubt whether hard-working, middle-class Americans of any political bent will share his outrage that New York's welfare system now has the audacity to "require the poor to search for jobs before receiving help" (the heartless bastards!).

The book is worth reading for a dead-on, acid-tongued portrait of a dysfunctional administration, for once by an author who can't be accused of a partisan hatchet job. Still, one can't help wondering if Hitchens' high-powered perception of Clinton's flaws would be so clearly focused if Clinton had pursued the liberal policies that Hitchens supports.

In "No One Left To Lie To", Christopher Hitchens dissects Bill Clinton psychologically, laying his inner nature bare like an anatomist displays the internal organs of a prepared cadaver. Mr Hitchens provides an invaluable historical reference of magazine-style contemporary news essays. He deserves the highest praise for compiling his perceptive thoughts into a literate and coherent selection of meaningful essays.

Note, to left-leaning Americans: This book does not argue that Clinton "destroyed the country" from some sort of socially-conservative (i.e., Republican) point of view at all. These are not essays from the pages of The Wall Street Journal by any means. On the contrary, Hitchens testifies that Clinton destroyed American LIBERALISM, from the point of view of a committed socialist, which Hitchens most solidly is. At one point, Hitchens asks why, given the effect he had on both parties, Republicans hate Clinton at all. It is for this reason that this book is an unusual and highly recommendable perspective for anyone who has the slightest interest in the subject, as well as those who have the greatest revulsion.

Hitchens examines Clinton's record of war, his accusations of sexual abuse, his relationship with Dick Morris, his skill at "triangulation", and his relationship with his wife, Hillary. These are not new topics, they have been discussed at great length and in excruciating detail for the last ten years, but Hitchens handles them all with such skill and wit that his compendium deserves reading by even the most jaded partisan or news-weary person.

In a surprisingly brief volume, but one dense with information, Hitchens portrays in precise detail a man beholden to corporate interests, upper-class elitism, and big money influence-peddling. He accuses Clinton of adherence to an agenda which dismantled welfare, cut government regulation, increased the lot of America's wealthy, and did everything an American liberal is purportedly against. Hitchens even uses the Clintons' own words against them in making his case. Most interestingly, be believes Clinton won votes from Republicans because he gave them legislation they wanted, and from Democrats because he gave them the empty symbolism of the White House.

If you are a right-leaning American, you will either delight, or take horror, in the myriad sordid tales, page after page, of a man corrupt to the bone. On the other hand, if you are a left-leaning American, you truly owe it to yourself to read these essays, and ask yourself how the Democrat Party endorsed this man, and how they came to such abuse by him. I have the feeling that if more Democrats read this book, they would be more angry than the thousands of Republicans who already have.

Mr Hitchens has created an unimpeachable journalistic reference, objectively fair, and incisively harsh. Despite partisan arguments of the many who have read it (as well as many who have not!), nothing in his book can be denied, nothing can be disproven, and nothing can be dismissed. There is a true story on every page, confirmed by a glance in any modern source of news information. Even if someone were to accuse Mr Hitchens of subjectivity in some of his stories, or an impure agenda by collecting them all in one place, the simple fact is, there are so many stories inhabiting these pages, it is so thick with them, and Clinton's life is so comprised of them, the matter is out of Hitchens's hands. It comes with the territory. Clinton did, after all, commit the acts Hitchens describes. In any event, the net effect of Hitchens's brief is profound indeed.

As far as the writing itself, Hitchens is highly literate, clearly well-educated, and charmingly erudite, even when pejorating or cursing. He displays an impressive command of the English language, in both vocabulary and idiom, though never unreadably so. This book is a delight to read from cover to cover. Anyone interested in American politics, whether liberal, conservative, or moderate, will find it informative. Most readers will find it equally hilarious and horrific, but all will find it thought-provoking and entertaining.

I have always been a fan of anything to do with vampires. One day I was just looking around and stumbled upon this book. I bought it, then began reading it the next day. After the 1st chapter I was a little skeptical about continuing the book because something happened that I just wasn't expecting. But I'm glad I did continue reading. It turned out to be a book that I couldn't put down... it was absolutely amazing!!! The characters are totally wonderful. The vampire Daniel was my favorite. You kind of wish he were a REAL person. I thought that this book was written extremely well, and the details were so vivid. You got pulled into this world of love, lust, violence, sex, drugs, and friendship. I hope Jemiah Jefferson continues writing books like this. I think there needs to be a sequal to "Voice of the Blood" *hint hint Jemiah*!!! If you get the chance, pick this book up... because I guarantee you will not be able to put it down. And once it's over, you'll wish you would've read it slowly!

Voice Of the Blood is a vampire novel in the Anne Rice tradition (ie, where the vampire tells his/her story to the reader). As a matter of fact, it is the best novel of its kind I have read since Rice's The Vampire Chronicles. This book is erotic, frightening, bloody and extremely compelling. Jemiah Jefferson is a bright new voice in horror fiction that should not be missed.

When Ariane encounters a strange man in her office, little does she know that this very man will change her life for ever. For you see, this elegant, pale and enigmatic man is a vampire, one that has lived through centuries and who is tired of his dark gift. And it is because of him that Arian will meet Daniel, another vampire, one who is not afraid of anything had who has a very dark side. Daniel is actually very reminiscent of Rice's Lestat because of his erratic and often violent behaviour.

Jefferson's mythology is actually different from the one you'd expect to find in such a book. Her vampires can still travel through the day, as long as they protect their skin and eyes, and they can eat and drink like humans. All of this only makes their actions more terrifying.

I have to admit that I was not expecting much from this book. I thought I was picking up a quick read that would suffice my vampire-fiction craving until the next new Rice book. But once I was done reading Voice Of The Blood, I quickly realized that I had just read a wonderfully amazing book which is very fun and very entertaining. Jefferson's voice is very poetic and definite. A truly wonderful book from a greatly talented author that will please all Anne Rice fans.

Appealing to not just vampire fanatics, but those who enjoy well written stories dealing with relationships with twists and just a hint of adventure. It's like what one would wish to happen to themselves, but this way it's much more interesting because we don't have to go through the ordeals that Ariane faces. I was so impressed with this novel and its author that I went and visited a place that very much reminded me of a place in the story.
All in all, it's an excellent work or imagination that pulls you into the characters more than I thought possible. Ms. Jefferson has no troubles with deeply involving you with the characters she portrays.

Merci Rayborn is a homicide investigator for the Orange County Sheriff's department. When she's called out to the murder scene of a young, beautiful call-girl it all seems routine. That is, until she discovers that her boyfriend had dinner with the victim just scant hours before the murder. As she delves further, more and more evidence points to the boyfriend as the killer and she's torn between doing her job and trusting the man who loves her.

I've read all of Mr. Parker's novels and this is the first one in which he's brought back a character from another novel. Merci Rayborn was first introduced in The Blue Hour. She seems much different in Red Light, more unsure of herself. However, that's not to her detriment. Like all of Parker's novels his characters are well fleshed out, his dialogue sounds like real people talk, and his police procedure rings true. My only quibble, and it's a small one, is I was able to guess the killer about three-quarters of the way through the book. I have to admit for all the mystery reading I do I'm pretty obtuse when it comes to guessing the killer but this was pretty obvious. It really didn't take away from my enjoyment of the book. Mr. Parker is a very good writer, and he just keeps getting better and better. An added bonus for me is that I live in Orange County so I know the areas he talks about in his novels. I might make one suggestion though. To really understand the Merci Rayborn character it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to read "The Blue Hour" first. That too is a very good book.

I was surprised and not so surprised that T. Jefferson Parker brought back Merci Rayborn. After all, the ending for the book that introduced her, THE BLUE HOUR all but demanded that she return.

In this book, Merci is two years older and still mourning the loss of her partner (and father to her son) Tim Hess. She has named her little boy after his father and is now involved with another detective sergeant on the Orange County (CA) Sheriff's department, Mike McNally.

Parker provides the reader with a multi-leveled mystery and police procedure novel that uses spare but biting prose to make its point. In this story, Merci Rayborn, a single mother and crack homicide investigator is involved in two homicide investigations. One is current and may involve her fellow officer and lover, Mike McNally and the other is over thirty years old and involves the murder of a prostitute who had had connections with local political and law enforcement officials.

In the more recent of the murder cases, Merci initially investigates the death of another young prostitute, this one who also had conections, but those closer to home. Initial evidence begins to point to Merci's erstwhile lover and would-be husband. Merci, never one to shy away from pursuing justice or the truth follows the trail of evidence with a dedication bordering on fanatical. More and more, the evidence points at Mike McNally. But is he really the killer or is he being framed? And if so, by whom?

I have read almost all of Parker's previous novels and have enjoyed them all. His common denominator is the setting, Orange County, CA. However, with each new book installment, he shows that he has climbed rapidly into the ranks of true masters in this genre. He is spare with his prose and in this he makes me think of what Hemingway would have been like had he written mysteries and police stories. He gives us flawed but interesting characters. Some we come to like and have hopes for and others we don't. I have to say that I did NOT like Merci Rayborn when I read THE BLUE HOUR. But perhaps motherhood, the loss of Tim Hess and the personal and political problems she faces in the Sheriff's Department have mellowed her to the point that she has become more human and less disagreeable. In RED LIGHT, for all of her flaws and self-doubts, Parker has made her a much more agreeable and yes, a more sympathetic character.

This book has some slow points and then, the plot and the level of action pick up. I do not know if this was a deliberate device by Parker or not but either way, the book does become a page turner. When Merci must decide for herself whether Mike McNally is guilty or being framed is where the book really took off. It is where I knew that Parker had planned and timed the story line for just such a reason.

Parker's intimate knowledge of police procedures is displayed at its best in this novel. His former career as a journalist and his extensive background in the history of Orange County also serve him well in RED LIGHT. Although this is the first time that he has used a recurring character, I hope it will not be his last. Merci Rayborn still has a lot to say and I hope Mr. Parker will let her speak in upcoming works.

Thank you Mr. Parker for many hours of enjoyable reading. I hope you won't dispense with Merci Rayborn just yet. I'd like to think of her as your version of Robert B. Parker's SPENSER. And we all know how many novels he has mined from that character. I look forward with anticipation to your next novel and hope that we will all see one or more adapted for the screen.

Paul Connors

Red Light is more than a continuation of Blue Hour. I was initially surpised that Parker elected to bring back Merci Rayborn, one of his less sympathetic characters, in the follow up to Blue Hour. Having finished reading Red Light, however, I enjoyed being a part of her growth, and truly enjoyed the book.

As always, Parker gives us a story filled with twists and surprises in his skillful, multi-layered approach. Red Light is no exception. Not only was I in doubt about the killer's identity until the end, I was thoroughly entertained along the way. (A tip to those who have not read Blue Hour: Don't read Red Light first, as the killer's identity is disclosed from Blue Hour - and Blue Hour is so good, you don't want any excuse not to read it.)

It is a true tribute to Parker than his characters stand tall above those of other writers of the genre. Rather than the usual attractive and smooth-talking characters we experience in most novels, Parker's characters are clearly flawed, and drawn so deeply that they become very real people. With most books I read, reading is no more than escapist entertainment, forgotten soon after closing the book. With Parker's books, however, I can clearly remember the main characters from books I read long ago. How many books can one say that about?

There is some legitimacy for questioning Joseph Ellis' scholarship of Jefferson independently of his personal veracity. Does his analysis itself hold up to scrutiny?

In at least one significant sense, no, it doesn't. The genetic connection between Jefferson and Sally Hemings of which Ellis is assured is anything but, which Professor Ellis surely knows himself since one of his co-authors on the inflammatory 1998 report "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child" was the author of the DNA study itself, and who publicly stated as much himself.

Eugene Foster told the journal Nature that his study found only that Thomas Jefferson *could* have been the father of Eston Hemings, not that he was. He pointed out that in fact the type of testing done was incapable of proving such a thing. All the DNA analysis revealed was that *some* Jefferson male very likely fathered a child by Sally Hemings. Since DNA comparisons were made with regard to Jefferson's uncle, not Jefferson himself, over two dozen Jefferson males living at the time were possible candidates, several of whom were present at Monticello during the time Hemings conceived her last son.

Contemporary evidence points strongly to Randolph Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's brother, who had such a close acquaintance with the slave community at Monticello that they referred to him as "Uncle Randolph." Some of the same evidence can be seen to point to Thomas Jefferson as the father, but such an interpretation requires one to believe that the forty-four-year-old U.S. ambassador to France chose to have an affair with the teenaged slave half-sister of his wife who by more than one account was incapable of taking herself, much less the ambassador's daughters to whom she was charged. You be the judge.

So what does this say about Joseph Ellis' scholarship? Clearly for him to declare as he has that "Now we know," concerning the truth of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship, is irresponsible and injudicious at best, since such an assertion is factually incorrect. When combined with his own personal prevarications and embellishments, such a willingness to bend facts to support a purely subjective opinion makes trusting his judgement in accurately reporting and adjudging history and historical figures much more difficult. I, for one, am now deeply skeptical of his work, and believe others should be, too. That he writes well isn't in question. That he's right, is.

Joseph Ellis deserves the Pulitzer Prize! As a Jefferson researcher who has been through everything written about, and more important, by Thomas Jefferson, I don't always agree with the author's subjective opinions on topics for which I believe objective conclusions must be found, as I did in my book "WEST POINT" about Thomas Jefferson & West Point. Nevertheless, that is always debatable. Not debatable is the fact that the author and his editors have done a stellar job.

I enjoyed reading "American Sphinx" by Joseph J. Ellis. It's a well written description of Thomas Jefferson as an enigmatic, sphinx-like figure of American history. I recommend it. I also recommend "West Point: Character, .... Thomas Jefferson" by Norman Thomas Remick. It brings Thomas Jefferson into clear focus.

The subtitle of this final book by Stephen Ambrose tells it all - "Personal Reflections Of An Historian". This book is NOT a story or a historical perspective. It is the story of Stephen Ambrose and his perspective along with the major characters he wrote and about and feels a certain connection.

Ambrose became famous by hitting the emotional and sentimental bulls eye of Americas retrospective look at World War II. He accomplished this by seeing the war from the perspective of the common soldier. However, Ambrose started as a historian writing about great historical leaders like Henry Halleck, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

This final book takes another look at Ambrose's life and the characters he met in his travels or his research. It does not shed new light on characters or tell a new story. It does tell the authors story.

This is a great book if you enjoy talking to our more mature citizens. Ambrose was near the end of his life when he wrote this book and he knew it. This was his chance to, like Grant, record his actions and thoughts for posterity while providing for his family. In the end you see that Ambrose enjoyed a wonderful life by sharing his love of the past with his family and those great people that made history.

For a wildly prolific academic historian who, by the end of his illustrious career, had become a kind of one-man cottage industry by pumping out a steady stream of excellent historical works on World War Two, Lewis and Clark, and a number of other important subjects, his declaration early on in this poignant memoir that he is a storyteller is a magnificent understatement by a man not known for his modesty or introversion. Stephen Ambrose may or may not have been the best American historian and biographer of the last decade, but he certainly was, hands-down, the single most prolific of his generation. His catalogue of World War Two histories and biographies alone is breath taking in its breadth and content, and he loved to tackle other important historical issues, as well, as his best-selling portrait of the Lewis and Clark expedition so wonderfully illustrates.

Yet, while I have often been a fan of the works he pushed out with almost monotonous regularity during the 1990s, I have to admit to having been a bit put out by the man himself, who I never found to be particularly erudite academically, and who was found sometimes notoriously ungracious to others within his profession. But the true measure of historian's contribution must be located in the welter of his works, rather than in his personal habits, character, or foibles, and therein lies what must be considered a most remarkable corpus of work that will continue to be read, studied, and appreciated for decades to come.

This is a short and intensely personal book. I read it over the last weekend, my swollen right ankle propped up on a pillow on the leather couch after slipping down the ice-covered stone stairway on the deck of the house. Yet the throbbing pain in my ankle seemed suddenly less important and less real as I was swept away by this fellow historian who clearly has such a wonderful gift for story telling. The vignettes and situations he describes came alive for me, and I found myself wishing he had written more of this sort of thing along the way now that he has vanished from our presence, likely striding over the battlefields of Valhalla and laughing, smoking one his omni-present cigarettes and laughing that hoarse southern cackle of his.

Stephen Ambrose will long be remembered for this work, and likely by the parade of memorable students he had who are now among the ranks of professional historians themselves. His body of work and his sense of dedication to telling the human stories so important (and so often neglected) in history will stand in singular relief as a testament to important academic work done in a quite distinctive and most memorable way. His own ability to recognize the importance of locating the acting individual in the context of his existential, social, and political situation while telling the single solitary person's story will offer those of us still standing a remarkable standard to hold up in order to measure our own burgeoning efforts. This, then, is a wistful, emotional, and memorable book, and one I can recommend for anyone wanting a more personal glimpse at a man who gave much and who will always remain in our collective memories. Enjoy!

Readers know their authors primarily through their works. They can meet authors at book signings, hear them at lectures, or see them on C-SPAN 2 late at night talking to Brian Lamb. Unless we are very lucky, though, we do not often get to cross paths with the authors whose works we read and admire. We do not have the opportunity to know them outside of the printed page, to see what they do, or to know what they are thinking.

One of the remarkable things about TO AMERICA, the final book by historian Stephen Ambrose, is that it opens a window on his career outside of his writings. Fans of Ambrose know, through his dust jackets if nothing else, that he was a longtime professor at the University of New Orleans. But few of those who read his great narratives on American history (THE WILD BLUE, CITIZEN SOLDIERS, UNDAUNTED COURAGE) had the chance to attend one of his lectures and hear him discuss the events about which he wrote so masterfully. TO AMERICA is as close as the reader will get to hearing Ambrose lecture about the topics he knows best.

Ambrose's topics are well-chosen, timely and authoritative. The lectures primarily center on "admired Americans" --- leaders such as George Washington, Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. But a few villains find their way into the book, notably Richard Nixon. The approach Ambrose uses in TO AMERICA is reflective and retrospective, looking at the overall legacy of his subjects. He often acknowledges that his conclusions about these men have changed over the course of time. For example, he tells us that he used to criticize Andrew Jackson roundly for his treatment of Native Americans, but has since come to the conclusion that Jackson's leadership in the Battle of New Orleans --- and the importance of that victory ---salvages his reputation as a great American.

TO AMERICA is at least partially a critique of revisionist history, but Ambrose's primary mission is to tell good stories, particularly those that define and awaken the great American spirit. He accomplishes that last mission bravely. TO AMERICA is "a valediction forbidding mourning", a great final celebration of one of America's great narrative historians. It is a great tribute to America and the final piece of Ambrose's great legacy.

Finally, fittingly, the last word of the last page of TO AMERICA is "future".

--- Reviewed by Curtis Edmonds