This easy to read book is one of the shortest life descriptions of Churchill there is. It's foreword already tells us that the focus will be on Winstons character, with his career only as background.

If you keep that in mind, and don't expect details on his campaigns, government and financial policy, this is an interesting biography, that depicts Chutchill as a larger than life, somewhat unbalanced and egocentric bully, with some ideologies that on a closer look are a dubious mixture of conservatism and fascism. A man that fortunatly lived in the right time, when there was active need for such a man, to combat Hitler.

The reason I only gave 3 stars for this book, is that I firmly believe that any biography should have footnotes and references to liturature, so that you can check some of the wrirters assumptions, esspecially if the focus is not on facts but on character, as is the case here and that this is completely missing here.

Rather than throwing another heavy scholarly tome at the public, Piers Brendon opted for a short portrait of Churchill, the man. In fact, the cover of the British paperback edition (which, unfortunately, you can not see here) tells the whole story: on the top half is a photograph of a youthful Churchill flaunting an urchin's grin under a flamboyant top hat; on the bottom half is a photograph of Churchill in his sixties squinting against the sun while he inspected a battlefield during WW II.

Churchill was a complex personality, "yet the essence of Churchill, which this book has attempted to explore and to celebrate, was his heightened vitality, the terrific immediacy of his existence. Life as it was ordinarily lived was too tame for him: he needed the stimulus of constant adventure." He was grandiose, yet had self-deprecating charm; he could remark that although we are all worms he really believed himself to be a glow-worm.

Graced with a benign character and a sunny disposition, he nevertheless displayed an authoritarian bent ("All I wanted was compliance with my wishes after reasonable discussion") and was driven by an unabashed, egotistical ambition. His disregard for hierarchies and naval tradition was legendary: "Don't talk to me about naval tradition," was his famous reply, "it is nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

Churchill's greatest gift was his "alchemical power with words: by means of fiery eloquence he could transmute the dross of disaster into the gold of triumph." Rhetoric was "the most powerful weapon in his armoury and he took immense trouble with it, constantly practicing: 'Winston leads general conversation on the hearth rug addressing himself in the looking glass - a sympathetic and admiring audience.'" His demagogic skills and self-advertising flair served Britain well at a time when the Nazi tanks seemed unstoppable: "Churchill's well nigh miraculous achievement during the dire summer months of 1940 was to convert the nation to a mystical faith in its own providential destiny. ... Courage is as contagious as cowardice and Churchill infected everyone with his heedless fortitude."

Churchill was a sanguine choleric, if ever there was one. His "scowling sulks made his moods of sunny cheerfulness all the brighter. His charm compensated for his rudeness; his loyalty redeemed his cruelty. His fundamental kindness of heart and generosity of spirit were never altogether obscured by perennial egotism and fleeting rages." Nobody could say of his intellectual arrogance that his brains went to his head: "When the mood took him he bubbled with good humour. He never stood on his dignity. He had once amazed guests by getting down on all fours under the Chartwell dining-room table and shaking swimming-pool water out of his ears like a dog."

Churchill could be charming and demanding, as it suited him. After he had the US safely in his camp, he rejected the advice to approach America cautiously with the comment "Oh! That is the way we talked to her while we were wooing her; now that she is in the harem, we talk to her quite differently." And, a rarity among politicians, he spoke a foreign language: "'Je sweeze oun frair ehnay de la Trinnity'" Churchill, the Elder Brother of Trinity House, was said to have told the French ambassador who supposedly congratulated him on having such distinguished relations.

Piers Brendon's intention was to write a "vivid, balanced, complete but miniature portrait" set against the background of Churchill's career, because "the vast accumulation of knowledge about Churchill is in some ways an obstacle to understanding him. Comprehensiveness impedes comprehension [and] incidental vignettes can often reveal more than reams of pedantry - Churchill's telling Stalin that he was very fond of goldfish, for example, and the dictator hospitably suggesting that he should have some for breakfast."

I understand that some critics may get the impression that this biography is a light-weight when they read a tongue-in-cheek summary like "Winston's fate was determined by his toy soldiers." But that's a question of style, not substance. Don't be deceived. This is a fine portrait of Churchill - a bit brief on the historical background, I admit - but you will have a good time reading it.

Save your money and watch Ally McBeal or read a Cathy cartoon. Whiny woman looking for a boyfriend/husband to make her complete.

I have started to read this book not very hopefully but at the second page of it, i realized i am wrong. the story tells about every woman in the world, what we say, we think, we do, how clever and stupid we are. although the story is told in mostly humour, there is real sense and serious aspects of life in every line of it. Constance who is the heroine of the story tells us everything about a woman in the areas of politics, love, sex, friendship, study, money, business and so many other. i advise every woman to read it and it is not difficult because the expressions are easy and enjoyable.

This is the first I've read by Ms. Winston & it'll be the last! Prince Rafael of Thortonburg is certainly NO prince of a guy. He always jumps to conclusions & really rips into Princess Elizabeth with his hurtful accusations & recriminations. Although he apologizes soon after, the damage is done. I really think there should be more on-your-knees-grovelling before he's forgiven. Overall, this is the worst book I've read in the Royally Wed series so far.

Don't miss the 1st 3 books in the series: Alexandra in "Royal Baby on the Way" (ok start), Katherine in "Undercover Princess" (the best), Serena in "The Princess's White Knight" (not bad). The last book is "Man Mercenary Monarch" (its bad reviews warn me to steer clear of it).

This book had just the right touch! I've read most of the Royally Wed series, and this was my 2nd favorite! Keep it up Anne Marie Winston!

I loved this book. I thought it was funny and very well written. I could not but it down. If you like humor and romance I think you should read this book and read the other books in this serise. But I think you will realy like this book.

Basically this book is a booring rehash of the first book. Groom was obviousely riding the success of the movie with this one. Well the story begins pretty much where the first book left off and Forest is rich... very rich. He meets up with little forest and the two have adventures that take them all over the country. Same basic stuff as in the movie, great feats, amazing luck, bla bla bla, but here here they are mostly just plain silly - like the part when he gets poop all over the town. It indeed is worth a couple laughs as this was the first time in my life that I actually laughed out loud while reading a book, but thats about it. The writing just seems rushed and tiresome. Nothing great here folks unless you're a big Gump fan.

I was not very happy with this book at all. I was thrilled to find that there was a sequel to the first book so I rushed to get this. I couldnt even finish it.

There were a few funny parts in the book, like Forrest and his son starting a hog farm, and Forrest coming up with a great taste for the (if I can remember correctly) horrible tasting "new coke". But other than that Groom took good characters from the first book and ripped them to pieces. I wanted to cry.

Pass this one up.

I didn't know that Forrest Gump was a book until my friend told me about the sequal. Well, I didn't think the first book could have differed that greatly from the movie, so I just read the second book. The heavy use of offensive language was definatly a surprise to me, concidering Forrest was looked on as so innocent in the movie. He is mentally handicaped, but i think ill also, because after Jenny dies, he sees her... but never her husband. Forrest is constantly ending up in jail, which, again, is surprising. It made him look totally irresponsible when it came to his son. He and his son had no real relationship. He was constantly around Jenny-- he couldn't keep away. But with little forrest, he barely sees him. Then end seemed thrown together at the last minute. I think Groom should have just skipped this midlife chrisis type-thing, and gone strait to Forrest as a grandfather to little Forrest's children. I sure hope the first book was not like this, because then the innocence he has in the movie is just completely unreal and fictious compared to the book. I would still recomend reading it, its not all bad. Its just much more humourious, and a lot less sentimental.

And a tolerably worthwhile throwaway, considering Lukacs's knowledge of his subject. If you have decent familiarity with the issues, this book won't weigh you down and it adds nuance to the accepted portrait of Churchill. But this is certainly not an introduction to Churchill and the author's biases, particularly against Eisenhower, mar the presentation. This chafed at me in particular, and I hold no particular brief for Ike. But Lukacs is an historian, yet he swipes at Eisenhower throughout the second half of the book, almost never building an argument but rather using innuendo. He largely assumes that the reader shares his biases, more in the way of punditry than scholarship. I don't regret reading the book, but I am sure I could have made more productive use of the time and money on another Churchill work.

John Lukacs is a Catholic anglophile and a conservative Christian Democrat who fled from Hungary at the beginning of the cold war. At the same time he has never forgiven the Republican party right for its refusal to help Britain (and the rest of Europe) at her darkest hour. Winston Churchill has always been his hero. About fifteen years ago Lukacs wrote a book on the 80 day "duel" between Churchill and Hitler in the summer of 1940. A few years ago he wrote a more popular book that looked at ten of those days. This third book concentrates on Churchill, and it is the most disappointing yet.

Lukacs looks at Churchill "the visionary," and his relationships with Stalin, FDR, and Eisenhower. He then discusses appeasement, Churchill's skill as a historian, his failures, and then concludes with his memories of Churchill's funeral. Basically this book is a shallow collection of essays which add nothing to our knowledge of the man. There are not even many telling details or pungent anecdotes. There is nothing wrong in arguing, as Lukacs does, that Churchill was right not to make a deal with Hitler, and that he is not to blame for the fact that postwar Poland was a Communist dictatorship. But most historians have never doubted these matters, and Lukacs has nothing new to add. Lukacs has never really cared for archival research, nor has he really paid much attention to what other scholars say. At one point he states that the Soviet Union was not really interested in defending Czechoslovakia in 1938, nor was it really interested in negotiating an alliance with France and Britain the following years. Perhaps, but it is important to point out that in recent years Hugh Ragsdale and Michael J. Carley have produced well documented arguments to the contrary, and that Lukacs not only does not refute them, he appears to be unaware of their existence. Likewise, the chapter on Eisenhower and Churchill concentrates on Churchill's proposals in 1953 to try to make a deal with the post-Stalin leadership, which Eisenhower peremptorily brushed aside. Was an opportunity to end, or shorten, the cold war carelessly thrown away? Perhaps, but other scholars, such as John W. Young and Jaclyn Stanke, have discussed the issue in far greater detail than Lukacs. Many scholars dislike Stephen Ambrose for his terminus into plagiarism and middlebrow eminence. Notwithstanding that, his argument that Eisenhower and his small armies could not have snatched the honor of taking Berlin from Zhukov's larger forces still stands, and Lukacs does nothing to refute it.

Lukacs exaggerates Churchill's perceptiveness. Contra Lukacs, Churchill's fears of German revenge in 1924 were not boldly original, but a commonplace among the British. It did not take great insight after the 1930 German elections to realize, as Churchill did, that Hitler was an important politician. And Churchill was not alone in 1935 in fearing a possible war from Hitler. The chapter on Churchill's histories is indulgent and complacent, as Lukacs applauds Churchill for his style and memorable image. Unfortunately, this confuses history with journalism, and Lukacs is less informative on this than David Reynolds and J.H. Plumb. Lukacs mentions Churchill's faults, but his account of the Dardanelles fiasco, the catastrophic return to the Gold Standard and Churchill's opposition to Indian independence are brief and apologetic. Christopher Thorne is more accurate on Churchill's bigotry and the price of his imperialist illusions. David Cannadine is far more acute on his awful family who, with the exception of his wife and his daughter, Lady Soames, were incredibly selfish and irresponsible. Cannadine is also acute on Churchill's ignorance of modern day life, noting that Churchill took the underground only once, and he had to be rescued, because he didn't know how to get off.

"Churchill and Hitler were, at any rate, the two protagonists of the dramatic phase of the last war, even though Roosevelt and Stalin played the decisive role in its epic phase, at the end." As a distinction, this does not work very well. Was there nothing dramatic about the defense of Leningrad and the battle of Kursk? But for Lukacs it is important to view the conflict as one between Hitler and Churchill, even though he is well aware that Churchill could not have won without the USA and the USSR. For Churchill is an icon, a symbol of the liberal, aristocratic order. When Churchill saved Britain in 1940 he redeemed this order's honor. One can only contrast with the actual ruling class of interwar Hungary who led that country into a vicious, genocidal war. That contrast is more interesting than anything Lukacs has to say in this book.

For the record, I admire John Lukacs as a historian... However, this thin volume (essentially a collection of mini-essays) doesn't really do much to add to the already abundant amount of Churchill scholarship... Lukacs clearly worships Churchill and therefore the book comes across as a simple hagiography. Lukacs' strength is his ability to spin a narrative while not getting bogged down with excessive facts. However, sometimes he can seem to wander off on rather obscure emotional tangents...

This book is fine as an introduction to Churchill, but for someone who wants a more in-depth look at the great man, I suggest turning to the rather more weighty biographies by Martin Gilbert and Roy Jenkins, or indeed his own earlier, and infinitely more interesting title, "Five Days in London."

This excerpted work is a light summary of American History from the perspective of a good friend and ally. It is not, however, a book that would have been taken seriously had it not been written by Churchill. To students of U.S. history, it will seem too superficial in most places (eg. Industrialization), too romantic in others (eg. the Civil War), and downright misleading in still others (imagine anyone describing Jefferson as 'frugal'!!). Having said all that, I enjoyed it precisely because it is our cousin's celebration of his own American roots.

A nice overview of American history written with wit and obvious pleasure in the subject. As a collection of essays it is not comprehensive and many details are left out, but the Civil War is dealt with in some depth. I especially enjoyed the 20th century essays from his visits to America and speeches to our Congress. If you're serious about studying American history this book should be supplemented with others (try "A History Of The American People" by Paul Johnson, also British, also very readable, but much more detailed), but this book is certainly a pleasant place to start.

The Great Republic is essentially Churchill's historical overview of America contained within his History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Normally acknowledged as one of the great political statesman of his, perhaps any, age, Churchill was also quite the historian. His complete works span over 50 volumes of material. These excerpts of his larger work provide us with a unique perspective on American history from an alternative vantage point, although not entirely foreign. Churchill was, in fact, intimately connected with Amercia. As the introduction provided by his grandson (appropriately named) Winston S. Churchill reveals, three of Churchill's ancestors were actually passengers on the Mayflower. He had even more recent connections through his mother who was an American. Churchill was a great admirer of what he affectionately called 'the Great Republic' (thus, the title), and so his endearment of our country is also the result of embracing his own heritage.

Only half of this edition is taken from Churchill's original history. Obviously, the work has a Euro-centrist perspective of America and its events. But this is part of its unique charm, added with the fact of the man who had written it is highly regarded world-wide. The span of history covered begins with the Europlean effort to find alternative routes to the East Indies, resulting in America's discovery. It ends at the beginning of the twentieth century having little to say of these times. Because American history was not the focus of the original work, much history must be expected by the reader to be left out. The themes discussed are almost entirely political, as one would expect. The central focus of our history it turns out is our Civil War. It seems that it is not only historians in America who have such a fascination with this epic. More emphasis is given this historic confrontation than that of our Revolutionary War (after all, what Englishman would glory in that story). Nevertheless, the greatness of Churchill as an historian is fully evident here.

The latter half is a collection of Churchill's writings and speeches regarding America covering a span of over 50 years. Here we find how America was viewed by the prominent politian. He is certainly credible enough to have formed an opinion of our American customs and habits considering his background and his numerous trips to the New World. The topics vary covering our eating habits and social customs to our landscapes to our common language and heritage to opinoins on Prohibition and War. These, or course, act as a history of America in the first half of this last century. On the whole, The Great Republic is an exceptional and brief read in American history.

The American Civil War should have been named Robert E. Lee's Civil War. 85% of the books attention is paid to Lee's character, Lee's battles, Lee's brilliance, Lee's nobility, Lee's wisdom. At the end of the War Churchill rightly criticizes Lee for his faulty generalship in sending thousands to die in frontal assaults when the war was clearly lost, but his fixation on Lee still borders on worship. There were other things going on in the War, like the War in the West, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta campaign, March to the Sea, etc., but Churchill concludes these events did not require any full discussion. Either Winston had a deadline to meet and was out of time or he displays a surprising lack of knowledge by leaving out at least half of the Civil War. But of course if you are a Lee fan, then you'll love this one.

Churchill's view of our War Between the States is in keepingwith the most prominent mythologized history of that conflict, onefeature of which is a perception of "near-divinity" inGen. Robert E. Lee. That perception was begun during the war andboosted to completion shortly afterwards by Gen. Jubal Early and hispowerful influence over the Southern Historical Society Papers (amajor source for most Civil War history). An excellent ifcontroversial review of these issues is found in "The Myth of theLost Cause" ed. by Gallagher and Nolan.

One can readilyunderstand the appeal of such a myth to Winston Churchill as he triedto come to terms with his own witnessing of the Fall of the BritishEmpire having just been totally dependent on American aid to survivethe war with Germany.

Joseph Campbell understood "myth"to be a psychosocial system (expressed through the arts) that allows aculture to get into accord with an awful fact that cannot be dealtwith as raw, factual history. It would seem that witnessing one'ssociety crumbling into oblivion calls for such a myth.

Churchill'swork is fascinating. His use of the English language is mostsuperb. This work will provide the reader (or listener) with somepowerful insights into the American Civl War, World War II, and theuse of myth to connect us with the awful human experience of havingthe very structure of one's World vanish forever.

Quite Frankly, this new Holt Phyiscs book, does NOT cover all the content that is involved in the detailed study of Physics. Not only that, but it leaves out some of the most important principles that are in physics. For example, Chapter 5-2, we talk about Energy, it doesn't give the law of conservation of energy, which is one of the most important laws in physics. It also when talking about Newton's laws, doesn't use the ideas that Newton had. There are so many things missing, I could go on forever, I wish I could give this book a negative score, but I can't do so. I'm currently in Physics at my school, and I like to study Physics in my spare time. Serway is a very good author of the college books, that I have, but this one does not cut it for a full understanding of Physics.

This was the text book used in my honors physics class. Though it may not go into extremely advanced issues, it does touch on A LOT of material, including basic collisions, fluids, rotational motion, relativity (a bit), and even some quantum mechanics. This book is definitely useful to anyone who wants a better education in basic physics and a start into somewhat beginner's advanced physics.

Some works of literature wear well with time, and some do not.

Understandably, The Deputy was quite a red-hot item 40 years ago, when there was a certain frisson in criticizing a recently-deceased Pope, and not a great deal of historical work had been done to analyze the opposition of the Catholic Church against Hitlerism.

But now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, a wealth of actual documentary evidence can take the place of the fictitious imaginings, sceptical conjectures, and whole-cloth fabrications which make up the basis of this play.

At the time of its writing, it must havce seemed daring and challenging in a disturbing but healthy sense. Now it looks more like, at best, sophomoric propaganda, and at worst, like a new and deeply unattractive variation on Blood Libel.

I first read The Deputy in 1963 and saw a truncated version of the play in Los Angeles. I have subsequently read the play several times and I believe that the reviewers who think that this is an anti-Catholic polemic miss Hochhuth's purpose in writing the book.

In The Deputy, the Catholic Church is not blamed for the holocaust; the reader understands that the Germans were perpetrators (by the way, Hochhuth is Swiss, not German). And he does not excuse Protestants and others for their refusal to act during this terrible time. Students of the Holocaust know that there was more than enough blame to go around in terms of those who did not speak.

What Hochhuth does is to state historical truth regarding Pope Pius XII's refusal to speak. Pius XII was the Deputy of Christ from 1939 to 1958. Between 1939 and 1945, though the Pope was completely aware of what the Germans were doing (mass murders), he never once spoke to criticize the Germans or ask them to stop the murders. This is uncontrovertible fact.

Riccardo Fontana, the fictitious priest (and hero) in The Deputy, represents the finest qualities in man. He is that rarest of creatures, a truly good man. His passion for truth and justice leads to his numerous efforts to persuade Pius XII to action. That he is unable to reach the Pope makes his efforts heart-breakingly tragic.

Riccardo is a Catholic who cannot understand why the Pope (whom he knows personally) does not speak out against one of the worst horrors in the history of mankind. For Riccardo, speaking out is not enough. He demonstrates through action (he is willing to die and actually does) that words of condemnation alone are not enough. That is why Pius XII's unwillingness to speak (much less to act) is seen as such a devastating moral lapse.

I suggest that the reviewers who feel that The Deputy is blatantly anti-Catholic read the play again, in its entirety!

"The Deputy" is stunning and still relevant, despite the acidic reviews you might find here contesting the pertinence of this play. It's more than probable the negative ratings in regards to this piece belong to the pious who, instead of looking at the objective facts, hide behind their own grandiose illusions regarding the dogmas into which they have been indoctrinated.

Afterall, is there any historical doubt that Pope Pius XII did not publicly condemn the wholesale slaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime? I haven't seen any document stating otherwise. Sure, he made blanket condemnations pronounced in the garb of generalities, but that's not what Hochhuth's play addresses. It's a simple question we must ask: should, as some consider, the highest moral authority on the planet straddle the fence in an attempt not to offend anyone, or should we expect a public condemnation of evil on such a grand scale? This, in my view, and in sum, is the dilemma the play poses to each reader.

In reading this anthology, I realized why I tend to stay away from short stories: even good authors may be unable to create a worthwhile story in relatively few pages. There is definitely a talent and also a honed skill needed to accomplish character development and sufficient plot in the space allotted. I initially picked up this book because the title led me to believe that the stories might be fun, funny, amusing...which they are not in any way -- rather the stories are all quite serious and not what I expected (as others have noted the blurbs on the back cover are untrue.) In one story a woman wants to have sex with a male slut she somehow learned about because she thinks she is dying -- how is that naughty? In another, a woman trying to divorce her scary husband has not-very-exciting sex with a stranger in a bar and we then follow them as they try to extricate her from her marriage. The last story about the woman who has sex for the first time with a man who yelled at her for "encouraging" a near rape while sunbathing fully clothed left me cold. Susan Johnson is the first author in the book and recognizing her name and her usually good stories led me to expect a lot more than is delivered here. I usually enjoy her work, but in this case I actively hated the story almost by the 10th page. Johnson takes what I consider her worst characteristic -- a tendency to be a little too anatomically descriptive -- and makes it into the entire story. This piece consists of a couple engaging in constant unemotional sex without any foreplay, which is not of interest, I would think, to most readers in this genre. More importantly, the sex scenes are BORING! Then she throws in some military/political hooha just to give it some kind of plot. The story would have been much more interesting had it acutally followed the plot listed on the back cover in which debutantes make the bet, rather than bored society matrons in Vienna. Save your money and buy a good Susan Johnson book, rather than this anthology.

Although short stories aren't always the truest introduction to an author, I've read enough Susan Johnson to realize that I'm not going to read her anymore. She is the best-known author in this anthology, but her story is the worst. As another reviewer has already pointed out, the book blurb regarding her story is totally deceptive. Her characters are shallow, their relationship unfathomable, and the language used in the sex scenes is jarring, considering the time setting of this story.

The story by Leandra Logan, seemed as though there was too much story trying to be crammed into too few pages, so the story felt choppy to me. The initial sex scene set up as a one-night-stand didn't seem true to the female lead. There were some interesting secondary characters, but the story form is just too short to allow adequate development of that many characters.

I felt that the stories by Adrianne Lee and Anne Marie Winston were the best of the bunch. The characters were better developed, the sexual tension better maintained, and storyline flowed better. I would recommend the book for the sake of these authors. I don't know if they have written anything else, but I'm certainly going to find out.

I wanted this book for the story by one of my favorite authors,Susan Johnson, but to my delight I found "Winner Take All" by Adrianne Lee. This story really drew me into the characters. I found Mitch to be a totally believable hero. He struggles to prove an important point to his business partner (along with winning a bet!) and in doing so, matures as a "whole" man rather than a male lead by his "other parts". He finds himself confronted with a special woman who truly touches his heart...but she wants to touch so much more! Talk about FUN conflict! I was so impressed by Ms. Lee's characters I've decided to add her works to my "To Be Read" pile.