This book rates right up with the biography by Barbara Leaming as a really badly written and inaccurate biography of Katharine Hepburn. Holland basically cribbed her book from the books by Leaming, Christopher Andersen and others. Apparently, she does not think it necessary to actually do any of her own research. Having taken the bulk of her book from other writers, she manages to carry over into her book many of the errors of chronology and fact that so many of the Hepburn biographies contain. From Leaming she got the totallly fictitious Tracy/Hepburn/John Ford triangle. For whoever reads this book, please be assured that Katharine Hepburn had no life long unrequited affair with John Ford. It simply didn't happen. Also, Holland's portrait of Spencer Tracy is completely inaccurate. He was not an abusive, morose drunk. He was, in fact, one of the wittiest, most talented actors to ever live. The Tracy portrayed in the Holland book has no relation to the real Tracy. Holland's portrayal of Katharine Hepburn is no better. She manages to make Ms. Hepburn appear as a victim which is as far from the truth as can be.

For anyone who is interested in an accurate and fair biography of Katharine Hepburn, this is not it. There is really no good biography of Hepburn written to date. Hopefully one of these days one will be written. For now the best choices are Ms. Hepburns two books and the books by Garson Kanin (for the Tracy and Hepburn years) and by James Prideaux (for Ms. Hepburns later years.)

192 pages hardly allows the author room to expound on Hepburn's real life. I felt that I got a good overview of her, but would like to more about her-- especially what it was like to work with her on various movies. This is a good introductory biography, but I want more.

The highlight of this delighful biography is the author's ability to remove the veil between the audience and the actress. I have read many Katherine Hepburn biographies and this was the one that revealed the most about Hepburn's private life, in the sense that I was able to really feel her voice coming trough, her point of view shining through.

Don't know why she wrote and published this very wooden tale of "adventure and intrigue" in old Byzantium. It doesn't work at all. The characters are cut-outs, the narrative lacks even the hint of crackle and the plot is thumpingly dull. Well, perhaps the concept has promise. Yet, Ms. Holland has written much better at other times and when covering other periods. I particularly liked her saga-like novel (now apparently out of print): Two Ravens, a psychological study, in saga form, of the break down of an already dysfunctional Icelandic family in the Middle Ages not long after William the Conqueror gained England. But her foray into the realm of the Byzantines, in this book anyway, is best forgotten. So I'll say no more. -- S. W. Mirsky

For those who enjoy the genre of the traditional historical novel (Thomas B. Costain, Samuel Shellabarger etc.) this novel is a good choice. Not as subtle psychologically as some of Holland's other works, it performs admirably as a pure adventure. The "feel" of being in ancient Byzantium is extraordinary.

If you do not have to read this book, don't. It is very difficult to understand and catch on to, especially because of the slow plot build-up and the overall slowness of the book. It has a nice meaning to it but hard to understand because of the way the author words things.

I will admit that maybe the first chapter was not the easiest to understand, but it still wasn't slow. I definantly recommend reading this book.

...In preparation for the writing of a long article about Nero, I have read several biographies of the emperor, in particular Griffin, Grant, Weigall, Shotter, Walter and Warmington. I have also collected many articles from journals to get additional points of view - and I must note that Mr. Holland does not list a single article in his bibliography. It is clear that the author is deeply interested in ancient history but he falls short of his goal to rewrite the history of the maligned Nero. Despite some excellent insights the discussion remains stuck in relating the ancient sources without asking questions. What I took for a bold look at Nero turned out to be pretty much what others have said before, only they have done it much clearer.

I was particularly interested in what Mr. Holland had to say about the death of Agrippina, thinking he might have read the article by H. Dawson that seeks a different interpretation. No such luck: Mr. Holland gives us the story straight out of Tacitus without wondering if these events really happened. The story of Agrippina's murder is very theatrical and some doubts have been expressed as to if it was outright murder or did Nero's mother actually conspire against him? How could all of the events: the collapse of the boat, Agrippina's rescue by an oysterman, her traveling back to her miles some miles away in a litter (borrowed?), Agrippina's arrival home, sending a message to Nero, her murder and cremation all in the hours from sometime after midnight to dawn. There is plenty here for Mr. Holland to set the record straight about. Why then attempt to introduce the unsupportable suggestion that Nero was a masochist?

Mr. Holland often tries to rationalize events that other authors dismiss without giving good reasons. For example, he accepts Poppaea's nagging as one of the causes of Agrippina's murder where all other authors understand this as a transposition of Tacitus to better explain why Nero acted. Mr. Holland does have some good insight into Roman history, particularly in the administration of the empire. I do find that his comparison between Jesus and Nero in his introduction is misplaced. The details about Pontius Pilate and the birth of Christianity were a needlessly protracted discussion. The point was to discuss the Great Fire and how the Christians were chosen to be Nero's scapegoats. There also are some small outright errors in the text: Caligula's fourth (and final) wife was not younger but older by about 7 years, his brother Drusus was not exiled but imprisoned under the palace, there were attempts to force feed Agrippina the Elder and Aelia Patina was Claudius' second, not third wife. These may be picky little errors but they are numerous.

In providing an historical background Mr. Holland tends to go overboard. His summary of Caligula's reign provides more detail than necessary but he also cannot give a full discussion of the facts, particularly about Caligula's assassination. There are three versions of the assassination but Mr. Holland relates only one (the only agreement between the ancient sources is that Caligula was not mortally wounded by the first blow). The information about Caligula needed to be treated with less detail befitting his minor part in Nero's life.

I think this book is an opportunity missed. Having read the larger share of books about Nero, not one by itself answered all of my questions about Nero. Miriam Griffin's biography is the best but it is choppy and sometimes she provides no details about events. If one wants to read a serious biography about Nero, go to Griffin.

Nero: The Man Behind the Myth is certainly an entertaining book, can be easily summed up by reading the appendices.

As previously mentioned, Holland's work contradicts works of the Roman historians (Dio, Tacitus, Suetonious) by providing an alternative spin on Nero's doings, stating that the Roman historians had reasons to defame the fifth emperor, due to patronage or birth. Despite the fact that they are the primary sources, the author feels the need to explain the potential reasons behind their hostility in Appendix One: The Chief Literary Sources.

Perhaps the most telling part of the book is Appendix Two: Was Nero a Masochist, where Holland provides 21 points to why Nero was more likely a Masochist than a Sadist--weak willed and easily dominated by his freedmen and Mother. It cites that, towards the end of his life, he allowed himself to be steered towards his demise, appearing apathetic and not escaping abroad when he was at liberty...and that this makes him a masochist.

To those points, (1) Nero probably knew the end was near and was depressed at his impending demise, and (2) any ruler after Nero would certainly want him dead--and since the Roman emperor ruled most of the known world, there would be few places to hide for a man with so many enemies.

After reading the appendices, if the reader finishes reading the book, Holland goes on to explain away all of Nero's failings--he was led astray and domineered by his abusive and domineering mother (who he ultimately murdered after an ingenius and cruel "mousetrap" failed), he allowed himself to be ruled by his freedmen, why he persecuted Christians following the fire of Rome, which other historians speculate he ordered set, etc.

Holland's work, while amusing if the Roman historians (i.e. the chief literary sources) are read, is nothing more than an apologia for Nero. It is a good spin, but should be read with a grain of salt.

This book certainly goes a long way to restoring the reputation of Nero. Ancient sources should always be questioned as to motive, perspective and subjectivity, and Richard Holland has done an excellent job in this respect considering his lack of formal qualifications in classical studies. He also seems to have a good grasp of Latin without any qualifications in this area. His use of statistics (persecution and proscription in peaceful reigns such as Augustus vs those of the reign of the much maligned Nero) also adds weight to his believable theory that the artistic Nero genuinely wanted to reign peacefully.

However, sometimes Holland has used a little too much supposition in challenging the ancient sources and to conveniently fill gaps where they are lacking. I am also a little skeptical of his many psychological theories, as I would be of anyone who had no qualifications in this tricky area. Mother/child relationships and the perspective of children in this era cannot be compared to today's and really shouldn't be attempted without minute scrutiny of ancient sources - all of which are hugely silent in this area and were written from the male viewpoint in a paternalistic society anyway.

Quite alarming is Holland's statement "sex in the head is always a mark of decadence" (p.155). It is not footnoted, and on a personal note I would like some back up on this psychological theory, as I'm sure would most of the general single population. The definition of decadence is moral and cultural decline, and from personal experience (as a single woman) keeping sex in my head stops my own moral decline into promiscuity and contributing to cultural decline by running off with my girlfriend's boyfriends/husbands. Obsessive voyeurism as a substitute for sex doesn't lay the foundation at all. Are we only supposed to think about sex when we are doing it, otherwise to be labelled decadent? I would have thought the opposite to be true.

On top of this I am still scratching my head in the reasoning of the juxtaposition of the presentation of the life and pyschological analysis of Jesus in comparison to Nero. When one remembers Holland's background in journalism it rather smells of sensationalism.

In spite of the aforesaid and the fact that the book wavers between a classical analytical biography and a novel on which to base a Hollywood script, Holland presents a very personal Nero who I enjoyed getting to know.

I am not sure if it is appropriate to review a book I have not read ... however, I have looked for this book for many, many months based on a general recommendation. I just found this book from this site, and was thrilled ... until I read the included customer reviews. Despite my excitement regarding finally finding the book, I believe I will not purchase it. Being a single woman, I, too, do not need reminding that I may remain single. I do this enough myself, without an author's assistance. Thank you for your honest reviews.

This book literally fell on my lap, at the thriftshop where I work. Having just entered the "living alone" scene, it was fortuitous I thought, a sign maybe, specially with that subtitle "Reflections on Living Alone." I had so loved Ms. Holland's book on endangered pleasures that I thought I would be in for an insightful and rewarding read. After the first two chapters, I realized this book was not going to make me feel good. I agree with a lot of what Ms. Holland writes, but alas, too much of the book is enraged, bitter, self-righteous, judgmental, but most of all depressing as hell. The more I read this book, the more distant I became. Her use of the term "solitaries" make people who live alone sound like they have a disease or syndrome, like "epileptics" or "diabetics." Nevertheless, I was able to excavate from the bitching and whining some nuggets of practical information and a lot of humor. Ms. Holland doesn't seem to like her own company and that's what comes through. Too bad.

Someone gave me this book for Christmas. I put off reading it. Now I know why: I can only conclude that the giver hates me. Why else would this person have given me this awful book? I've barely made it through the first three chapters. The humor is there, almost, but mostly I think Ms. Holland woke up each morning an breakfasted on glass while she was writing this book.

There is nothing here that isn't in other books about trading. He does mention several methods, options, etc, but overall it is very basic. There are better books out there, even (free)web sites that will teach you about the basics, charting, volume, open interest, market selection, etc. Pass.

The book had some good points, but I think that one has to hesitate when the author puts his own review here with a rating of '10'. (Not to mention that it has been the only review here for a very long time).

I did not expect much from the book and wasn't disappointed. It is very superficial but gives a relatively acceptable pointers on where to go and what to do. I got it for the map. The content of the map is good but paper quality horrible. It literally disintegrated after first few days. It still was very helpful but a bit better paper would not hurt.

This map is basically accurate as of several years ago. It is not really current and also contains mistakes. For instance, running north from Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas it shows an portion of planned autopista as being complete. It simply does not exist. Want autopistas which do not exist on this map? Try Uruapan to Ixtapa, all but perhaps 10K completed and in use. How about Mazatlan to Tepic, for the most part complete. There are many errors in this.

This map would be good for a tourist planning on spending a few days in Prague and strictly sticking to the major monuments. It only shows a very small portion of the city. If you're planning a longer stay, you might want a map that shows more.

Cecelia Holland divides her book into two parts - Howard Carter's expedition in the early 20th century and the events leading up to the death of Tutankhamun thousands of years before. The concept intrigued me and, having heard much of the work of Cecelia Holland and being fascinated with Ancient Egypt, I was anxious to get this book into my collection. I hate to say it, but what a disappointment!

After so many people raved about Ms. Holland's talent and skill, I was astonished to find her character development to be so flawed and inadequate. While Howard Carter is a somewhat believable figure, Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenamun are simply flat. Little if any motivation can be found to justify their actions and neither character possess depth.

In my opinion too much historical material exists about the restoration of traditional Egyptian Gods in the aftermath of Akhenaten's monotheism for such an uninteresting book to be written. I had really hoped for better.

Uninteresting, purposeless characters lost in a book in which they obviously have no desire to appear -- I am a strong fan of Cecelia Holland, have been since "The Firedrake," and found myself checking and rechecking the front cover because I could not believe this was a Holland book. Howard Carter is a faceless, personality-deficient automaton, the Egyptians are tiresome paper dolls. I still cannot understand why on earth Holland would have written this, let alone let it go to print.

Skip this one and go directly to "Jerusalem" and "Great Maria" or any of Holland's wonderful prior works such as "Until the Sun Falls," "Rakossy," "The Kings in Winter" and "Two Ravens." Why these are OP I cannot fathom, but they are readily available at used book services on line, and are worth seeking out. Please pass on this hopeless, fortunately uncharacteristic waste of time and paper.

I thought I would really like this book. While it did entertain me for an hour or so, I didn't think it was a keeper. The story should have been divided into two distinct parts, rather than the abrupt change at chapter 9. The first part is from the point of view of Howard Carter. The second part is a third person view of King Tut and his family. There for a while I wondered why they had placed Tut's story after Carter, but then some of the nuts fell into place. But the characters have no depth. You don't get to know the Carter gang well enough to care, and they are very shallow. Tut is shown as a spoiled, whiny little brat with his shallow wife. The ONE thing I did find interesting was the theory behind Tut's death.

Go ahead and read this book, but don't expect to be overwhelmed. I enjoyed "Great Maria" much better.