Eagle Reviews

By now I should be inured to the pace of a Dick Francis novel, which is roughly equivalent to that of a marathon turf stakes at Ascot: in order to conserve energy, the horses start off slow, knowing they have a couple of thousand meters ahead of them; the pace picks up after you get round to the backstretch the first time, and the finish is furious. Francis spent too much time on the backs of nags at Royal Ascot to forget that, I guess. And thus you know that the first three or four chapters of a Francis mystery are likely to bog down. Stick with it; it's almost always worth the trip.

Randall Drew has been forced into retirement (like many of Francis' jockeys). In this case, it's because the jockey club has seen fit to outlaw riding with glasses, and contacts and Drew don't mix well. Drew, friend and lover to English royalty, is tabbed by the Prince to investigate shadowy claims of threats to a Royal who wants to ride in the 1980 Moscow olympics, threats that are backed up by the death of a German olympic rider, supposedly of a heart attack-- but foul play is suspected. Drew heads off to Moscow, and the fun begins.

If you know Francis, you already know whether you're going to buy this or not, I suspect. Francis mysteries are basically formulaic. Ex-jockey becomes amateur detective, ex-jockey discovers something nasty is happening at a track somewhere, ex-jockey investigates, ex-jockey gets into scrapes, ex-jockey gets out of scrapes, ex-jockey solves crime. It's good clean mindless fun, and this one has nothing about it that stands out from the others, save its rather odd location (which seems quaint given the collapse of the cold war nowadays). Good if you like Francis, bad if you don't, and not a book I'd suggest as a jumping-off point if you don't know his work (try Odds Against or Enquiry instead, where Francis is on his home turf).

I think Francis does a good job with these rather weighty themes, within the framework of the mystery/thriller genre that he has perfected over time.

But Jeff Long doesn't find it hard to believe at all. In fact, he seems to find it important to disbelieve people who should be believed, (like the famous american woman mrs. dickinson, who without doubt lived through the battle). Even stranger, Mr. Long finds it important to believe uncritically any crackpot who comes forward with a story.

For example, a mexican lady later claimed to have nursed jim bowie (the other "star" in the battle) during the siege. Mrs. dickinson, who was there and had no reason to lie, stated later this Mexican woman was "a fraud." This doesn't deter jeff long. He totally swallows the story, only saying "she had no reason to lie." No reason to lie? Jim Bowie, inventor of the Bowie knife, was a legend. The woman probably lied for the attention she knew she would receive if people believed it. How hard is that to figure out? But it never occurs to Long, he just writes it right into the story as gospel.

He's like that.

But it's the story about Crockett that I find particularly ridiculous. Mrs. Dickinson said she saw him lying dead where he had fought, outside the chapel, as she was escorted out by mexican soldiers, crockett's "peculiar cap" by his side. but people like jeff long just jettison her testimony--(after all, she was historically known without doubt to have BEEN THERE). what is her testimony compared to the mysterious diary that didn't surface until the 1950's along with the massive interest in crockett instigated by the disney produced television movie?

This is the problem with "revisionist history." They don't want to go on rewriting the same old stories, so they go far afield and accept ridiculous sources so that they will have something new to say.

And by the way, I'm not from Texas. I just find Jeff Long to be less than an historian and more of some kind of entertainer or something. If you're looking for the definitive book on the alamo, this definitely isn't it.

Long clearly has an agenda here, which is to highlight the flaws in the heroes and motivations of the so-called Texas Revolution (which Long claims was more of a hostile takeover - given the United States' expansionist mindset at the time, he's probably right), and to show that there were other points of view. He does this in an extremely thought-provoking manner, writing the book like a suspense novel. It made me call into question all the blind faith I, and probably most Texans, had in the heroes of the Alamo.

However, there are some serious flaws here. In pursuit of his agenda he makes some assertions without backing them up with facts. And his portrayal of David Crockett betrays an obviously personal bias. He starts out depicting him as a consumate politician who went to Texas hoping to rebuild his political reputation - OK, fair enough, that's probably true. However, his depiction of Crockett's death - on his knees, begging for his life - has no basis in fact. No eyewitness accounts from the period mention this. Admittedly, those accounts are all Mexican, and they may have been biased, since by the time they gave them Mexico had been defeated, and it doesn't pay to brag that one of your conqueror's heroes died a coward, but there's no evidence about his death either way. Scholars are pretty sure he was executed, not killed in battle as depicted in numerous, overblown paintings, but beyond that we don't know. So where does Long get his story?

I don't know what kind of research Long did for this book, so I can't back up any of his claims. However, this book's mere existence at least calls into question all the pro-Texas, pro-American, pro-white mythology that surrounds the Alamo, which can only spark debate and more research into history, and that's a good thing.

P.S. If Long is so biased towards the Mexican side of the conflict, why does he portray Santa Anna as damn near psychotic?

Imagine my surprise and pleasure, then, when browsing in an Austin Texas bookshop to find that this self-same writer of mountain lore was also the author of a couple of books on Texas history. The first, "Duel of Eagles" was written in 1990. The second, "Empire of Bones", was written as a follow up and covers the events leading up to the massacre that was the Battle of San Jacinto.

"Duel of Eagles" concerns itself with the Mexican-American fight for the Alamo in particular, but also Texas, more generally. It will not be on the recommended reading list of those who treasure the largely fictional accounts of "historical giants" as David Crockett, Sam Houston or William Travis.

It exposes an uncomfortable fact from the history of the United States. And that is that Texas was by and large stolen from Mexico. And it was stolen by a rag tag band of slavers, gun runners and petty criminals (many of whom acted with shocking depravity and cruelty) operating with the open encouragement of the American government. Say what you will about Mexico of the day, it had a constitution, it had a duly constituted government and it was a sovereign power. That didn't stop Andrew Jackson.

But in case you think this is a piece of pro-Mexican propaganda, guess again. Long is as harsh in his treatment of the Mexicans as he is of the Americans. The point here being that he is not afraid to tell the unvarnished truth. For too long Americans, and the rest of the world, have laboured under the impression that the Mexicans were the aggressors. They were not. But just because they were responding to a hostile attempt to steal a huge chunk of their land, does not mean they were any better than the people who were trying to steal their land from them (though the Mexicans had, at that point, abolished slavery - this was one of the grievances that the pro-slavery Texans harboured against the Mexican government).

Long's book is incisively written. He went straight to the primary sources -- journals, letters, articles, government documents and newsletters. The story that emerges is not pretty and is not flattering to the American government or people of the day.

For almost the first time Long tells the Mexican side of the story. For those of you familiar with the movie version of the Battle for the Alamo, it may come as a shock to know that the battle was over within 45 minutes. That Santa Anna brushed aside the token and futile resistance of the militia inside. That far from the glorious and prolonged last stand depicted in the movies, it was a short, sharp and nasty melee. Virtually no Mexican soldiers died at the hands of the Americans. Hardly the American Rorke's Drift.

It is passingly strange that two of the most prominent incidents in American History that are cited for their heroic qualities are in fact largely devoid of any of the heroism with which they have been imbued by succeeding generations of hagiographers anxious to burnish the reputations of men who were in the best light charlatans and boors. These two incidents are the Alamo and the Last Stand at Little Big Horn. This is not to say that the soldiers who fought and died in those struggles did not exhibit great personal courage. What I do mean to say is that they fought for causes that were tinged if not polluted by course and venal motives.

This book is a page turner. It is a necessary anti-dote to the propaganda that disguises itself as the history of the founding of the State of Texas.

I am an American who has been living in London for 2 years. I have to say that my "real" education about America began in London. It takes an outsider (or someone well travelled) to shead a light on what is special about this country. As the author paraphrases Jefferson, "Every man has two countries. His own and America." Yet, most Americans know very little about not only other countries but their own. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Educate yourself. Don't be scared by learning something "not nice".

If I can only write one thing to inspire readers to read this book, it is that the 2001 "USA Patriot Act" has taken away 50% of our constitutional rights. Read about it here and then you will be armed and hopefully inspired to do something about it. Don't let your country spiral downwards into a state where 1% of the citizens make all the (wrong) choices and the rest of the poor shmucks put on an army uniform and die for "patriotism" (whatever that means these days.) Put a brake on the evil that is threatening to destroy our great land: consumerism, appathy, ignorance and hypocracy and worst of all, blind military power.

As the only reviewer for Amazon who focuses exclusively on national security non-fiction, across the categories of information; intelligence; emerging threats; strategy & force structure; blowback, international relations, and dissent; and US political, leadership, and the future of life; I want to say quite clearly that I regard this book as one of the three "must reads" for every American between now and November 2004. The other two are #1 William Greider, "The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy", and #2, Jonathan Schell, "The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People."

This book is solid, serious truth-telling. Those reviewers, including the so-called professional editorial reviewers, who demean this book are simply revealing their narrow self-centered arrogance--precisely the quality in many Americans that is most distressing to the rest of the world. I find it of considerable importance that this book is favorably considered by the major intellectual newspapers and magazines across Europe and in the US, and including The Economist, the Christian Scientist Monitor, and Salon.com.

Easy to read, well-organized, this is a story, not a documentary, and it should be appreciated in that light. On page 10 the book's main argument is perfectly captured by a quote from a South African: "we know everything about you [Americans] and you know nothing about us." Therein lies the problem. As the author notes later in the book, after a review of the decrepitude of both our media and our educational systems in relation to foreign affairs and national security, "Ignorance is an excuse, but it is no shield."

Although I have reviewed many other books that have much more detail and are more documentary in nature, I give this author credit for telling a story that is comprehensible and compelling to the normal citizen, one already disadvantaged by a mediocre news services and functionalist schools that do not teach, as I do, that the world has 32 complex emergencies (failed states), 66 countries distressed by tens of millions of displaced persons, 33 countries with massive starvation as a daily fact of life, 59 countries with plagues and epidemics this very day. There are also 18 genocide campaigns that everyone is ignoring, this very day, massive water scarcity, energy scarcity at the poverty level, and corruption and censorship across 80 and 62 countries. America has no clue....it is not only the average citizen that is ignorant, but the average elected official and the average federal bureaucrat as well. This book helps remedy that situation.

The author does a fine job of distilling both a broad literature and a broad survey of foreign views through direct interview, and it is a job good enough to put this book into my "top three" for the year.

I will end by saying that this book persuaded me that the US has become a Third World nation, a lower-tier disadvantaged nation, in many respects. Apart from the critical infrastructure, which has not been refurbished in a quarter century because of the fraud perpetuated on the public by deregulation, and the massive poverty, prisons, poor health, and so on, what we have in America today is massive injustice and a massive concentration of wealth so outrageous that in any other country it would have led to a violent revolution.

This book has persuaded me that America needs not one, but two Truth & Reconciliation Commissions--as you might imagine, there is only one candidate for President who would consider a suggestion of such consequence: Howard Dean. We need a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, ideally managed by Colin Powell, to investigate the perversion of both capitalism and democracy in the US, and to outline a way forward such as William Greider discusses in "The Soul of Capitalism." We also need, even more desperately, a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, ideally managed by Nelson Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew, to catalog and acknowledge, and apologize to the world for, the war crimes, the unethical behavior, and the enormous political, social, cultural, economic, demographic, and natural resource costs we have imposed on the world through our ignorance and arrogance.

There are six billion people out there, waiting to see how America handles the emerging Reichstag known as the neo-conservative Cheney-Bush regime. We cannot kill them nor contain them with force--as Jonathan Schell notes in "The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People," there is one path and one path only toward a bright future: non-violent cooperative collective power.

If every American reads this book, and every American votes in an informed manner in November 2004, we can save the world and in the process save America.

It's about Jess, a lawyer struggling to reconcile her past with her present. She is a prosecutor faced with several trials happening. First her client goes missing just before she is due to testify in court against her rapist. Her ex-husband defends the accused rapist and re-enters her life. Jess doesn't get along with her sister's husband ~~ and is sharply critical of her family. She meets a shoe-salesman and begins to wonder why he's in her life just when things start to fall apart. Her mother has disappeared 8 years ago ~~ and the memories of the last time she ever saw her mother begins to interfere with her life. No wonder she's a mess.

This is a story ~~ just not one of Fielding's best. It's not as well-written or well-thought out. It didn't tug at your heartstrings ~~ but it is entertaining. It's not the best buy of the summer but it is a good one. If you're a Fielding fan, you might enjoy it ~~ but don't expect it to be like Grand Avenue.

8-6-03

You don't have to take my word for it. Do you own research on Chief Seattle and urban legends to learn more.

Text is based on an adaptation of a speech made by Native American Chief Seattle to the new Commissioner of Indian Affairs, during negotiations between the white settlers and the Suquamish and Duwanish tribes in the 1850s. The speech tells of the views held by the ancient peoples, such as humans cannot own land or air or water. The sacredness of the earth and all of its' inhabitants is explained. The connectedness of the human Native Americans to the Earth is eloquently described. This speech is a plea that if they sell the land to the white men, that the land and animals not be ruined. This message is thought to be the first plea and a forewarning of ecology, as Chief Seattle pleas that the land be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.

The first and last pages (an unlabeled introduction and an unlabeled afterward) are factual and historical explanations to explain the body of the text. The text itself is a wonderful and poetically written explanation of the views of the Native Americans. If one wishes to explain these beliefs to a child without getting into the historical elements, simply skip the introduction and the afterward, which may be recommended for reading to the very young who are not yet ready to grasp historical facts and concepts. (My three year old was enthralled with this book, and I think even a two year old would be interested in the main text.)

The illustrations are stunning and detailed and are difficult to describe. Very high quality writing and gorgeous illustrations, not to be missed!

Obviously, that means King Rat will be my next novel in that Saga.

Sho-Gun was a damn masterpiece, and Tai-Pan. . while not quite the masterpiece that Sho-Gun was. . Tai-Pan actually caused me to shed a tear or two at the very end when Dirk and May May died, whereas I didn't even shed a tear for Sho-Gun however I was riveted at the edge of my seat for both of those novels!

I can't express how frigging disappointed I was in Gai-Jin novel. It's approximately 1234 pages long of absolute DRIVEL. The characters never quite got the treatement that they were due. I guess it's just a misfortune case where you have 50 characters vying for attention, while the pseudo-star players kept on pulling prima-donna rules, they were simply A-list characters written by C-list novelist. Hell, I even lost track of which courtesan belonged to whom. I even thought that Andre's new courtesan was the same courtesan that Tyrer was [working with] at the same time under different names, like the stunt that Hirgana/Otami/Nakama pulled (at least I could keep up) (of course, briefly. . thank GOD for the "character description" at the end of the novel. .kept me on track.)

Clavell tended to use last name and first time, but mostly never together. So sometimes I got confused about who Phillip and Tyrer were (hint: they're the same person). There apparently was two different Chens. I'm not even going to go to that Aho-Soy-whatever chinese chicks ,hat share nearly similar names that I kept on messing 'em up that, apparently they love being cursed at like a bunch of machoist servants.

The book was awfully scripted together and I refuse to believe that Clavell wrote this book. This is totally beneath him. I can see where he might have had a touch or two, especially in the outline . .but the meat and the fat. . weren't his. I totally do not recommend this novel to anyone. ...

Most importantly though, remember that he was very sick, and had already written a number of fantastic novels already. I think this was a nice "last novel" and considering the shape he was in, as good a novel as anyone could write.

The book also gave a good view of 19th century Japan, but made many errors. While I can't remember the particular details (I read it four years ago), I do remember many errors in Japanese naming, wording (I speak Japanese and have read 19th century literature), and political events. I can forgive a lot for a good story, and this qualifies, but being from Clavell, I expected perfection.

That he was old and sick when he wrote the book does make me thankful that at least I got one more Clavell novel to enjoy. It is still better than the Asian Historical Fiction of most other authors (and there are so few).

The book would have earned five stars if Eliot had spend a little more time on reflecting as to the true dynamic between Henley and Frey. We get little sense of true reason they were drawn together as collaborators beyond some superficial analysis.

A good template for Eliot to have followed would have been Mark Hertsgard's excellent book on the Beatles, A DAY IN THE LIFE. That book was unauthorized and had absolutely no input from any of the band members, but still comes off as a stunning analysis as to what made the band click, their place in music history, their influence and, finally, the collaborative process of Lennon and McCartney.

Eliot hasn't written a bad book, but it is a little on the lite side. If Eliot hadn't been so ambitious he could have easily put together a great book focusing on Henley/Frey, the band, or the souther California scene that contributed to the band's formation and success. Instead, he tries to focus on all of the above in a brief, superficial book.

Nevertheless, Eliot has some compelling stories to share and Henley's short involvement with the book makes it of interest to most fans. Read it in the bookstore, or at the library.

The writing of the book is superb. The description of the LA music scene in the 60s and 70s is especially good. I also felt that the writer listened to everone, not just the people who screamed the loudest.

Eliot makes a wonderful point when discussing the relationship between Henley and Frey. The things that made them so effective together are the same things that drove them apart.

I did not particularly like the Eagles when I started reading this book but it has now piqued my interest to buy a couple of their CDs.

Kate, the main character, seems spineless. She's seventeen when she first meets Joe, the "hero pilot" of the book. He is quite a bit older than her, being almost thirty. Kate's father dies when she's young but other than that it seems she's led a pretty sheltered life. Joe, who lost both parents at an early age, seems to be a real jerk from the beginning. It is apparent early on that he will never love her as much as his planes and flying.

It seems to me that the same things were stated over and over again throughout the book. Joe doesn't want to be tied down, Kate is afraid of being abandoned. Over and over again. I'm beginning to think Ms. Steel is running out of material to write about. I had a hard time getting into this book. And I became so mad with Kate at one point that I almost slammed the book shut and quit reading. But I went ahead and finished the book to see what would happen. In my opinion Andy was too good for Kate. She didn't know a good, solid thing when she seen it. Andy was by far my favorite character in the book. I couldn't stand Joe and his can't-commit ways. Kate was not high on my list either because of her actions. How many years would a real woman put up with Joe's crap? Not very many. And yet Kate just kept letting him use her. I am thoroughtly frustrated with this book. It has literally given me a headache. Hopefully Ms. Steel will come up with better storylines and characters in the future (I've read Leap of Faith which is MUCH BETTER!!!) and create some strong women that can stand alone and not be dependent on some jerk of a guy.