I have always been fascinated with General Benjamin Butler both because of the story of his ill fated term as military governor of New Orleans during the Civil War and because of his physical image. The photographs always show someone who seems to be a grotesque characature of a human being rather than a real person, somehow appropriate for a man known as 'the Beast of New Orleans'. This book is significant not only for its detailed account of the conflicts and controversy that surrounded Butler during his time in New Orleans, but also for providing enough complementary material to see him as more than an evil abberation. The author does detail the evidence for Butler's depredations - his thefts, corruptions and overzelous application of lethal force - but also provides ample evidence that he was a complex and sometimes thoughtful person as well. In one case, he condemns a man to be hung because he had pulled down the union flag. The man's wife and children go to Butler to plead for his life. He refuses to stop the hanging but promises to be of whatever assistance he can be in the future. Years later the widow approaches him to say that she has been cheated by her lawyer out of her life savings and that she and her children are in jeapordy. Butler finds her a government job and, at his own expense, sees to the children's education. A very complex 'devil' indeed.

For those who enjoy new light cast upon old oversimplified history, this book is excellent. Well written and with a lot that is new to say, this book represents a chance to actually learn something new rahter than simply revisiting the old story.

In her recent memoir of the time of her life that she spent with Wystan and Chester, Thekla Clark gives us an unassuming and very personal view of these two great characters of the 20th. century. Although I probably should'nt compare the two, it is a far more personal and approachable account than that of Richard Davenport-Hines' very bookish biography, which I have also just read.(Perhaps they should be read in series to balance things out a bit!) In any case, Thekla Clark's love for these two is apparent and charming, as her perception of the moralistic age in which they were forced to live. A must-read for any Audenophile or Kallmanist!

The photos in this photo diary is quite small - usually put three in half page, and the text is so big for those small photos. -> It not so comfortable to read a book in this layout.

Also, most photos are not sharp.

This book contains fantastic photos (many of them in color) of the Superforts in both WWII and Korea. It is a must for B-29 buffs.

In few words, a great summary of one of the great bombers of WW-2. This book explains, depicts and glorifies the plane and its crews from WW-2 to Korea. A perfect gift for B-29 fans!

Phylis Schlafly, associated with the extremist xenophobic John Birch Society, puts together a paranoid philonuclear diatribe here, that completely ignored the situation in the 1960s.

The idea that a ballistic missile defense is somehow useful is still sold as snake-oil by right-wing crackpots and defense contractors, but, back then, as now, it simply doesn't fly.

The recent "remarkable advances" in "missle defense" were only made by incorporating GPS transmitters into "targets!" Engineers- speaking honestly, without a financial stake in the outcome- have known this and spoken about this for decades. It's a big welfare program, plain and simple.

The idea of a "winnable" nuclear war is hideously immoral, and the Dr. Strangeloves and their consorts, such as Schlafly should be consigned to the ash-heap of history PRONTO.

I read the review written by John M.K. with great amusement, as usual, leftists cannot argue facts so they attack the writer. Name calling and twisted logic is all they offer.

The book is well written.

Whatever impression this book made at the time (1968), it is an astonishing read today. Written by Eagle Forum President and founder Phyllis Schlaffly and Admiral Chester Ward, the thesis of the book is that key members of the Johnson Administration, in particular Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, had actively sought to weaken and impair the defenses of the United States, motivated by a belief that the cause of freedom was doomed, that the Soviet Union would surely win the Cold War, and that preparing for the eventual inevitable surrender was the best means to survival.

Regardless of the validity of that position (or of the specific choice of motives), the information used to make the case bears examination. Schlaffly and Ward walk the reader through a panorama of Johnson Administration defense and foreign policy positions, compellingly outlining a defensive disaster. The astute reader will recall without reminder that in 1960, the United States possessed overwhelming military superiority over its Communist opponents, and that by 1968 -- just eight years, or two presidential terms, later -- that had turned into mere parity and, in some cases, inferiority. If nothing else, this caused extreme, needless problems for American diplomacy over the following two decades; and of course, it had the potential to cause far, far worse.

What Schlaffly and Ward show is that the cause of the change was not so much the Soviet build-up as McNamara's dismantling of America's existing force, including (but by no means limited to) the entirety of our B-47 fleet, much of our B-52 fleet, our entire fleet of supersonic (and brand new) B-58s, and our entire surface-to-air missile defense system in North America (a system, by the way, which centered on the Nike-Hercules missile, itself well capable of rudimentary ballistic missile defense). Moreover, in the face of the aforementioned radical Soviet build-up, McNamara cancelled all strategic submarine production, the B-70 program, and all modern ICBM development; and generally did everything in his power to decrease American power beneath that of its deadly enemy.

Combined with McNamara's non-strategy in Vietnam, one could almost believe the "Betrayers" thesis.

Perhaps most striking about this book, though, is not its amazing history but its astonishing currency. The Left's arguments against missile defense in particular have not changed in the slightest particular over the past three decades, despite revolutionary advances in technology and the complete upending of the "old world order". Pitifully enough, the arguments were as false then as now: the Nike-Hercules and Nike-X systems -- and even the pitiful Safeguard, deployed and then scrapped by Gerald Ford in 1975 -- were fine systems technologically; and a system of "defense" based on holding millions of people hostage to nuclear terror (otherwise known as "Mutual Assured Destruction") remains hideously immoral.

In any case, The Betrayers is one of the more interesting artifacts of the Cold War, and well worth picking up. No serious student of the period, or of current defense policy for that matter, should be without it.

I absolutely loathed it.IT WAS HORRID,HORRIBLE,AND THEY REALLY NEED BETTER PICTURES!

I love lots of diffrent kinds of books and I loved lots of theones I've read and I loved these books and they are in my top list. Irecommend these books to children who like adventure and fun in their books. Also I think it's very good for moms or dads to read to their children for bedtime stories and together time.

Chester Cricket , a cricket who lost his home beacause two overweight women sat on an old stump which he he lived in. In this charming story Chester is seaching for a new house to live in.He searches and searches but no house suits him.A must read!

The End of a Primitive is a dark novel. The plot, if it can be called such, is centered around two depressed alcoholics, one a down on his luck African American, the other an outwardly successful but lonely, depressed white woman. She is a sexually frustrated party girl, while he is more outwardly melancholy. They both drown their misery and self-pity in alcohol. The setting --1950's New York, with racism and cultural taboos firmly in background. They meet and have a weekend of substance abuse and sexual frenzy. The ending is good for neither.

The point of the novel is the banality of our two protagonists. Unfortunately, the novel lacks depth and becomes banal itself -- coming across as more petulant than thoughtful. That does not make for a great novel -- and this one, called a classic by some, is overrated.

Himes' French publishers called this book "sadism and buffoonery", but it's much more than that, a meditation on the manners, mores, and racism of '50's America. The Old School editors have once again done a bang-up job, restoring the text to Himes' original, not the whitewashed version published as "The Primitive" in 1955. Check it out!

I'll say what the other reviewers have failed to: Jesse Robinson is a black male, a writer with no commercial successes, who reluctantly bailed on the Communist Party in the Stalinist consolidation after WWII, and, true to Wright's paradigm, is wholly emasculated by white supremacy.

Kriss Cummings is an ethnic white female, petty bourgeois, working for an overseas finance institution that embodies the spirit of liberal imperialism. Due to her gender, her German ancestry and working class origins she's reached the "glass ceiling" for her particular type. She is also branded as unmarriable, due to a lengthy history of sexual looseness (which, ironically, she accrued by pleasing the same males who now brand her.)

End of a Primitive is a deeply complex book that merits hundreds of pages of analysis. For now let's delve only this far: Both Jesse and Kriss are under the rule of the archetypal "white male," which some might assume would predispose them (the "white woman" and the "black man") to some sense of solidarity. Yet in Himes' discourse this is not the case. "Hog will eat hog," forms the base premise upon which the book is built upon.

Kriss ridicules, degrades, and humiliates Jesse to feel "white." Jesse asserts his masculinity through beatings and various other forms of abuse. In this way the two compete for dominance, finally culminating in the "End of a Primitive, the beginning of a human being."

The old censored edition, by the way, was altered in such a way as to make the book friendlier to white liberals (the publishers' target audience) who identified with Kriss. Thus the basis of her character (as a white woman who validates her whiteness through domination of blacks) was stripped away.

Himes also allowed for a considerable amount of his trademark humor. Upon hearing Kriss rationalize her sexual indiscretions through a heap of pseudo-feminist rhetoric, Jesse informs her that if they were living in the 18th Century, she'd be "making history, not just sociology like you're making now."

End of a Primitive explores American race relations in a manner so thorough and fearless it becomes threatening to those who avoid these issues. Thus, the book never enjoyed much success in retail or academia. Yet there are many, myself included, who believe it deserves a spot in the American canon right next to Ellison.

After reading The Sword, The Ring, and The Chalice Trilogy, I couldn't wait to read The Queen's Gambit. However, this book really disappointed me. I expected this one to be as good as the trilogy, but I was wrong!
This book starts out pretty good. It keeps the readers going by talking about how Pharesa is weak and is in a dangerous situation. However, I expected Pharesa to get stronger and stronger as the plot flows. Pharesa is a whiny wife who doesn't want to turn against her husband until it's too late. Chester should develope Pharesa's personality more, but she didn't. So in the end, I still think Pharesa as a weak woman.
Also, we didn't get a lot of information about Talmor's personality except that he's brave and loyal. Chester could go a little bit beyond that.
Some events in the novel come out too suddenly. For example, Pharesa realizes her love for Talmor in just like a blink of eyes, and there's not a lot of foreshadowing before this abrupt realization. I think Chester could make the characters closer before having them admit their love to each other. Moreover, Chester should write more about the life of Dain.
Well, this is my opinion. I personally think it's not worth to buy this book. It is interesting to know what's Pharesa's life like after The Chalice, but I really wouldn't buy it if I were you.

I was looking forward to this book wrapping up some of the dangling threads from The Sword/Ring/Chalice trilogy. Not only were my questions not answered, I am now left with many more dangling plotlines.

I found Pheresa to be a weak, whining character who doesn't begin to buck up until almost the end of the book and is definitely not deserving of her love interest, who, by the way, is about fifty times more interesting than she is. Very disappointing, although I enjoy Chester's style. Quite disappointing for a book I was very much looking forward to.

I'll be blunt, I didn't think there was a lot of depth to this book. I didn't think that there was much depth to her other books either, but this one had even less. This was not your typical "quest" story, so if you need your characters to go on a more physical quest, I'd reccomend against this book.

I think that the book actually started out pretty good. Pheresa wasn't and isn't the strongest character around, which made me like her a little and made the story interesting. I guess I felt like it was almost her quest for self-realization. She's a bit shallow, as she was in the previous books, but well-meaning and likable. She makes the mistake of thinking that strength comes from the power to make orders. She grows and matures in the story which I liked and for the most part, I thought was done nicely. I have to say that the author rode a fine line in the climatic scene where she takes the throne back. It could have easily been anti-climatic, but the confrontation between her and Lervan was, in my opinion, well-done.

However, I had two major problems with this book. First, there was really no room for character development in Talmor because he was more or less perfect. It was a bit sickening. His "flaws" weren't really flaws, they were flaws of the "world" for lack of a better word, who couldn't or wouldn't understand him and who later realized the error of their ways. Second, the feminist in me was pretty disgusted at the scene where Pheresa was willing to run away from the crown and go away with Talmor. She had a responsibility and she was too weak to get it without Talmor's emotional support (Of course, Talmor realized that he couldn't ask that of her). I was very disappointed in that. I felt that it took away from who she could have been. Had that whole scene been downplayed, or just replayed differently, I would have felt that Pheresa had truly become the strong person she wanted to be, who I felt the author wanted her to be and who I wanted her to be. What i wanted of her was for her to realize that strenght didn't mean doing everythig on her own, she could have leaned on Talmor or others, BUT it also means that she is not useless without those others. I know I'm going on and on about that, but I feel it detracted from the story a great deal as well as made her victory over Lervan a little hollow. Otherwise, it was a book that despite my disappointment in her, I enjoyed. Maybe a follow-up book where she continues her growth? Or maybe I should just be happy with what was there :>

This a book by a Black author about Harlem in the 60's. It is not a story, but a series of incidents leading the protagonist, one of a team of Black cops, to conclude "It don't make no sense." It portrays every negative aspect of the community: crime; vice; brutality; ignorance; mindless, purposeless plunging forward.The title character symbolizes the whole enterprise. Is this picture fair or accurate? It overflows with violence. It is not dull, but neither is it pleasant to read.

The difference between the cops and the crooks is the cops keep looking for justice however they come by it while the crooks look for gain. Very well written although dark. An eye openers for those of us who don't know anything about Harlem in the 60's.

Chester Himes spent years analyzing the race question and nobody recognized the fact. The reason was, he disguised his probes into the mysteries of racism in his series of Harlem domestic novels. However, in "Blind Man with a Pistol," he lays all the dark, evil workings of racism out there for us. He renders his two star detectives virtually powerless in a mad riot between three major factions. Like most riots, there are numerous underlying events and themes involved in Himes' riot in this novel. The book is expertly paced and has its moments of humor in the midst of the madness. A wonderful book by a neglected master!

I think this was an ok book. I think there could have been more detail. But over sll this is a good book to young readers who are easily intrested in the Holocaust.

Personally, I was not impressed by the book. Gideon, the maincharacter, was not very believable. I have a hard time believing thata normal fourteen year old boy would know how to smuggle guns and food into another city.However, the book wasn't all bad. It did have a lot of action during the middle and end. It also describes what life was like in a Jewish ghetto. I would recommend "Gideon" for young readers that enjoy serious books. END

I read this book when I was in junior high..I have been looking to read it again since I understand a little more about WWII and what happened to the jews. I really enjoyed this book when I was young.